JOHN THE ENGINEER TURMEL'S MARIJUANA PROHIBITIONS TIMELINE http://www.turmelpress.com/timeline.htm
To be used with fight-back forms available at: http://www.turmelpress.com/mpforms.htm
CDSA <= Controlled Drugs and Substances Act MMAR <= Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
Aug. 14 1997 ONTARIO MCCART J. CONVICTS CLAY'S RECREATIONAL USE Alan Young's first losing companion case to Parker. http://www.turmelpress.com/claymcca.htm
Dec 10 1997 ONTARIO JUDGE SHEPPARD STAYS PARKER CHARGES Judge Sheppard stays charges against Terrance Parker ruling: "Mr. Parker will be granted immediate protection under Section 24(l) of the Charter of a stay of proceeding with respect to count I (cultivate a narcotic, Section 6(l) N.C.A.) and the September 18, 1997 count (possession of a controlled substance, Section 4(l) of the C.D.S.A). All plant material (three plants) seized from him by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services on September 18, 1997 is to be returned to him forthwith..." "...It is ordered pursuant to Section 52, that Section 4(1) and Section 7(l) of the C.D.S.A. be read down so as to exempt from its ambit persons possessing or cultivating Cannabis (a schedule II substance) for their personal medically approved use. http://www.turmelpress.com/sheppard.htm
Jul 31, 2000 1) ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL DECLARES CDSA S.4(1) PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA INVALID; SUSPENDS THE DECISION 1 YEAR TO PERMIT MMAR TO SAVE CDSA Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/parkero1.jpg
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in R. v. Parker: ..I would declare the prohibition on the possession of marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to be of no force and effect. However, since this would leave a gap in the regulatory scheme until Parliament could amend the legislation to comply with the Charter, I would suspend the declaration of invalidity for a year. During this period, the marihuana law remains in full force and effect. Parker, however, cannot be deprived of his rights during this year and therefore he is entitled to a personal exemption from the possession offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for possessing marihuana for his medical needs. Since the Narcotic Control Act has already been repealed by Parliament, there is no need to hold it unconstitutional. If necessary, I would have found that Parker was entitled to a personal exemption from the cultivation offence for his medical needs." http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/parkersummary.htm http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000//july/parker.htm http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10430.html
CROWN'S APPELLANT'S FACTUM IN PARKER APPEAL  Though the Crown is now arguing that the Doherty Court of Appeal changed the legislation on Oct. 7, in the original appeal to Parker's Rosenberg court, the Crown factum argued Judge Sheppard could not read in changes of legislation. http://www.turmelpress.com/parkercm.txt
2) ONTARIO COURT DISMISSES CLAY RECREATIONAL USE APPEAL Christopher Clay's argument that the Crown right to prohibit does not balance the personal right to recreational use is dismissed and his conviction stands. http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/clay.summ.htm http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/clay.htm
Sep 29 2000 60-DAYS FOR CROWN TO APPEAL PARKER RULING EXPIRES The Crown does not appeal that prohibition has unconstitutionally barred Parker from his medicine.
Dec 11 2000 KRIEGER JUDGE ACTON IN ALBERTA DECLARES CDSA S.7(1) PROHIBITION ON CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA INVALID Judge Acton ruled in R. v. Krieger " I am satisfied that s. 7(1) of the CDSA deprives Mr.Krieger and those who are similarly situated of their rights under s. 7 of the Charter to the extent that it prohibits these individuals from producing raw cannabis marihuana for their own therapeutic purposes. I am also convinced that such deprivation is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice...  I am prepared to agree with the Applicant that s. 7(1) of the CDSA should be struck down to the extent that it deals with production of cannabis marihuana. If s. 4 were before me I, like the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker , supra , would strike down the prohibition against possession of marihuana because to do otherwise would be, to use Dr. Kalant's word, "inhumane" to Mr.Krieger under the circumstances."  I am troubled by the fact that the Canadian government has not made arrangements for a legal source of cannabis marihuana to be made available to persons who require it for therapeutic use. Since Dr. Kalant indicated that he was able to obtain cannabis marihuana for research purposes, it must be available from some legitimate source. I trust that if I put a stay of one year on the effect of my decision, similar to that done by the Ontario Court of Appeal, this problem will be solved within the year.  With respect to Mr. Krieger , I am satisfied on the evidence of the Crown's expert witness and Mr.Krieger himself that it would be inhumane not to grant Mr. Krieger an exemption from the prohibition in s. 7(1) of the CDSA during the period of the suspended invalidity in order that he may cultivate cannabis marihuana for his own medical use. Pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, I would stay the proceedings against him under s. 7(1) of the CDSA. http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf
Jul 30 2001 MMAR ISSUED BUT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PARKER COURT RULING The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) are promulgated by Government trying to save the CDSA prohibition by complying with the Parker court's ruling. Three Ontario Superior Court judges and the Ontario Court of Appeal later found that the MMAR failed to save the CDSA prohibition. Though Parker was not deprived of his rights during this year, 2400 to 4600 Canadian epileptics who were not exempted with him died later in that year and every year since then. Four of Canada's known 400,000 epileptics die every day. The Parker decision was not appealed within 60 days and applied across all Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/controlled_substances/pdf/regulations/marihuana_06-13-01.pdf
Aug 01 2001:00:00am PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA POSSESSION IS REPEALED WHEN ROSENBERG SUSPENSION OF INVALIDATION EXPIRES The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) failed to provide the required medical access to Terry Parker and the declaration of invalidity had taken effect and the CDSA prohibition of marijuana was repealed. The Crown never printed new legislation effecting the repeal of those sections which accounts for the resulting confusion. Only John The Engineer did an internet countdown to the Terry Parker Day liberation celebrations. http://www.turmelpress.com/parkerda.txt
Sep 14 2001 HEALTH CANADA SENDS PARKER TEMPORARY EXEMPTION TOO LATE Six weeks after the 1 year suspension protecting Terry Parker had expired, Health Canada issues him a 6-month temporary exemption. http://www.turmelpress.com/parkerhc.jpg
Nov 28 2001 ALBERTA JUSTICE O'LEARY EXTENDS SUSPENSION ON KRIEGER CULTIVATION INVALIDATION O'Leary J.A. (in Chambers) granted an Order that: 1. The period in which the effect of trial judge Madame LD Acton's order striking down s.7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is stayed shall be extended from one year, as originally ordered, to last until further Order of this Honourable Court. http://www.turmelpress.com/oleary.pdf
Dec 11 2001:12:00p.m. PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION IS REPEALED WHEN ACTON SUSPENSION OF DECLARATION OF INVALIDATION EXPIRES
Despite the Crown using the O'Leary J.A. extension of the Acton suspension of the Krieger invalidation of Section 7(1) to keep busting Canadians for cultivation, since the Court of Appeal eventually upheld the Acton invalidation, the prohibition became of no force and effect when Acton J. said it should. No one Alberta provincial judge has the power to keep the law busting people using an unconstitutional national statute in violation of a section 7 Charter right longer than Acton said they could. Both the prohibition on possession in s.4(1) and on cultivation in s.7(1) of a substance on Schedule 2 (marijuana) were of no force and effect though the Government did not reprint the legislation to reflect those facts. This accounts for the hundreds of thousands of improper charges brought before the courts since then with many such errors stayed or withdrawn since then. Knowing that the prohibitions on marijuana were no longer of force and effect didn't help if the Crown wouldn't admit it and the Crown lawyers were advising police to keep busting Canadians.
