From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: My previous post was on the Application for Leave to   
   Appeal Justice Doherty dismissing extensions of time to file   
   appeals against previous convictions, mine all the way back to   
   2006 on the Parliament Hill Bust, on the basis of the newly-   
   ruled Smith decision finding the MMAR unconstitutional back to   
   2001. Bela Beke and I filed appeals to 3 judges of the Ontario   
   Court of Appeal. They dismissed it.   
      
   We have very different cases. I was dismissed because I was   
   out of the system after a previous first appeal all the way to   
   the Supreme Court. Bela is still paying his fine and is still   
   in the system and has not already appealed once before. But he   
   got dismissed too because I got dismissed.   
      
   For some reason, Bela's Application got delayed in processing   
   while mine got filed first. So the Crown had to respond to   
   mine, the easier one, first.   
      
   Public Prosecution Service of Canada   
   Toronto   
      
   Aug 4 2016   
      
   Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Q.C.   
   Registrar, Supreme Court of Canada   
      
   Dear Mr. Registrar:   
      
   Re: Turmel v. HMTQ - SCC file number: 37064   
   Response to Application for Leave to Appeal   
      
   CR: Please accept this letter from the respondent to Mr.   
   Turmel's application for leave to appeal.   
      
   Allegedly pursuant to s.691(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, the   
   appellant seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the   
   Ontario Court of Appeal (unreported: R. v. Turmel, April   
   52016) affirming his conviction for possession of marihuana   
   for the purpose of trafficking (s.5(2) of the CDSA).   
      
   The appellant frames his grounds for leave to appeal as   
   follows:   
       1. "The grounds are that no remedy to correct past bogus   
       convictions is an unconscionable maladministration of   
       justice."   
      
   For the following reasons, the respondent submits that leave   
   to appeal should not be granted as it does not raise an issue   
   of public importance meriting intervention of this Court.   
      
   JCT: Half a million Canadians who got bogus convictions while   
   the law as invalid isn't of national importance.   
      
   CR: The appellant was convicted of possession of marihuana for   
   the purpose of trafficking   
      
   JCT: To Prime Minister Chretien on Parliament Hill.   
      
   CR: contrary to s.5(2) of the CDSA by Belanger J., on March 10   
   2006. On appeal, he advanced the position, based on a   
   misreading of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v.   
   Parker (2000), that he was not charged with an offence known   
   at law. His appeal was dismissed by the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal on the merits (R. v. Turmel 20070. His application for   
   leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed (Turmel v. The   
   Queen [2007]).   
      
   The applicant has repeatedly argued that whenever a court   
   finds a flaw in the medical marihuana regime, the Parker   
   decision retroactively invalidates the laws pertaining to the   
   possession and trafficking of marijuana back to the date of   
   its release on Aug. 1 2001, which he refers to as "Terry   
   Parker Day."   
      
   JCT: What is "its release?" Yes, I've repeatedly argued what   
   the the Parker-Hitzig-J.P. decisions meant. back to the date   
   of its release? Its release was the MMAR regime release.   
      
   CR: Accordingly, after this Court released its decision in R.   
   v. Smith, 2015, the applicant sought to bring a fresh appeal   
   in the Ontario Court of Appeal.   
      
   JCT: By asking for an extension of time.   
      
   CR: His application to further appeal his conviction was   
   dismissed by Justice Doherty on the basis that he was not   
   entitled to appeal the same conviction more than once.   
      
   JCT: Bela is entitled. And if new information comes up proving   
   the point, out of luck? Stuck with a bogus criminal record?   
      
   CR: The applicant then brought a further application in the   
   Court of Appeal where he sought to have Justice Doherty's   
   ruling set aside. On April 5 2016, that application was   
   dismissed by a three-member panel of the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal for want of jurisdiction.   
      
   JCT: They had no jurisdiction to over-rule a decision not to   
   extend time? Of course, they do, that's why I was allowed to   
   apply to set it aside. The section that says a motion may be   
   made to 3 judges to over-rule 1 judge happens to be there   
   right in the legislation but another set of oldsters giving us   
   a possibly senile interpretation of what they see. But not   
   seeing they had jurisdiction allowed them to not need to try   
   to see if the case had merit.   
      
   CR: The appellant now seeks leave to make the same argument   
   before this court.   
      
   JCT: Right, the same argument with a new precedent that   
   warranted the extension of time. After all, if Bela gets the   
   chance to clear his record, why not me? Too late? Live with   
   the record?   
      
   CR: The applicant fails to identify a justiciable issue,   
      
   JCT: I failed to identify what we're arguing about, whether   
   they have jurisdiction to overrule 1 judge on an extension of   
   time! Har har har har har har.   
      
   CR: let alone one of national importance.   
      
   JCT: The courts refused to expunge the 100,000 bogus   
   convictees last time, why start now. I'll cite the judges from   
   2007 who refused to expunge the criminal records of the   
   Parker-Hitzig period of absent exemption.   
      
   CR: The normal rules of "res judicata" apply to this appeal.   
      
   JCT: Actually, they don't. For "Issue Judged" to apply, it has   
   to be the same issue that was judged. And Parker-Smith has   
   never been judged.   
      
   CR: The principles applicable to the finality in appeals are   
   well settled having been set out by this Court in R. v. Sarson   
   [1996] at paras 30-31. Appeals can only be brought by   
   individuals still in the judicial system. The applicant has   
   been out of the judicial system since this Court dismissed his   
   application for leave to appeal in 2007. Contrary to the   
   applicant's contention, there is no right to a fresh appeal,   
   based on a change in the law, years after an individual has   
   been convicted on the merits and exhausted their routes of   
   appeal.   
      
   JCT: This is not based on a "change in law" that affects   
   future prosecutions, it's based on a retroactive   
   invalidation of the law that affects past ones!   
      
   And I couldn't care what rules prevent the courts from   
   correcting their mistakes, maybe they should be struck down   
   and ignored.   
      
   CR: For the reasons stated, the respondent therefore requests   
   that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed, without   
   costs. Trusting that this will be of assistance, I remain,   
   Yours sincerely,   
   Howard Piafsky   
   Counsel for HMTQ   
      
   JCT: So now I have until Aug 15th to file a Reply.   
      
   Once Bela's procedural snag is gone, has to do with fees, the   
   Crown will have to respond to his App from a guy still in the   
   system who never had an appeal who was thrown out because he   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)