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. I've already posted the Crown's   
   response in my last article and here is my Reply just faxed   
   to the Crown and Supreme Court.   
      
   Aug 15 2016   
      
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar   
   Supreme Court of Canada   
   301 Wellington St. Ottawa, K1A 0J1   
   Fax: 613-996-9138   
      
        re: Re: Turmel v. HMTQ - SCC file number: 37064   
      
   Mr. Registrar:   
      
   Please accept this letter as the Applicant's Reply.   
      
   NATIONAL IMPORTANCE   
   The Crown has stated that this is not an issue of national   
   importance. Half a million Canadians getting bogus convictions   
   when the prohibition was invalid while the exemption was   
   absent is of national importance.   
      
   PARKER DOESN'T APPLY TWICE   
   CR: The applicant argues 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. 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."   
      
   Yes, Parker ruled the prohibition invalid absent a valid   
   medical exemption. When the exemption was found to be flawed   
   in 2003, absent, the prohibition was invalid and the Crown   
   dropped 4,000 remaining charges but did not expunge the   
   convictions registered while the exemption was absent.   
   So when the exemption was again declared absent by the Supreme   
   Court in Smith, Parker was again not complied with.   
      
   NO FRESH APPEAL   
   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... 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... The appellant now seeks   
   leave to make the same argument before this court... The   
   normal rules of "res judicata" apply to this appeal.   
      
   A prohibition on any second appeal means errors can never be   
   corrected by a fresh appeal when new information arises. This   
   appeal 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! Res Judicata only applies to the   
   same set of facts and argument. Relying on Parker-Smith is not   
   the same as when I relied on Parker-Hitzig.   
      
   JUSTICIABLE ISSUE   
   CR: The applicant fails to identify a justiciable issue.   
      
   The Applicant identifies his conviction as the same   
   issue considered justiciable in the past.   
      
   SARSON   
   CR: The principles applicable to the finality in appeals are   
   well settled having been set out by this Court in R. v.   
   Sarson.   
      
   Sarson dealt with a crime that could have been prosecuted   
   under statues other than the invalidated one. Not so with   
   prohibition.   
      
   Prime Minister Trudeau talking about expunging all records   
   indicates erasing the court's errors would be just. Courts   
   allowing no correction of their error in imposing a criminal   
   record on me while the statute was invalid shows the height of   
   arrogance.   
      
   Applicant also seeks any Order abridging any time for service   
   and filing or amending any error or omission which this   
   Honourable Court may allow.   
      
   Dated at Brantford on Aug 15 2016   
   John C. Turmel   
   To the Registrar of this Court   
   To the Respondent: Attorney General for Canada   
   Howard Piafsky fax: 416-973-8253   
      
   JCT: Bela should be filed before they can answer to my weaker   
   case. We'll see.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)