Feb 28 2002 PAQUETTE WINS HEALTH CANADA EXEMPTION EXTENSION With just 8 days until the 6 months extension in the MMAR for his s.56 exemption was about to expire without Marc Paquette having been able to get a doctor to ignore the OMA letter advising them not to sign the MMAR, Marc returned to Federal Court for the third time seeking an court extension of his exemption. Crown Alan Prefontaine produced a 4-page Health Canada application signed by only the family doctor for an extension of an exemption.
Mar 15 2002 ONTARIO JUSTICE PITT FINDS MMAR DID NOT COMPLY WITH COURT RULING IN PARKER FOR FAILURE OF DOCTORS TO PARTICIPATE Terry Parker filed an application to declare that the invalidity Order had taken effect on Aug. 1 2001 and the possession prohibition was no longer known to law based on 1) the expiry of Parker's exemption protection and 2) failure of the MMAR to protect Parker when the Ontario Medical Association refused to participate. http://www.oma.org/pcomm/omr/dec/01marijuana.htm Ontario Superior Court Justice Pitt. J. granted the short notice ex parte alternative remedy sought with an: "Order extending the constitutional exemption granted to the applicant by the Ontario Court of Appeal until the Government has complied with the court's ruling." This is the first Superior Court judge to find that the MMAR permission system for the sick had not complied to save the CDSA prohibition system for all. Crown Lara Speirs did not inform the police that Pitt J. had found that the MMAR had failed to save the CDSA which permitted the improper busting of another hundred thousand Canadians over the next two years. Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/pittorde.jpg
Apr 17 2002 JUDGE CHAPNIK SETS ASIDE JUSTICE PITT Upon motion by Crown Lara Speirs supported by Friend of the Court Alan Young, Justice Sandra set aside the short notice ex parte extension of the criminal remedy granted by Justice Pitt on the grounds it was a civil default judgment and the MMAR offered plenty of protection to Parker. http://www.turmelpress.com/chapnikj.txt
May 03 2002 JUDGE FELDMAN REFUSES PITT PROTECTION PENDING APPEAL Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Feldman refused to stay Justice Chapnik's Order setting aside of Parker's Pitt protection. http://www.turmelpress.com/feldmanj.txt
Jul 25 2002 MCWATT J. CONSOLIDATES PARKER (CDSA) WITH HITZIG (MMAR) Justice McWatt grants the Crown motion to have John The Engineer's "Parker application to declare the CDSA prohibition no longer known to law" consolidated with Osgoode Hall Law School Medpot champion Professor Alan Young's "Hitzig application the declare the no-longer-needed MMAR unconstitutional for those who refused to believe that the prohibition monster was no longer alive. If there is no longer any prohibition, there was no reason to seek to fix the no-longer-needed MMAR permission system.
Aug 21 2002 3600 DEAD EPILEPTICS YEARLY EPILEPSY.CA http://www.epilepsy.ca/eng/mainSet.html is Exhibit A in the affidavit of John Turmel dated in Aug 21, 2002 in the application to declare the prohibition repealed as of Terry Parker Day which is the fact sheet of Epilepsy Canada, (1470 Peel St.#745, Montreal, H3A1T1, Tel: (514) 845-7855 Fax: (514) 845-7866 Toll free: 1-877-SEIZURE (734-0873) E-mail: email@example.com which says that: "Epilepsy still can be a very serious condition and individuals do die of it. Experts estimate that prolonged seizures (status epilepticus) are the cause of 2,400 to 4,600 deaths in Canada each year. In a major study of status epilepticus, 42% of deaths occurred in individuals with a history of epilepsy... Some people experience a sensation called an aura, or warning, before a seizure starts. The aura may occur far enough in advance to give time to lie down and prevent injury from falling..." Of those 10 daily fatalities are 4 who had already had seizures and could have been saved by possessing some marijuana. The fact sheet is now gone and can be viewed at http://www.turmelpress.com/epil3600.jpg
Aug 25 2002 CHARBONNEAU J. ADDS TURMEL-PAQUETTE TO PARKER & HITZIG Justice Charbonneau grants the Crown motion to have John The Engineer's and Marc Paquette's application in L'Orignal to declare the CDSA prohibition no longer known to law" consolidated with Parker's CDSA challenge and Young's MMAR challenge in Toronto before Lederman.
Sep 19 & 20, Oct 18, 2002 LEDERMAN TRIAL OF CDSA & MMAR CHALLENGES Parker and Turmel-Paquette applications to declare the CDSA prohibition unknown to law and the Young's Hitzig application to declare the MMAR unconstitutional were heard.
Sep 27 2002 JUDGE ISABELLE CONVICTS TURMEL ON 94 DORMANT CORPSES John Turmel was convicted of contempt of court for publishing details of Health Canada stalling 94 "dormant" Section 56 Marijuana Exemption applicants to death. "..he admits certain facts: 3. On November 7th, 2001, the defendant admitted in the presence of many witnesses including Stephane Lamoureux, <I got excited this is bigger than Walkerton>...  On the 6th November 2001, Mrs. Cripps-Prawak testified for the first time on the number of persons who applied under the law. At that time, she mentioned that Health Canada has 94 + dormant ; files [i.e.] meaning inactive.  John C. Turmel testifies that he concluded from that information that these 94 applicants were deceased. He then believed that this situation created an urgency to act rapidly in order to avoid more deaths. He therefore published the information for different groups even though he knew the existence of the publication ban." http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccs/2002/2002qccs14830.html
She also testified that 15 of the 94 dormants had been found deceased.
