From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Attorney General needs schooling on expired stays!!   
      
   JCT: The Crown pissed me off so I whacked them. Time for more   
   refresher schooling of the Attorney General by John The Engineer:   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   Monday April 28 2014   
      
   Chief Justice Blais   
   Federal Court of Appeal Fax: 416-973-2154   
   Re: 14-A-18 John Turmel v. HMTQ   
      
   My Lord:   
   On March 25 2014, after the expiry of the Mar 7 2014 stay   
   until the Mar 21 2014 decision in Allard, I wrote the   
   Registry advising that I would be filing a return of my   
   motion for interim relief.   
   On March 28 2014, the Registry advised me that my matter was   
   still stayed and no action could be taken until further   
   instructions.   
   At Para.28 of the Crown's Written Representations to the   
   Court of Appeal, they say:   
   "As of this writing, there have been no further directions   
   with respect to the March 7 direction. The March 7 direction   
   therefore remains in place."   
   Yet, on March 29 2014, 6 other motions for hearing were   
   filed in Ottawa and Toronto.   
   And on April 1 the decision of Blais C.J., Stratas J.A. and   
   Scott J.A. ruled:   
   "UPON satisfied that Justice Manson's decision of March 21   
   2014 had the effect to lift the stay directed by Chief   
   Justice Crampton in his direction of March 7 2014."   
   The problem the Attorney General has pointed out is that   
   they didn't see anybody lift the expired stay and so think   
   it still has to be lifted (when it conveniently suits their   
   purposes). Using the words "have effect to lift the stay"   
   rather than "expiry of the stay" allows the Attorney General   
   to remain confused by the lack of any hand seen doing any   
   lifting.   
   An expired stay not seen to be lifted therefor not being expired   
   any more is a rather prevalent understanding by the Crown. In the   
   Crown's Memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.   
   Krieger [2003], Crown Attorney S. David Frankel argued at   
   para.57:   
   "As matters now stand, s.7(1) has been declared of no force   
   and effect by the highest court of Alberta. An application   
   to vacate the order of O'Leary J.A. suspending the   
   declaration could be brought at any time. If the suspension   
   were vacated, then the cultivation of marihuana would not be   
   an offence in Alberta."   
   An application to vacate an interim order pending appeal may   
   not be brought once the file is closed and the court is   
   functus officio. Having failed to ask for a s.65 stay out of   
   the Supreme Court of Canada, the proper procedure, the Crown   
   resorted to arguing the expired stay still had to be lifted   
   as has the Crown herein. And to this date, the expired stay   
   holding back the invalidation of the cultivation prohibition   
   in Alberta with 11 years of prosecutions have taken place   
   while the expired stay remains unlifted.   
   This is not mere incompetence but a ploy used by the   
   Attorney General to ignore rulings they don't like by   
   arguing an expired stay still has to be lifted because they   
   didn't see it lifted.   
   Though the ruling shows the Court knows the expired stay is   
   "lifted" without anyone having done any lifting for anyone   
   to see, the Attorney General and Registry staff as yet do   
   not.   
   Could you instruct the Attorney General and Registry staff   
   that an expired stay does not have to lifted. A little   
   refresher schooling seems called for because this could   
   recur at an instant's notice.   
   John C. Turmel   
   CC: Attorney General for Canada Fax: 613-954-1920   
   Jct: Now comes tomorrow's morning taking the Crown and   
   Registry apart over their screw-ups. The complaints to the   
   Chief Justice are just the biggest ones. But the others are   
   pretty bad too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)