TURMEL: Reconsider SCC ruling excluding candidates from debates?
KingofthePaupers
Canada Supreme Court okays excluding candidates from TV debates
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/3600
Turmel Crux Issue bigger than known
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/3603
Fed Court ruling Media may exclude candidates to Supreme
Court
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/3575
JCT: In #3575, you'll remember I started my Supreme Court move
and pessimistically wrote:
> JCT: It's pretty depressing when you put together a good case,
the Crown responds, you beat them badly, and the referee then
awards the win to the guy who got beaten up. Why bother? And now
to file an application for leave to appeal as the last stop on
the railroading I received, why bother? Because I get to make my
case, force them to respond and get to beat them up and then 3
judges have to sign their names to the decision that gave the
victory to the guys who were laughed out of the debate. Justices
Marc Nadon, John Maxwell Evans, and Denis Pelletier of the
Federal Court of Appeal couldn't find one error to hang their
dismissal on, a drubbing of the opposition they got to crown the
victor. To puke generations of readers to come.
JCT: And now Chief Justice McLachlin, Abella and Rothstein
have signed off on the dirty deed.
But there's one last series of shots in Section 73.
In rare important circumstances, I get to apply for them to
reconsider their very bad decision not to let this issue in for
the whole court to adjudicate, one last kick at the can. And the
Crown has to again respond again in 10 days; and then I get to
beat them up one final time in 10 days. I guess I forgot to
mention the second series of shots when I wrote earlier.
So since it's now official that TV debates no longer have to be
shared equitably by all rival candidates because of the 1993
Vezina v. CBC decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal.
That explains why most of the election TV debates you've seen
recently only feature the big four parties you see in Parliament
all the time and no one new while your ballot lists everyone. And
now Justices McLachlin, Abella and Rothstein have made that
official. So because their letting the media deny me equal debate
time is pretty important to me, and because their letting the
media deny voters the chance to hear all the choices on their
ballot, should be pretty important to them if they were ever told
what is at staske, those good reasons makes imperative to ask
these low-tech (never studied logic circuits) judges to
reconsider the error they've committed, stripping the Canadian
electoral process of its democratic integrity.
So, this isn't one of my greater works but what how much time
could I spend saying "yuck, eiu." So here is the Notice of
Motion for Reconsideration, Affidavit as to why it's a rare
circumstance, (not often we've quietly lost our democratic rights
before) and Statement of Argument that they're a bunch of
criminals if they let this atrocity against our democratic rights
persist.
Neatest of all, absolute no one in Canada but my readers are
aware of what's at stake, that your own rights to find out about
your choices is now in the hands of the media controllers, that
all these rights are being taken away by a malevolent judiciary!
Or saddest of all.
Court File: 33319
Appeal Court No: 09-A-19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)
BETWEEN:
John C. Turmel
Applicant
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Respondent in appeal
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
TO A JUDGE OR THE REGISTRAR
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.73 of the Supreme Court Rules)
TAKE NOTICE that John Turmel hereby applies to a judge or
the Registrar pursuant to Section 73 of the Rules for an
Order granting leave to appeal in applications 33319.
And for any Order abridging the time for service, filing or
hearing of the motion, or amending any defect as to form or
content, or for any Order the said judge may deem just.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the said motion will be made on
the following grounds that allowing exempting debates from
the equitableness requirements of the CRTC for political
debates is an issue of national importance.
Dated at Brantford on Dec 19 2009
_______________________________
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
Email: johnt...@yahoo.com
ORIGINAL TO REGISTRAR:
COPY TO: The Respondent
John Keogh, Senior General Counsel
CRTC, 1 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, QU, J8X 4B1
Tel/fax: 819-953-3990/0589
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C. TURMEL
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.73 of the Supreme Court Rules)
I, John C. Turmel, make oath and say as follows:
1. In 1993, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the
equitableness requirements of the CRTC no longer applied to
debates because they had no partisan political impact.
2. This corruption of Canada's democratic process has never
been challenged in the Supreme Court until now and is of
national importance.
3. The exceedingly rare circumstance with so much at stake
in this first challenge to the exclusion of candidates from
debates makes this worthy of reconsideration.
