ALL CURRENT CHARGES
LAY OFF YOUR LAWYER
STAND MUTE, NEVER PLEAD

       The POLCOA Proposition, by John C. Turmel 
Ontario Provincial and Superior Court judges Phillips
and Rogin dismissed the s.4(1) marijuana possession 
charge against J.P. as "no longer known to law"
because, after the Parker decision struck down the
prohibition on possession of marijuana in CDSA s.4(1)
because the MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker
ruling, they had to follow Parliament's Interpretation
Act s.2.2 which said that struck-down laws were to be
"deemed repealed."
Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Doherty, Goudge and
Simmons over-ruled them ordering courts to deem the
struck-down prohibition as not "repealed" but only
"absent" until fixed by the courts, even after two
years of absence.
There exists no provision for laws being absent
sometimes and not absent at other times but the court
just made up whatever was needed to trick Canadians
into believing courts could bring laws back to life. A
Crown who decides to fight a POLCOA motion puts the
judge in the difficult position of::
Obeying Parliament and disobeying the Higher Court, or,
Obeying the Higher Court and disobeying Parliament.
cases
If your judge decides he's going to use the Nazi
Nuremberg defence of "just following superior orders"
to disobey Parliament, then the Sfetkopoulos and Beren
decisions show that the MMAR became flawed just two
months after they had been fixed by the courts so that
Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet's Memorandum to the Supreme
Court of Canada admitted:
"[33] The Court in R. v. J.P. ruled that the combined
effect of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no
constitutionally valid marijuana possession offence
between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR
were constitutionally rectified by the decision in
Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of
Appeal's decision as creating a similar period of
retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3
2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into
the MMAR." Beren added: "since S.54(1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR."
http://turmelpress.com/timeline.htm has all 
the Canadian jurisprudence leading up to 2005. After 
that it's all in Prohibition of Charges kit. 

IF YOU ARE CHARGED:
By remaining mute pursuant to Section 606(2) of the 
Criminal Code, you retain privileges that you lose by 
pleading not guilty.Never plead not guilty. Stand mute 
Your lawyer makes more money defending the 
charge than quashing it so lay the lawyer off until 
the charge is quashed or not. If no, you are back 
to square one and can re-hire the lawyer then. Do 
not diss the lawyer for not knowing about these cases,
they're trained to defend. To quash is offence, 
best left to combat engineers.   

ONTARIO COURTS FORMS

BUILDING YOUR CASE BOOKS
These pages provide instructions on how to 
use the guerrilla law forms I have engineered
to help have those criminal records overturned
and fines returned to those innocent victims. All
they have to do is learn the case law timeline.
The Documents now include a motion to cite
the Attorney General for abuse of process and
contempt of court for deliberately ignoring the
Parker and Krieger decisions and continuing to
bust Canadians after admitting the sections were
invalid to the Supreme Court. So Quash as
Unknown to law, Stay as an abuse of process,
and cite Crown for contempt of courts.

IF EVER CHARGED (kits have instructions):
Marijuana Legal Defence & Offence Kits
http://johnturmel.com/kits.htm  
- Motion to Quash (S.601) 
- Motion for Charter relief
- Motion for Return of Controlled Substance
- Motion to expunge bogus conviction
- Motion for release pending appeal
- Motion citing Crown for contempt of court for 
trying to get the court to convict under an 
offence that has been struck down. 


Court rules at: www.ontariocourts.on.ca/
court_of_appeal/selfhelp/inmate.htm