Dec 04 2002 ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL SUPPORTS ACTON REPEAL OF CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION PROHIBITION IN KRIEGER The further Order of the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal against Acton J.'s Krieger declaration that the cultivation prohibition under s.7(1) of the CDSA was of no force and effect with Justice Costigan ruling for the panel: Costigan, J.A. (for the Court):  The Respondent was charged with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 and unlawful production of marihuana contrary to s. 7(1) of the Act.  The Crown appeals a voir dire ruling which struck down s. 7(1) and also appeals the Respondent's acquittal by a jury of the s. 5(2) charge.  We agree with the trial judge that s. 56 creates an absurdity because there was no legal source of marihuana. That absurdity is not removed by the fact that the Respondent had a personal supply at the time the charge was laid. There was no evidence as to how long the supply would last nor as to the duration of the potential s. 56 exemption.  Nor are we satisfied that the trial judge imposed a positive obligation on the Crown to ensure a supply. The trial judge struck s. 7(1). Her order imposed no obligation.  Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as it relates to the voir dire ruling. http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf
Dec 05 2002 The Calgary Herald and Sun news reports misrepresented the striking down of S.7 and S.4 as a personal victory for Krieger. Calgary Herald's Daryl Slade wrote that "Krieger's lawyer, Adriano Iovinelli, said outside court it was an important decision that permits his client to continue to cultivate and use marijuana for his own use to alleviate chronic pain caused by multiple sclerosis. Iovinelli said, as it stands, it is status quo on Krieger's charter exemption. But he suggested that would not apply to the general public.." http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegher.htm http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegsun.htm
Dec 19 2002 CADIEUX J. ACQUITS ST-MAURICE OF MONTREAL COMPASSION CLUB Quebec Judge Cadieux acquits members of the Montreal Compassion club of possession for the purpose of trafficking:  They are jointly charged with having had in their possession for the purpose of trafficking a substance inscribed in annexes II and VII of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)...  Nevertheless, the principal question to be litigated is whether the use of marihuana for therapeutic purposes and the interdiction in section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act against distributing marihuana to sick and suffering people while there is no legal source from which these persons may procure the substance.  In the Krieger case, Judge Acton invalidated the section prohibiting the production of marihuana for personal therapeutic uses and accorded an exemption during the period of suspension of the declaration of invalidity. As to the section prohibiting the traffic and possession for the purpose of trafficking, the judge refused to invalidate because Krieger took it upon himself to distribute cannabis without insisting on a medical recommendation.  Like Judge Acton in the Krieger case, we can ask ourselves as to the reasonableness of the character of a system of exemptions permitting possession and cultivation of marihuana while there exists no legal source in Canada from where the holder of an exemption may obtain dried marihuana to consume or viable seeds to cultivate.  As to the constitutional question, I have concluded that the interdiction edicted by section 5 of the CDSA against distributing, for therapeutic purposes, marihuana to sick and suffering people for whom this substance is necessary for medical reasons, according to the recommendation of their treating physician, while there is no legal source from which these persons might producer this substance, violates the rights and liberties guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties, more particularly the right to life, to liberty and to the security of the person guaranteed by section 7 and that this interdiction does not conform with the principles of fundamental justice.  I have concluded that this restriction is not reasonable nor justified according to the criteria of section 1 of the Charter and in consequence, a stay of proceedings with respect to the three counts in the indictment is the only just and appropriate remedy given the circumstances. Gilles Cadieux, J.C.Q. http://www.turmelpress.com/cadieux.txt Translation
Jan 02 2003 PHILLIPS J. RULES PROHIBITION REPEALED IN WINDSOR Ontario Judge Phillips in Windsor rules in R. v. J.P. that whether the MMAR amending formula failed to save the CDSA prohibition or not, the legislation itself had to be completely enacted anew by Parliament and had not been.  It is submitted by the Applicant therefore, that Rosenberg, J. A.'s judgment had the effect of declaring invalid the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 (1) effective on July 31, 2001 - twelve months after the release of the reasons in R. v. Parker. It is therefore argued that in keeping with s. 2(2) of the Interpretation Act(2), the enactment was deemed repealed. (2)See the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21 at Section 2(2) which states: "For the purposes of this Act, an enactment that has been replaced is repealed and an enactment that has expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect is deemed to have been repealed."  The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was not amended by Parliament, and no prohibition on the simple possession of marihuana has been re-enacted(4).  Simple possession of marihuana in s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was struck down by the Court of Appeal. But the Court of Appeal went further in identifying whose task it was to address a remedy, writing: "...this is a matter within the legislative sphere. There is also a particular problem in the case of marihuana because of a lack of a legal source for the drug. This raises issues that can only be adequately addressed by Parliament."  Repeatedly Rosenberg J. A. returns to the theme of Parliamentary authority to address the remedy:..(8) <<<<8) Throughout the Parker dicta, reference is made to the need to legislate by Parliament. Parliament was repeatedly identified as the body competent to create such a framework, not the Government. Rosenberg J. A. must be taken to have known the difference between Parliament and the Government.>>>>  The Applicant therefore argued as follows, that as of July 31, 2001, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act at s.4 (1), could no longer be said to prohibit the simple possession of marihuana.(11) <<<<11) The Applicant refers the court to the consequences of repealed addressed in s. 43 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. I-21 at s. 43 which states: s. 43 "Where an enactment is repealed in whole or in part, the repeal does not (a) revive any enactment or anything not in force or existing at the time when the repeal takes effect."  To repeat: the Regulations were designed to meet the demands of R. v. Parker. Did the Regulations achieve that result? The Applicant did not put that in issue directly before this Court.(19) .. it may very well be that the Regulations do not meet the rigorous objectives of the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Parker. Were the Regulations to fail to meet the required standards as stipulated in R. v. Parker, then the declaration (having been determined effective at the end of the twelve-month July 31, 2001) would be in place and the impugned section currently of no force and effect.  But, and in my view this is the nub of the issue: Can Parliament provide a total discretion to the federal Cabinet (through the mechanism of a Governor General-in-Council order) in creating the remedy to address Parker? How is that fundamentally different from the authority granting power to the Minister of Health to stipulated exemptions in s.56 of the Act? Regulations can be changed with every publication of the Canada Gazette, without consideration of Parliament and the debate that that would entail.  While Regulations were enacted, but the legislation was not amended, the "gap in the regulatory scheme" (to use the language of Rosenberg J. A. in Parker) was not addressed. In my view, the establishment by Parliament of suitable guidelines in legislation fettering administrative discretion was requisite, but lacking. This is simply not the sort of matter that Parliament can legitimately delegate to the federal cabinet, a Crown minister or administrative agency. Regulations, crafted to provide the solution (even were these fashioned to create sufficient standards governing exemptions) cannot be found to remedy the defects determined by the Parker dicta. Therefore, since a statutory framework with guiding principles was not enacted within the period of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity, it follows in my view that the declaration is now effectively in place. Conclusion  In light of that analysis the young person's application must succeed. Released: January 2, 2003 Signed: Justice D. W. Phillips http://cannabislink.ca/legal/windsordecision.htm
Jan 03 2003 CROWN FAILS TO APPLY FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL KRIEGER Cultivation is officially repealed once the 30 days the Crown has to apply for leave to appeal the Krieger decision striking Section 7 cultivation runs out.
