TURMEL: Parker MedPot Magnificent Seven Reply at Supreme Court

[KingofthePaupers]

Parker MedPot Magnificent Seven Reply at Supreme Court

JCT: Here's Terrance Parker's Reply to the Crown's Response
to the applications of the MedPot Magnificent Seven
Exemptees to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now it all gets
sent to the 3 judges to decide whether it's important enough
a national issue to be considered.

File Number: #34756
Appeal Court No: C51187
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)
BETWEEN:
Terrance Parker
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent in appeal

APPLICANT'S REPLY
TERRANCE PARKER, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules Supreme Court)

1. Given the similar nature of the arguments, the Applicant's
Memorandum of Argument was adopted by Applicants of Rob
McCrady 34751, Wayne Hearn 34747, Sean Maloney 34755,
(convicted of Possession, Cultivation, Possession for the
Purpose of Trafficking respectively) Gary Pallister 34748,
Mark MacDonald 34749, Debra McIntyre 34750 (charged and
seeking declaratory relief citing the Crown for contempt and
expunging all bogus convictions registered while the Exemption
was invalid). So too, this Reply of Terrance Parker will deal
with the Crown's Responses to all the arguments and be adopted
by all Applicants.

BENO: J.P. ruled: Bad Exemption = No Offence
2. In the Facts listed in Crown's Response, they skip from the
2003 Hitzig decision to 2006 when Canada Post seized Parker's
marihuana omitting:
1) the 2003 J.P. decision which ruled the Bad Exemption caused
by the supply flaws found in Hitzig meant No Possession
Offence during the 2-year period the exemption was flawed when
J.P. was charged and stayed his possession charge;
2) the reintroduction of the two flawed sections found by
Hitzig which were later found in Sfetkopoulos and Beren to
have flawed the MMAR once again.

3. The Crown stresses how the Sfetkopoulos and Beren decisions
finding the Bad Exemption did not rule No Offence and the
Applicants stress that the courts were not asked to do so as
the court was asked to so by J.P. Yet, Crown Attorney Sean
Gaudet's Memorandum in Sfetkopoulos v. Canada stated:
"[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."

4. The recent Mernagh decision following the J.P. decision
ruled No Offence when it was found that the lack of doctor
participation meant there was a Bad Exemption.

5. In Paragraph 11 of the Parker Response, the Crown wrote:
"11. The Applicant's argument was "that the combined effect of
Parker (2000) and Hitzig (2003) was that all marijuana
offences had been completely repealed.
18. The Applicant's assertion that the marijuana offences in
the CDSA were repealed by the decisions..

6. This is a lie. Para.50 of Parker's Memorandum responded:
"50. Not all. Just Possession."

7. Parker and McCrady assert only the possession offence was
repealed by Parker. Hearn, Pallister, MacDonald, McIntyre
assert the possession and cultivation offences were repealed
by Krieger. Maloney alone asserts the Possession for the
Purpose of Trafficking Offence should be repealed for reasons
other than those argued in Turmel in 2007.

8. Terry Parker did not say the combined effect of Parker and
Hitzig was that all marijuana offences had been repealed, only
the S.4(1) possession offence. Why would Parker whose court
only invalidated S.4(1) possession offence with respect to him
and who now seeks only to possess his marijuana, be
challenging "all" other sections that have nothing to do with
his application to possess?

9. The Crown warps the English language:
"15. The determination that the marijuana offences in the CDSA
have not been repealed but remain" in full force and effect" "
20. The Applicant's argument is based on a misreading of the
law. The marihuana offences remain "in full force and effect."

10. "Remain" what it didn't used to be? How could the
possession offence remain in full force after J.P. ruled it
had not been in full force during the Parker-Hitzig 2 years
when the Crown dropped all remaining possession charges? Once
the offence was invalid, English allows it to "remain invalid'
but not "remain valid."

A) POLCOA: Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate;

11. Ignoring S.43(a) of the Interpretation Act:
"CR: 16. Similarly, in a number of other decisions the Court
of Appeal for Ontario explained, yet again, its reasons for
upholding the existence of the marihuana offences. (McCrady)
In short, the Court of Appeal has held that the combined
effect of Hitzig, J.P., Sfetkopoulos, Beren and/or Krieger
decisions do not repeal the marijuana prohibitions.
17. This Court, moreover, has already refused leave twice to
applicants who have unsuccessfully challenged the validity of
the existing marijuana offences on the grounds that their
access to marijuana for medical purposes. More particularly,
in both cases the argument that declarations of constitutional
invalidity amounted to a repeal of the marijuana offences has
already been rejected by this Court.
Turmel (2007) Martin (2010)

12. Turmel dealt with Possession for the Purpose of
Trafficking and Martin dealt with Cultivation. Neither dealt
with the Possession Section 4(1) that Applicants Terry Parker
and Robert McCrady were charged with. And despite court
decisions that the Ontario Court of Appeal resurrected the
possession prohibition in the CDSA when it amended the supply
sections in the MMAR, Defendants in provinces are still
looking their judges in the eye to say: S.43(a) of the
Interpretation Act says: Where an enactment is repealed in
whole or in part, [in the MMAR] the repeal does not revive any
enactment or anything not in force [in the CDSA] at the time
when the repeal takes effect." The court couldn't revive
something in the CDSA by fixing the MMAR even if it said so.

