From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Surprise, the Crown would never have expected Mike to   
   file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court   
   of Canada after they gave him back his car! But that's   
   exactly what he did yesterday.   
      
   When he showed up in court for his hearing on how things are   
   progressing, Crown Kim Johnson didn't show up and there just   
   another guy who didn't know anything that was going on. So   
   Justice Goodman asked if Mike could come in Wednesday morning   
   before normal court at 9am and ordered the Crown to find out   
   if Johnson could be there tomorrow morning.   
      
   So Mike wasted 5 hours of his day for nothing.  Except we   
   did get his App to the Supreme Court served and mailed off.   
      
   That had a bit of drama. It's due Thursday Nov 22 in Ottawa   
   and we'd been waiting for the Ontario Court of Appeal to   
   print the official Order that dismissed the application for   
   inclusion in our Application. And they didn't get it done   
   within the 30 days so we had to submit the Application   
   without the order and only a note that the court was slow   
   and we'd send it along as soon as the court got its act   
   together. Not in those terms but that's the gist.   
      
   So Mike had to serve a copy on the Crown so we could send   
   the other 6 copies with proof of service to Ottawa. When   
   Mike gave it to him and asked for service, he refused saying   
   he didn't know what it was about. The secretaries who sign   
   for service at their main desk don't know either but still   
   accept service so that wasn't any good excuse. He dropped it   
   on the chair in front of me and said: I'm not accepting   
   service. I told him that he had been served and if he   
   wouldn't sign the back, we'd pop over the J.P. and swear out   
   an affidavit of service saying we'd given it to him.   
      
   I should have picked it up and said: Look what I've found,   
   the Crown's copy of the application! You're served anyway   
   and if you want this copy I found, you'd better come and get   
   it. Instead, I knew we'd just serve it on some office later   
   so I picked it up.   
      
   During the exchange, he told me not to talk to him, he was   
   speaking with Mr. Spottiswood. I said: No, who do you think   
   you are? as he beat a hasty retreat to the Crown benches. As   
   he retreated, I heckled: He's a civil servant, who does he   
   think he is? I guess he never got chastised in public   
   before.   
      
   So when Mike was called, he explained Ms. Johnson couldn't   
   be there and then went straight into why he wasn't   
   authorized to accept service of any document to the Supreme   
   Court of Canada. Justice Goodman asked Mike if it was one   
   of the applications dealing with this case, yes, it was   
   about the returned car, and so he put the Crown on the spot   
   about why he wouldn't accept service of something related to   
   Mike's case? The Crown could only promise to go find out   
   what to do.   
      
   He came back to say tell us that we could serve the   
   application at the Crown office 130 Dufferin Ave. Fine. He   
   also told the court that Ms. Johnson would be available for   
   the 9am hearing the next day.   
      
   So Mike served the SCC Application on the Crown, got service   
   and mailed off his 6 copies to the SCC.   
      
   At the next morning's pre-trial, Mike found out that our   
   witnesses would have to explain a little more about what   
   they would be saying about the flaws in the MMAR, not just   
   Xing the ones they'd be talking about. No problem. We've got   
   until 2 more weeks until Dec 5 to get the witnesses to write   
   down what they "will say" about the flaws.   
      
   So here's Mike's factum to the Supreme Court.   
      
   File Number: #   
   Appeal Court No: C55042   
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                      Michael K. Spottiswood   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                               and   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
            NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                 MICHAEL K. SPOTTISWOOD, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant Michael K. Spottiswood hereby   
   applies for leave to appeal to the Court from the judgment   
   of Justices Doherty, Epstein and Cavarzan of the Ontario   
   Court of Appeal made Oct 23, 2012 dismissing the appeal   
   against the Dec 9 2011 decision of Madam Justice Morissette   
   dismissing Applicant's motion for the return of his auto for   
   lack of jurisdiction.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are that:   
   A) it was improper for the Crown to misinform the Court of   
   Appeal court ex parte that the auto had been returned;   
   B) the decision was per incuriam in that things that ought   
   to have been considered were not;   
   C) the return of the auto by the Crown did not mooten the   
   appeal against rulings of "no jurisdiction" to offer the   
   relief claimed by Provincial and Superior Courts.   
      
   Dated at London on Nov 20 2012.   
   __________________________   
   For the Applicant:   
   Michael K. Spottiswood,   
      
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                 MICHAEL K. SPOTTISWOOD, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   OVERVIEW   
   1. Applicant's 1999 Honda was seized when he was charged   
   with growing medical marijuana. After receiving a Health   
   Canada MMAR exemption to use marijuana for medical purposes,   
   Applicant sought the return of his automobile under S.490 on   
   the humanitarian grounds before Ontario Court Justice   
   Pockele who ruled he had no jurisdiction. Applicant then   
   sought an order under the inherent jurisdiction of a   
   Superior Court that detention of the auto was a violation of   
   Applicant's Charter Right to Life. Superior Court Justice   
   Morissette bemoaned no jurisdiction to prevent the damage to   
   Applicant's health by seizure of his only mobility.   
   Applicant appealed on the grounds one of the Courts had to   
   have jurisdiction to offer the relief claimed. The Crown   
   sought an order returning the motor vehicle to the accused.   
   The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted this mooted the appeal   
   against the findings of no jurisdiction. Applicant submits   
   it does not.   
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
   2. Applicant qualified for a medical marijuana exemption in   
   multiple categories of illnesses but could not find a doctor   
   to sign and even lost one family for asking! On Jan 18 2011,   
   Appellant was charged with cultivation and possession of 556   
   grams of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his   
   auto seized for forfeiture.   
      
   3. Applicant then found a doctor and established medical   
   need after years of trying by obtaining a Health Canada MMAR   
   exemption to use marijuana for medical purposes.   
      
   4. On Aug 17 2011, an application for the return of the auto   
   under S.490 on the humanitarian grounds or that detention of   
   the auto is a violation of Applicant's Charter Right to Life   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)