Jan 09 2003 ONTARIO JUSTICE LEDERMAN RULES MMAR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH PARKER FOR FAILURE OF SUPPLY Ontario Superior Court Justice, Lederman J., declared that the MMAR permission system was unconstitutional because it failed to comply with the Parker court's ruling by not ensuring Parker a supply of marijuana and suspends his declaration of invalidity of the MMAR for 6 months. He ignored the Parker and Turmel-Paquette applications to declare the CDSA prohibition no longer known to law. http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10584.html Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero1.jpg http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero2.jpg http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero3.jpg http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero4.jpg
Feb 13 2003 SUPREME COURT NIXES PITT PROTECTION PENDING APPEAL Parker's application for appeal against the decision of Madam Justice Feldman supporting the ruling of Madam Justice Chapnik to strip Parker of his Pitt protection was denied by Justices Gonthier, Major, Arbour JJ.
Mar 25 2003 CROWN MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL KREIGER ALLOWED Supreme Court of Canada Justice Arbour granted the Crown motion for an extension of time of 60 days to file and serve their Application for Leave to Appeal the Krieger Costigan decision.
Mar 31 2003 ONTARIO WEILER J.A. STYLES PROCEEDING "PARKER ET AL" On a motion to consolidate the Hitzig AND Turmel-Paquette applications into the Terry Parker case, Madam Justice K.M. Weiler of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled: "For the sake of clarity, the style of proceedings is to reflect the name of Mr. Parker first in the list of parties..."
May 14 2003 JOHN THE ENGINEER'S 3.3KG HOUSE OF COMMONS PUFF On the day before the Minister of Justice was to introduce legislation to newly re-criminalize prohibition of marijuana with double the penalties, mis-named "de-criminalization," John The Engineer, Guinness record candidate for the House of Commons two dozen times, candidate for mayor of Ottawa and candidate in all Ottawa provincial elections and byelections, appeared at the doors of the House of Commons with 3.3Kg of marijuana to dare a life sentence to show that the prohibition was no longer valid in Canada and still inoperable without a workable medical exemption which this legislation did not. Charged with s.5(2) possession for the purpose of trafficking 'under 3Kg" for possession 3.3Kg. http://www.turmelpress.com/taipei.jpg
May 15 2003 JOHN THE ENGINEER HOLDS BACK MARIJUANA BILL The Globe & Mail headline "Ottawa holds back marijuana bill" Caption: Pro-marijuana advocate John Turmel is arrested yesterday on Parliament Hill for alledgedly possessing more than three kilograms of the drug. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Ottawa will not table legislation to change Canada's marijuana laws for at least another week." Since the Chretien Government never passed any called legislation ever again, it should have been headlined "John The Engineer holds back marijuana bill" with life-sentence gamble. The other caption: "Minister denies he delayed tabling new pot legislation because of pressure from Americans" is true, it was pressure from John The Engineer. http://www.turmelpress.com/hillbust.jpg
May 16 2003 ONTARIO ROGIN J. RULES CDSA IS REPEALED FOR FAILURE TO RE-ENACT NEW CDSA PROHIBITION LEGISLATION Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin dismisses the Crown appeal of the Windsor J.P. decision on the technicality that ruled that once the legislation was going to be struck down on Terry Parker Day, a new statute had to be enacted by Parliament, not a fix of the statute that was being struck down. This is the third Ontario Superior Court Justice to have ruled that the MMAR had not functioned to save the CDSA.  (1) On July 31, 2000, Rosenberg J. in R. v. Parker, severed marihuana from s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and declared it invalid. Section 4 as it relates to substances other than marihuana remains in full force and effect. (2) The declaration of invalidity was suspended for a period of 12 months from July 31, 2000. Mr. Parker was granted an exemption from the marihuana provision in s. 4 during the period of suspended invalidity. (3) As of July 31/01, s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as it related to marihuana was invalid...  In addition, since s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has not been re-enacted, as it relates to marihuana, there is no penalty in the act for simple possession of marihuana even if it had been prohibited by the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. It is to be noted, that there are no penalty sections set out in the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations.  It follows from these reasons, that neither Count 1 nor Count 2 contains an offence known to law...  The Crown Appeal from the judgment of Phillips J. is dismissed. Steven Rogin, Justice Released: May 16, 2003 http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10765.html
May 16 2003 CROWN SCC MEMORANDUM ADMITS KRIEGER REPEALED CULTIVATION Crown Attorney S. David Frankel's Memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada pleaded for Leave to Appeal the Krieger invalidation of S.7 and S. 4 of the CDSA because ".. as matters now stand s.7(1) has been declared of no force and effect by the highest court in Alberta." The Crown did not seek a stay of the judgment declaring S.7 and S.4 of no force and effect. http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegcm.txt http://www.turmelpress.com/frankel.jpg signature
May 20 2003 KRIEGER APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED 5 MONTHS LATE Had the new marijuana prohibition legislation been introduced on May 15 as planned, this leave to appeal the strike down of the old prohibition would have been no longer necessary.