Sworn before at Brantford on Dec 18 2009
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT FOR RECONSIDERATION
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to S.73 of the Supreme Court Rules)
1. scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=33319
is the SCC Case Information Summary for 33319 John C. Turmel
v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission which explains:
"relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Vezina
v. Canada Broadcasting Corporation (1993), 51 C.P.R. (3d)
192 (Ont. C.A.), the CRTC found that Rogers did not breach
the broadcasting requirements set out in s. 27(4) of the
Regulations because the provision does not apply to debate
programs. Therefore, it was within Rogers' discretion to
exclude participants from the debate..."
2. Appellant has been a political candidate since 1979 and
remembers when the protection of the CRTC equitableness
requirement ensured a fair share of election debate time.
Then, in 1993, Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Dubin,
McKinlay and Carthy ruled debates exempt from the CRTC's
equitable free-time requirement because debates do not have
a partisan political impact like ads do, a truly illogical
proposition. But, unappealed, the CRTC has adopted this
rationale that debates can still be democratic even when
some candidates get no access at all.
3. Exempting debates from being shared equitably is an issue
of national importance which is being raised at the Supreme
Court for the first time. Without reconsideration, Justices
McLachlin, Abella and Rothstein will be seen to have now
made official the new rules that debates are exempted from
the equitableness requirements of the CRTC and so candidates
do not have to be treated equitably any more.
4. Not only was my right as a candidate to my fair share of
the debate taken away by that ruling but my right as a voter
to hear all the choices on my ballot was also taken away. It
is exceedingly rare and of nationally importance to suffer
changes in the political rights of both voters and
candidates with so little debate.
5. Appellant hopes the court missed the crux of the issue
because it was focused on the reasons Rogers said they had
to exclude the candidate who would not comply with their
rules though the reason appealed against was the CRTC
relying on the CBC decision that debates did not have to be
equitably shared at all.
6. It was well-explained that Appellant could proffer the
videotape showing me removing my party button before Philp
ejected me. And once I had obeyed, of course, I could not
have been interrupting my own opening statement. And yet,
the Supreme Court Summary still noted:
"According to Rogers, Mr. Turmel was removed because he used
his opening statement to take issue with the moderator and
the debate format, he refused to remove a badge despite the
fact that debate rules prohibited him from wearing
promotional material, and he interrupted the opening remarks
of a fellow candidate."
7. By spending time on the Rogers reason, false or not, the
Court may have missed the crux issue, CRTC reliance on the
CBC decision for the discretion to not invite me at all. The
issue wasn't over whether or not they had good reason to
eject me for being a jerk but whether they have power to not
invite candidates at all, non-jerks too.
8. After all, during the Ottawa 1982 mayoral election, Marc
Gauvin was removed by police from a televised debate because
the rules called for all candidates to debate for the first
half and only the preferred two candidates for the second.
The CBC's rules said he couldn't play but the CRTC rules
said he merited equitable time. Now, no longer?
9. Perhaps Justices McLachlin, Abella and Rothstein fail to
appreciate how the "debates don't have to be equitable"
ethos which allows candidate exclusion from the TV screens
seems just the first step to allowing candidate exclusion
from the ballot.
10. As Canada's most-often court-accredited expert witness
in the Mathematics of Gambling, Appellant can only add that
if this court cannot see the corruption of the democratic
process with the exempting of debates from the equitableness
requirements in free time allocation for political
broadcasting, they cannot merit being called "Justice" in a
democracy.
11. The Ontario Court of Appeal killed Canada's democracy.
Let not the Supreme Court preside over the funeral.
Dated at Brantford on Dec 19 2009
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
JCT: So we'll get the Crown's answer in 10 days why TV
debates no longer having to be shared equitably by "all"
rival candidates from the old days when they did have to be
shared by all rival candidates don't deserve to be discussed
a second time.
Isn't it incredible the grand topics I get to fight over.
Usury, democracy, rights to gambling, sex, drugs, rock&roll,
and the weird: right not be treated like an inmate before
conviction.
Anyway, videos are going be going up soon with the backlog
of events, so stay tuned on the events at my wall at
http://facebook.com/john.turmel