From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Beke/Turmel Apps to SCC on "No late Appeal" on Smith   
      
   JCT: Seems that during a spate of action a while back, I filed   
   Applications for Leave to Appeal the Doberty "No late appeal"   
   on Smith" decision upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.   
      
   Bela is still paying a fine in the system, my 2006 charge is   
   out of the system. And I had already appealed to the top   
   and they say I can't twice, even with new stuff, but Bela   
   hasn't.   
      
   Big differences. So I'll just post our two Memoranda that the   
   Crown will respond to:   
      
   File Number: 37064   
                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
            (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                           John C. Turmel   
                                                        Applicant   
                                              Appellant in appeal   
                                and   
                       Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                       Respondent   
                                             Respondent in appeal   
      
                       APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                     JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT   
          (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   1. Applicant was convicted on a marijuana charge in 2006,   
   unsuccessfully appealed and unsuccessfully sought leave to   
   appeal to the Supreme Court.   
      
   2. In June 2015, the Supreme Court in Smith v. HMQ struck down   
   the prohibition on any application but dried marijuana as a   
   violation of the Charter.   
      
   3. Just as the Hitzig "Bad Exemption" [2003] by regulated Mis-   
   Supply meant there was "No Offence" in force since Aug 1 2001   
   absent an acceptable medical exemption when J.P. was charged;   
   so too, the Smith Worse "Bad Exemption" [2015] by regulated   
   Mis-Use means there was "No Offence" in force since Aug 1 2001   
   absent an acceptable medical exemption when the Accused herein   
   was charged; this Court is bound by the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal's J.P. precedent to declare that NO OFFENCE was in   
   force while the Smith BAD EXEMPTION existed since Aug. 1 2001,   
   the same as Hitzig, on Terry Parker Day.   
      
   4. Given there was no valid offence when the Accused was   
   charged, Applicant sought an extension of time to appeal the   
   conviction on the new grounds offered in Smith.   
      
   5. On Nov 10, the decision of Court of Appeal Justice Doherty   
   dismissed the application with the endorsement:   
       ENDORSEMENT   
       [1]  The applicant seeks an extension of time to further   
       appeal his conviction. That conviction was already the   
       subject of an appeal to this court (R. v. Turmel, 207 ONCA   
       133). That appeal was dismissed on its merits and leave to   
       appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused.   
       [2] Mr. Turmel submits that he is entitled to bring a   
       fresh appeal based on changes in the law effected by case   
       law decided after his appeal was considered and dismissed   
       (R. v. Smith, 2015 SCC). He argues that Smith changes the   
       legal landscape and that on the present state of the law   
       he would be entitled to an acquittal.   
       [3] A party is not entitled to appeal the same conviction   
       more than once. The order dismissing the appeal renders   
       any new appeal res judicata. Counsel may, in limited   
       circumstances, move to reopen a decided appeal:  R. v.   
       Hummel (2003), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 1.   
       Assuming that power exists when the appeal has been   
       dismissed on the merits, it cannot be exercised on the   
       basis of case law decided when the appeal was no longer   
       "in the judicial system": see R. v. Sarson (1996), 107   
       C.C.C. (3d) 20 at 30-31 (SCC).   
       [4]  Finality concerns trump the applicant's claim to re-   
       litigate his appeal based on developments in the case law   
       that postdate the dismissal of his appeal and the refusing   
       of leave to appeal.   
       [5]  The application is dismissed.   
      
   6. Applicant appealed asking for an Order:   
       A) setting aside the Nov 10 decision of Ontario Court of   
       Appeal Justice Doherty and granting an extension of time   
       to file a new Notice of Appeal, or, in the alternative,   
       B) converting the application to extend time to file a new   
       appeal to an application to extend time to reopen a   
       decided appeal.   
      
   7. Applicant argued:   
       [1] Applicant's 2007 Appeal was not dismissed on its   
       merits but for lack of jurisdiction because the Chief   
       Justice had refused the requested 5-judge panel necessary   
       to overrule the Hitzig and J.P. decisions.   
       [2] Applicant cedes the past conviction shouldn't be   
       changed due to the present state of the law; but argues   
       only the retrospective, not present, state of the law when   
       charged.   
       [3] Parties should be permitted to appeal the same   
       conviction a second time in the case where no other   
       charges were available.   
       [4] The Supreme Court wrote in Sarson:   
            [14] The Appellant's continued detention pursuant to   
            a conviction for second degree murder does not amount   
            to a breach of fundamental justice. Although the   
            appellant's conviction was entered under a   
            constitutionally infirm provision of the Code, the   
            circumstances leading to his conviction under that   
            section are important in assessing the propriety of   
            the appellant's conviction and ultimate sentence.   
            [15].. the appellant's involvement in Crispin's death   
            could easily have supported a conviction under   
            several Criminal Code provisions aside from s.213(d).   
       If the circumstances leading to Sarson's conviction under   
       murder statutes is important in assessing the propriety of   
       the conviction and sentence, the circumstances leading to   
       Applicant's conviction under prohibition statute are not.   
       Sarson was convicted of the God-given prohibition on   
       murder with many other statutes that had been been   
       violated under which he could have been charged. Applicant   
       was convicted of the Man-given prohibition on marijuana   
       with no other statutes that had been violated under which   
       he could have been charged. That is a big difference.   
       Finality is an unjust argument upon which to sustain   
       leaving Applicant with a criminal record from a conviction   
       under an invalid law to continue to harm my life. There is   
       no finality for the Applicant. I'm told I'm out of the   
       system but the system isn't out of me. My punishment goes   
       on past the sentence of the court to the detriments of a   
       bogus criminal record. Applicant has not sought to appeal   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)