May 26 2003 ONTARIO AITKEN J. WON'T QUASH PARLIAMENT HILL BUST Ontario Superior Court Justice Aitken dismissed John The Engineer's motion to quash the Parliament Hill Bust charge by an Order of Prohibition on the grounds that without new legislation effecting the the Parker and Krieger rulings, they could only be effected by the deletion of the word marijuana from Schedule II of the CDSA, thus invalidating the prohibitions in the other sections too. S.4(1) says it is an offence to possession anything on "Schedule II of banned substances." Section 7(1) says it is an offence to cultivate anything on "Schedule II of banned substances." Section 5(2) says it is an offence to possess for the purpose of trafficking anything on the "Schedule II of banned substances." On Aug. 1 2001, the day on which the courts have found that the invalidation of the prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the CDSA by the Parker Court to have taken effect, there was only one way for the publication of the new legislation to reflect that fact. Since marijuana is not mentioned in the CDSA sections 4, 5, 7, but only on the Schedule II of banned substances, the invalidation of the prohibition can only be effected by the deletion of the word "marijuana" from Schedule II of banned substances. There is no other way for the invalidation to have taken effect given the state of the out-of-date legislation.
May 30 2003 JUDGE KENKEL SAYS QUASH UNKNOWN CHARGES, STAY UNFAIR "Where an information on its face does not disclose an offence known to law, can the Crown pre-empt a motion to quash the information by staying the charge? In R. v. J.P., a decision binding on this court, Mr. Justice Rogin held that simple possession of marihuana is no longer "an offence known to law". The accused/applicant has applied to this court to quash the information alleging simple possession of marihuana. At the same time, the Federal Crown has asked that the charge be stayed... The Federal Crown submits that their motion to stay the proceedings deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the motion to quash... Proceedings stayed under s.579 may be recommenced without laying a new information within one year. Thus, the accused person remains in jeopardy of prosecution on the original information until that period expires. The discretion of the Crown under s.579 to intervene by directing a stay of proceedings should not normally be interfered with by the court. However, where the charge before the court is itself a nullity, then in my view there is nothing to stay. It would be wrong to keep a citizen in jeopardy of prosecution for a period of one year on an information that does not disclose an offence. Conclusion: The information before the court will be quashed as not disclosing an offence as required by s.581(1) c.c. Hon. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel R. v. Peddle,  O.J. No. 2096 (Ont. Prov. Ct.).
Jun 10 2003 JOHN THE ENGINEER TRIPS UP CROWN APPEAL Lederman Appellant John The Engineer fails to file the Appeal Certificate of Perfection thereby tripping up the Crown's attempt to have the appeal heard before the Lederman suspension of the invalidation of the MMAR elapses on July 9 2003.
Jun 25 2003 CARTHY J.A. REFUSES TO EXTEND SUSPENSION TO SAVE MMAR In Parker, Turmel-Paquette, Hitzig et al v. HMTQ, Carthy J.A., unlike Alberta's O'Leary J.A. who had extended Acton J.'s suspension of the declaration of invalidity for the s.7(1) cultivation offence in Krieger, did refuse to extend the suspension of the Lederman declaration of invalidity of the MMAR. The Crown appealled believing the Court of Appeal can do Parliament's job of bringing the MMAR back to life, maybe. http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/parkerM29602.htm http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html
Jul 09 2003 LEDERMAN SUSPENSION OF MMAR INVALIDATION EXPIRES The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) becomes of no force and effect at midnight. In the vain hopes of pulling off a resurrection if the appeal of the refusal to extend the suspension wins and they extend it so the MMAR can be kept alive, the Ministry of Justice announces it is shipping out the pot to Canada's exemptees in compliance with the Lederman Order that has come into effect. Though they have accepted the Lederman Order about the necessity of providing the pot, they failed to accept the Lederman Order about the invalidity of the MMAR legislation. The MMAR law was gone like the CDSA law it was trying to save two years too late. So, the artificial MMAR heart didn't work to save the CDSA patient by July 31 2001 and the patient was declared dead. Now the artificial MMAR heart that didn't save the CDSA is declared bad on July 9 2003. For the first time, both the CDSA ship and its MMAR lifeboat are sunk. There is no CDSA prohibition system, there is no MMAR permission system.
Jul 29 2003 ONTARIO APPEAL COURT HEARS BIG 5 APPEALS & HITZIG & J.P. John The Engineer's Big Five Appeals to kill the CDSA against Chapnik J., Lederman J. x2, Charbonneau J., Aitken J. were all expedited and heard together with the Windsor Rogin J. appeal and the Hitzig Lederman J. appeal to fix the MMAR. Rather than hear the cases in chronological order with Parker first and Hitzig second, the Court of Appeal insisted on hearing them backwards, putting the Hitzig case first, then surreptitiously altering the style of cause from "Parker et al" to the now infamous "Hitzig et al" without directly overturning Justice Weiler's Order. Doing things backwards ended up with backward results. While only John The Engineer and Team were proclaiming prohibition was repealed, everyone else in Canada had been told or were pretending that the law was still valid. Unfortunately, Global-CanWest was the only source of media through which filter all the other media got their reports. Reporter Shannon Kari did not focus on the parties who were right about the CDSA law being repealed and only concentrated on the Professor who was wrong about the CDSA prohibition law still being repealed while still working on fixing the MMAR permission legislation.
