TURMEL: Supreme Court allows Inmate Appeal for Non-Inmate Jim Turner
KingofthePaupers
says that Non-Inmate Jim Turner's Appeal at the Supreme Court of
Canada against having an Inmate Appeal is dismissed without
costs.
And there was a switch of judges! Relacing the Chief Justice was
"Bad" Binnie J.SCC, he who killed my ready-to-go-to-3-judges
POLCOA because one exhibit had been filed late! And of course,
Rothstein J.SCC we know from past bad decisions, and sadly,
Louise Charron, who once prosecuted me for keeping a common
gaming house successfully in the early 1980s as Crown in Ottawa,
throwing any good she ever did in this one.
Binnie, Rothstein and Charron allow an Inmate Appeal for Non-
Inmate Jim Turner. Har har har har. Can't wait to see how they
framed the issue since we didn't even mention the original issue
below, just the impropriety of processing a non-inmate in Inmate
Court. That's at the summary. When you click on summary to see
how they explained the issue, I got:
SCC Case Information
Summary
33365
James Earl Turner v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Keywords
Procedural Law.
Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the
Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes
only.
Appeals - Criminal proceedings - Procedure - Whether Registrar of
Court of Appeal erred in scheduling appeal without compliance
with court rules governing filing of transcripts, filing of a
factum, perfection of appeals and proof of service - Whether
Court of Appeal erred by applying rules that govern inmate
appeals - Whether Court of Appeal erred by dismissing an inmate's
application for leave to appeal when no inmate application for
leave to appeal had been filed by a non-inmate appellant -
Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal as abandoned.
JCT: Har har har har. Their procedure is to publish the issues
raised in the Notice of Application. Incredible.
"On September 28, 2006, the Applicant was charged with possession
of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, production of
marijuana, and possession of proceeds of property obtained by
crime. He applied for prohibition against prosecution of all
marijuana charges against him and a declaration that the Minister
of Justice was in contempt of court.
JCT: Sure that's what happened in Superior Court but what
happened in the Court of Appeal? That's where the non-inmate was
slipped into the Inmate stream and there's not a word about the
facts behind the issue.
Maybe the Supreme Court missed what the issue was? Of course,
their deletions show intent to deceive and do deceive so we can
understand why there's not a word about processing a non-inmate
in Inmate Court if they're not even going to mention it.
JCT: So the Supreme Court of Canada has found that it's not
important enough:
"Whether the Registrar of Court of Appeal erred in scheduling
appeal without compliance with court rules governing filing of
transcripts, filing of a factum, perfection of appeals and proof
of service
JCT: Not only is there the slight paraphrasing, they deleted "for
non-inmate appeals." Again, deleting the crux of the issue. Of
course, the Registrar did not err in scheduling the hearing
without compliance to the non-inmate rules when this non-inmate
was being processed with Inmate restrictions. So the deletion
does hide the meaning of the issue.
And who cares if the Ontario Court of Appeal is working with non-
perfected documentation? We know they don't even need to have the
Criminal Code reprinted when laws are struck down, these learned
Ontario justices say the judges will remember which written laws
are valid and which have been struck won. So who needs perfectedb
documentation for these Ontario highest court judges? That's not
important is it? Why should the registrar comply with the court
rules? Why should the Supreme Court of Canada be interested just
because the lower court didn't follow the rules? They have
important issues to deal with.
"Whether Court of Appeal erred by applying rules that govern
inmate appeals
JCT: Not quite verbatim but paraphrase is accurate. I should have
not left the "when the inmate appeals rules do not apply" implied
when I could have said "for a non-inmate" again.
"Whether Court of Appeal erred by dismissing an inmate's
application for leave to appeal when no inmate application for
leave to appeal had been filed by a non-inmate appellant
JCT: Finally, "non-inmate". About time the clue gets out.
"Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal as abandoned.
JCT: They left out the punch line: "because the guards couldn't
find the prisoner," again hiding the true meaning of the case.
There's too much deletion to be an judicial accident, and with
those deletions showing intent to deceive about what the issue
really is, reconsideration will be tougher to get. Let's face it,
by not including what happened at the Court of Appeal in the
facts, only what happened below which Jim's not complaining
about, by suppressing the facts and the issue, we can't say it
was mere ignorance or stupidity. The suppression of the facts to
help hide the suppression of the issue hints at crookedness.
Anyway, Jim's got until Jan 16 to file his motion for
reconsideration, 10 more days for the Crown to respond (Har har
har, maximum workload) and 10 more days for us to put the final
boots to them all before it's over.
Jim's in court tomorrow and will have to have things put off a
little longer before he's back from the top on the Inmate Issue
to play his first POLCOA quash hand with the new Ace of
Sfetkopoulos.