Aug 01 2003 5) COURT UPHOLDS CARTHY J.'S REFUSAL TO EXTEND SUSPENSION OF MMAR INVALIDATION The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal in Parker et al (including Hitzig) against Carthy's refusal to suspend the declaration of invalidity. "We treat this as a request by the Crown for stay of the order of Lederman J.. We do not propose to make any order." The Crown was still asking for a continued stay of Lederman Order to be able to argue that though it had come into effect and repealed the MMAR, this later stay would cancel that effect and unrepeal the MMAR. So, for sure, the MMAR permission legislation was repealed on July 9 2003 and was not alive when the Court started the Hitzig operations on the bad parts out of the MMAR cadaver. http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html
Sep 04 2003 BC JUDGE CHEN QUASHES CHARGE AS UNKNOWN TO LAW In the application to quash marijuana charges as unknown to law in R. v. Kurtiss Lee Masse, Judge Chen ruled: ".. If I am wrong in this, and it is possible for regulations addressing the concerns raised in Parker to halt the operation of the declaration of s.4's invalidity, then I agree with the decision in Hitzig that the MMAR were inadequate for this purpose because, as long as there is no legal supply of marihuana for persons requiring it for medical use, the infringement on s. 7 Charter rights identified in Parker has not been cured. The enactment of the Marijuana Exemption (Food and Drugs Act) Regulations on July 8, 2003 may or may not address the concerns raised in Hitzig but came too late to have any effect on the declaration of invalidity in Parker. July 31, 2001 had, by that time, already come and gone, and the legislation had already been rendered invalid. ONCE INVALID, IT BECAME A NULLITY AND COULD NOT BE RESUSCITATED; IT COULD ONLY BE RE- ENACTED.  It follows therefore, that there is no offence known to law at this time for simple possession of marihuana. The application is allowed. http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2003/2003bcpc328/2003bcpc328.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAWUi4gdi4gS3VydGlzIExlZSBNYXNzZQAAAAAB
Oct 07 2003 THE ENGINEER'S CDSA & ALAN YOUNG'S MMAR RULINGS The Court of Appeal changed the name of the case from the Appellant "Parker and others" to the Cross-Appellant "Hitzig and others" versus The Queen. How often is a case named after the cross-appellant's and not the Appellant? http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigsynopsis.htm
1) COURT VALIDATES REPEAL OF CDSA AND MMAR IN PARKER AND TURMEL-PAQUETTE The Ontario Court of Appeal grants John The Engineer's applications in Parker and Turmel-Paquette to declare that the CDSA prohibition on marijuana became invalid on Aug. 1 2001, Terry Parker Day, because the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) had failed to safety Terry Parker. Unfortunately, they misplaced our relief sought in the J.P. and Hitzig rulings, but not in ours. http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo1.jpg http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo2.jpg http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm
2) COURT UN-REPEALS MMAR & CDSA LEGISLATION IN HITZIG In Alan Young's Hitzig case, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was re-enacting the MMAR legislation after 3 months of being repealed in order to cut out the offensive parts Young's applicants were complaining about, thus making the MMAR workable and unrepealed which would then make the CDSA prohibition legislation that had been killed by the Parker 26 months earlier unrepealed too. Without the Alan Young's Hitzig case to fix the MMAR access after the CDSA prohibition had died, there would have been no new court- enacted MMAR legislation to put the new un-repealed CDSA prohibition back up again. http://www.turmelpress.com/hitzigo1.jpg http://www.turmelpress.com/hitzigo2.jpg http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm
3) COURT REJECTS WINDSOR TECHNICALITY The Court of appeal overturned the Rogin decision in J.P. and ruled that merely amending the not-yet repealed CDSA legislation to comply with Parker by Order in Council would have been good enough had it been on time. But since the prohibition had been repealed on Terry Parker Day and J.P. had been charged after Aug. 1 2001, he was the first Canadian to benefit by having his charges quashed for having fallen in the Window of Death for Prohibition legislation between Aug. 1 2001 - Oct 7 2003. http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm
4) COURT RULES MARIJUANA STILL ON SCHEDULE II WITHOUT PRINT The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Aitken J.'s refusal to prohibit prosecution of my Parliament Hill Bust because "marijuana" had to have been stricken from Schedule II for all related sections without any new print job detailing the exemption ruling that there was no need to strike the word "marijuana" from Schedule II when the the courts would remember which sections Section II applied to or not without actually having to put it in print. http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/turmelC40127.htm http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10599.html
5) COURT NIXES SUPERIOR COURT POWERS The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Chapnik J.'s setting aside the decision of Superior Court Justice Pitt "extending the exemption granted by the Court of Appeal to Terry Parker until the government has complied with the court's ruling" on the grounds that Superior Court Justice Pitt had no powers to grant short notice ex parte relief despite Rule 2.03: "The court may, only where and as necessary in the interest of justice, dispense with compliance with any rule at any time." Except for Pitt J. http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10593.html
Oct 23 2003 PEI JUDGE MATHESON ACCEPTS HITZIG RESURRECTION In R. v. Stavert, Justice Jaqueline Matheson wrote: " The effect of the Hitzig decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal is to create a constitutionally valid medical exemption for marihuana users to s.4 of the CDSA, thus making s.4 of the CDSA constitutionally valid and in full force and effect." http://www.canlii.org/pe/cas/pesctd/2003/2003pesctd85.html
Nov 2003 PARLIAMENT FAILS TO RE-ENACT PROHIBITION IN FALL SESSION In the fall session, the Minister of Justice introduced the new re-criminalization prohibition with doubled penalties despite the Court of Appeal having recriminalized marijuana for them. Many Committee meetings were held but the few reminders that "whoever brings back the new prohibition will takes the credit away from the three judges for 4 dead epileptics a day from now on" passed on from John The Engineer to Prime Minister Jean Chretien seem to have decided him on proroguing the House without any new Parliament-enacted prohibition getting through.
Dec 03 2003 HEALTH CANADA REINSTATES REPEALED SECTION!! Health Canada Notice of Changes to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) which became effective December 3 2003 and include: "(4)To maintain control over the production and distribution of marihuana in keeping with the principles of the CDSA and the FDA, and to maintain compliance with Canada's international obligations, the limits on the production of marihuana for medical purposes by DPL holders will be maintained: Paragraph 41(b) will be re-enacted to reinstate on a national basis, the limit on the number of persons for whom one designated person can produce marihuana; under the MMAR, one DPL holder can cultivate for only one ATP holder; and Section 54 will be re-enacted to reinstate on a national basis, the limit on the number of DPL holders who can produce marihuana in common; under the MMAR, a DPL holder is not permitted to produce marihuana in common with more than two other DPL holders." http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2003/20031217/html/sor387-e.html
Dec 07 2003 HITZIG APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT Hitzig Application for leave to appeal announced to the Supreme Court of Canada, filed late on Jan 7 2004, and dismissed on May 6 2004. Turmel Application in Forma Pauperis gets more time. http://www.turmelpress.com/hitzsccl.txt
Dec 08 2003 OTTAWA STAYS POT CHARGES IN 4,000 CASES Upon expiry of the 60-day period to seek leave to appeal the Terry Parker Day victories, the Crown was forced to announce the stay of all 4,000 pending improper s.4(1) charges after July 31 2001 but not after Oct 7 2003 when the new court- enacted legislation came into force and effect, just like the charges for J.P. in Windsor. As Judge Kenkel pointed out, the charges laid under a null statute should have been withdrawn or quashed, not stayed and kept over their heads for an extra 6 months. http://www.turmelpress.com/stay4000.htm
Also, the Crown has done nothing about the 100,000 Canadians who were improperly convicted while the law was of of no force and effect because Lara Speirs and later Crowns were all wrong. Firing the Keystone Krowns would be nice but forms for late appeals to correct this injustice one at a time may be found at John The Engineer's site: http://www.turmelpress.com/mpforms.htm
Dec 23 2003 SUPREME COURT DISMISSES KRIEGER CROWN LEAVE APPLICATION; CLAY, CAINE, MALMO-LEVINE APPEALS
1) SCC DISMISSES CROWN'S KRIEGER CULTIVATION APPEAL The Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown's application for leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Krieger where "[57 as matters now stand s.7(1) has been declared of no force and effect by the highest court in Alberta." Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegscc.jpg Krieger Note: http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegsc2.htm http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html "Trial judge finding that prohibition on production of cannabis marihuana infringing accused's s. 7 Charter rights and not saved by s. 1..." "(Acton J.) Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, inasmuch as it relates to cannabis marihuana, declared inconsistent with the Charter; declaration suspended for one year; Respondent granted an exemption from the application of s. 7(1); charge stayed" "December 4, 2002 Court of Appeal of Alberta h(Wittman, Costigan and LoVecchio JJ.A.) appeal with respect to s. 7(1) dismissed."
2) SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CLAY APPEAL The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Clay and Caine/Malmo-Levine recreational use cases 6 judges to 3. Terry Parker's 4-dead-epileptics-a-day should sway a few more on medical use necessary for all of Canada's 400,000 epileptics, not just the 40 out of 400,000 who can qualify with the strict Health Canada requirements. All epileptics. All people who can benefits from this completely safe, non- toxic herb. In Clay, the Supreme Court does explain: "3. In this trilogy of cases, we affirm the legislative competence of Parliament to prohibit the possession of marijuana.... 4. The task of the Court in relation to s.7 of the Charter is not to micromanage Parliament's creation or continuance of prohibitions backed up by penalties. It is to identify the outer boundaries of legislative jurisdiction set out in the Constitution. Within those boundaries, it is for Parliament to act or not to act... The Court's concern is not with the wisdom of prohibition but solely with its constitutionality. We have concluded that it is within Parliament's jurisdiction to criminalize the possession of marihuana should it choose to do so, but it is equally open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise soften any aspect of the marihuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public policy." The Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2003/vol3/texte/2003scr3_0735.txt
2) SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CAINE, MALMO-LEVINE APPEALS The Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2003/vol3/texte/2003scr3_0571.txt
Apr 01 2004 DEMAND TO MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR 100K CORRECTIONS Since the 4000 charges still pending from the Aug. 1 2001 to Oct 7 2003 period were invalid, convictions had to be too. The Engineer demanded that the convictions registered against the other over 100,000 Canadians (Statistics Canada) who were charged and pleaded guilty during those 26 months be expunged and any jailed victims released http://www.turmelpress.com/ag01.txt
May 2004 PARLIAMENT FAILS TO RE-ENACT PROHIBITION IN SPRING 2004 In the Spring session, the Minister of Justice introduced the new recriminalisation prohibition with doubled penalties. Reminders from John The Engineer to Prime Minister Paul Martin that the number of dead epileptics he'd cause with the new legislation would be published online day by day during the election, (now, it's the judges who are responsible for fooling Canada's epileptics into not protecting themselves with a joint) and Mr. Martin ended the session with no new Parliament-enacted legislation.
May 13 2004 TORONTO TRIO FILE MOTION TO QUASH The Toronto Trio at the Section 56 Compassion Club of Ryan- Champagne-Wallace who were busted last year during the Prohibition Window of Death filed to quash their charges for cultivation and possession for the purpose of trafficking of marijuana. http://www.turmelpress.com/ryannoti.jpg
Jun 09 2004 TRIO'S POT CASE NIXED Upon motions to quash on the grounds Parliament has not legislated a new prohibition after the Parker and Krieger cases invalidated the marijuana prohibitions, the Crown in Toronto withdrew charges against Bruce Ryan, Pierre Champagne, James Wallace for cultivation, possession (over), possession for the purpose of trafficking which occurred in the Window of Death. The Crown cannot produce the new court- enacted legislation keeping marijuana on Schedule II for all other offences than s.4(1) and s.7(1). http://www.turmelpress.com/totrio.jpg
Jun 15 2004 CROWN WITHDRAWS CHARGE AGAINST ED MARTIN Charge of possession withdrawn in Toronto against Ed Martin.
Jun 17 2004 KRAMER FIRST WITHDRAWAL AFTER HITZIG UN-REPEAL The Crown withdraws possession under 30 grams vs Sandra Kramer charged after Window of Death is said to have been closed by the courts. In every instance where the Crown was challenged to produce the new court-unrepealed legislation, the charges have been withdrawn. Seems every one of the 100,000 people improperly charged are going to have to ask the government to correct the government's error in their case.
Jul 22 2004 NIELSEN MOTION TO QUASH ON PARLIAMENTARY PREROGATIVE The motion in R. v. Nielsen (Doug, Laurel, Danielle) was heard by Judge Edward to quash the charges of possession under CDSA s.4(1) and possession for the purpose of trafficking 21 grams in their home on the grounds Parliament never re-enacted the marijuana prohibition after the Parker Court of Appeal for Ontario had repealed the possession prohibition and the Krieger Court of Appeal for Alberta had repealed the cultivation prohibition. Judge Edward asked the Crown if a court can resurrect a legislative provision that has been struck down as a violation of rights in the Charter. The Crown could not show any such power but did note that the Court had resurrected it. And they wouldn't have if they couldn't have so they must be able to. In essence, the court can because the court did. Judgment to be delivered on Sep 14 2004.
Aug 04 2004 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS FOR RESURRECTION ORDER http://www.turmelpress.com/jcmno2.txt http://www.turmelpress.com/jcmnom.txt
Aug 18 2004 JUDGE SHEPPARD ORDERS RETURN OF TO TRIO GROW-OP After ordering the return of the equipment and money from the S.56 Club's Toronto Trio who had their charges withdrawn, Judge Sheppard reserved his decision on returning their marijuana to Oct 19.
Sep 14 2004 JUDGE EDWARD OBEYS RESURRECTION OPINION TO PROSECUTE NIELSENS Citing paragraph 2 of the Hitzig decision which states that the Court's MMAR operations have resurrected the prohibition in s.4, Judge Edward ruled he was bound by the highest court of his province. And on the ruling in R. v. Turmel on section 5(2) possession for the purpose of trafficking http://www.turmelpress.com/edwardo1.txt
Sep 16 2004 JUSTICE DOHERTY REFUSES TO SIGN RESURRECTION ORDER Justice Doherty refused to include the resurrection of the CDSA prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA when requested relegating the resurrection of the prohibition stated in the Hitzig decision to mere opinion, not Order. http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo1.jpg http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo2.jpg
Oct 07 2004 SCC TURMEL APPLICATIONS IN RESURRECTION AND REMEMBER APPEALS John Turmel filed application #30570 for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the Hitzig resurrection with:
1) an Order overturning the court's opinion which has been deemed by lower courts to render the prohibition on cannabis in s.4(1) of the CDSA no longer invalid and declaring that the prohibition on marijuana remains repealed since Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2002;
2) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General for Canada to withdraw all current s.4(1) prosecutions.
3) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General to release all prisoners and expunge all convictions registered under s.4(1) of the CDSA since: a) the Charter was enacted; or b) Aug 1 2000 when the section was deemed unconstitutional; or c) Aug 1 2001 when the section was deemed repealed. http://www.turmelpress.com/sccjcm.txt
John Turmel filed application #30571 for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the Aitken "We'll remember" ruling refusing to extend the invalidity to all sections with an Order declaring that the word "marijuana" was deleted from Schedule II for all sections of the CDSA on the grounds that without the underpinning of the cultivation and possession statutes, all other prohibitions lack the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. http://www.turmelpress.com/sccdare.txt
Oct 19 2004 JUDGE SHEPPARD RULES HITZIG BARS TO TRIO'S POT RETURN Judge Sheppard rules he is bound by the Hitzig Resurrection Opinion not to give the TO Trio their pot back.
Oct 22 2004 JUDGE EARLE-RENTON DISMISSES QUASH IN HILL BUST TRIAL Judge Earle-Renton dismissed the motions to quash the Parliament Hill charges as unknown to law and as impossible to prove possession under 3Kg by evidence of over 3Kg and adjourned the trial to Feb 10 2005 because she is bound by the Court of Appeal statement that section 5(2) was valid at the time of the charge.
Oct 25 2004 JUDGE SHEPPARD RULES NO JURISDICTION ON S.24 POT CLAIM Judge Sheppard rules he had no jurisdiction to give the TO Trio their controlled substance back pursuant to an application under section 24 of the CDSA (must be appealed) and Orders the return of grow-op equipment and money. http://www.turmelpress.com/totrio.jpg
Nov 22 2004 CANADIAN AIDS SOCIETY DECRIES ABSENCE OF EXEMPTION The Canadian AIDS Society pleaded for Health Canada to cure the absence of constitutionally acceptable exemption by complying with the Court's Order in their Nov 22 2004 Submission on the Proposed Amendments to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR): "MMAR & Hitzig Decision (Ontario Court of Appeal): The Hitzig decision (Ontario Court of Appeal) (8) struck down three provisions of the MMAR, as they existed at that time: (1) limit on one person holding more than one licence to grow; (2) limit on licence holders growing in common with more than two holders; and (3) the prohibition on designated growers charging for doing the work. Despite the fact that these provisions were found to be unconstitutional and of no force and effect, in the 2003 amendments, Health Canada re- enacted the same provisions that the court struck down under (1) and (2). Health Canada repealed the third provision and the MMAR now enables designated growers to get paid. We CALL on Health Canada to comply with the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling and REQUEST that section 41.(b) and section 54 be removed from the MMAR. WITHOUT ELIMINATING THESE LIMITATIONS, authorized persons and other seriously and chronically ill Canadians will continue to seek other sources and buy-in into this program will continue to be low." In Hitzig, the court said in paragraph : " In R. v. Parker (2000), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 193, this court held that the criminal prohibition against the possession of marihuana in s. 4 of the CDSA was of no force or effect, absent a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption." Given the Canadian AIDS Society attests that a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption is again absent from the legislation, the prohibition can no longer remain resurrected since the day Health Canada re-attached the unconstitutional limitations. The resurrection lasted barely 2 months if it took place at all. http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/backgrnd.nsf/cl/cas-gen-0089
Dec 20 2004 MIKE SOUTH RELEASED PENDING APPEAL Mike South released pending appeal of S.5 charge on the basis of Parker S.4 and Krieger S.7 challenges.
Dec 24 2004 TURMEL FILES FOR HITZIG STAY OF EXECUTION Supreme Court of Canada Applicant files Section 65.1(1) request for stay of execution of Hitzig resurrection.
Jan 14 2005 ONTARIO JUDGE DISMISSES NIELSEN PROHIBITION ORDER Ontario Superior Judge Festeryga dismissed the motion for an Order of prohibition having not read it and not knowing what it was about.
Jan 18 2005 ONTARIO JUDGE SERRE RESERVES JOHNSON S.7 QUASH DECISION Ontario Justice Serre reserved her decision to Feb 1 2005 on a Krieger application to quash charges under S.7 and S.5(2) of the CDSA.
Jan 27 2005 ONTARIO JUDGE ROGERS RESERVES ETHIER S.5 QUASH DECISION On Jan 27, Ontario Justice Rogers reserved his decision on a Krieger application to quash S.5 charges to March 31 2005.
Updated by John The Engineer Turmel on 2004 Oct 23; Oct 31; Nov 10; Nov 25; Dec 17, Jan 31 2005.
Self-Defender Wins Page
MedPot Combat Engineer's page
Medpot Self-Defence kits explanations
Medpot Self-Defence kits page
MedPot Engineer's Yahoogroup
The Medpot Engineer's MedPot-Discuss YahoopGroup
KingofthePaupers YouTube Channel
John Turmel's Home Page
Facebook Wall for Current Comments