MINIMAL EFFORT TO COMPLY
13. "CR: 13. Applicant's assertion that the Court of Appeal
erred in finding that he made minimal effort to comply with
the MMAR does not raise an issue of national or public
importance."

14. Applicant did not assert the court erred in finding that
he made minimal effort. He asked his doctor who whose medical
association advised him to refuse. The court erred in finding
that his minimal effort was insufficient, not too minimal.

EVIDENCE OF NO DOCTORS
15. "CR: 19.. In this case, the Applicant asserted at the
Court of Appeal that only one in 60 doctors participated in
the MMAR scheme thus making it impossible to secure an
exemption. The Court of Appeal noted that a similar argument
was raised before Clements J. who dismissed the Applicant's
argument on the basis that there was a lack of evidence."

16. Applicant Memorandum Paragraph 68 wrote:
"68. The Court failed to note that in the Affidavit of Health
Canada's Carole Bouchard Para 8, Jan 16 2007 Appeal Book Vol 1
Tab 13 says: "As of Nov 3 2006, 705 (1,603) persons in Ontario
(Canada) have an authorization to possess marihuana for
medical purposes supported by 431 practitioners." The Ontario
College of Physicians had 27,128 licensed doctors 2007.
27,128/431 = 62.9. 1 in 63 doctors.

17. There was evidence of only 1 in 60 Ontario doctors
participating in the MMAR in the record below though it's
unfathomable how the Crown could now repeat the lie there was
no evidence for the lack of doctors in the record below.

HITZIG 170: Establish medical need to simply be exempt
18. The Crown has completely avoided the precedents set in
Parker, Krieger, Dupuis of establishing medical need to a
court to simply be exempt. All the Appellants have established
need by obtaining MMAR exemptions except for Parker who could
never qualify though having previously obtained Court-granted
constitutional and Minister-granted S.56 exemptions. McCrady
established medical need by getting his doctor to sign even
before being charged. There's something inherently wrong with
a regime that takes months to authorize prescribed treatment.

SUSPENSION EFFECT BACKWARD
19. In the Crown Response to McCrady:
"CR: 5. The Court of Appeal also found that, on the facts,
"the period of retroactive invalidity that the appellants
argue for would not apply to any of them."

20. Applicant had pointed out in Issue E of the Memorandum:
"E) WHETHER MMAR CONSTITUTIONAL DURING BEREN SUSPENSION that
Applicants claim retrospective invalidity backward from the
date of the Beren ruling fixing both the S.41 and S.54 defects
on Mar 4 2010. Being charged during the suspension before the
Beren decision took effect to fix the problems is analogous to
being charged during the 2 years before the Hitzig decision
fixed the problems! And all those remaining possession charges
were dropped by the Crown! They left that out of their facts
too. So the Court of Appeal got the effect of the being
charged while the law was still flawed backward and the Crown
wants this court to follow suit.

NO DOCTOR FOR PARKER!
21. The Crown has completely ducked the fact that the Parker
decision demanded a regime that would exempt Parker. That his
doctors' association won't let him participate makes the
exemption illusory for the one person in Canada who should
have ended up exempted.

NO PUBLIC OR NATIONAL IMPORTANCE
22. "CR: His arguments do not raise issues of public or
national importance that would justify this Court's
consideration."

23. Epilepsy.ca cited 4 deaths every day from Canada's 400,000
known epileptics in 2000, 1,500 out of 3,600 fatal seizures
every year. When the Parker Court ruled that prohibition of
possession of Parker's anti-epilepsy medication violated his
right to life, they ensured his right to life during the 1-
year suspension of its decision striking down the prohibition
with a 1-year personal exemption but let another 1,500
Canadian epileptics die during the suspension.

24. Given the ten or twenty thousand exemptions issued to
date, there's no way that 1% of Canada's epileptic population,
4,000, have been exempted and the prohibition genocide has
gone on over the past dozen years resulting in 18,000
unnecessary epileptic deaths despite the watchful eye of the
courts upholding the right to life of the 99% who remain
unexempted. That's 18,000 epileptics deaths due the bunglings
of the courts in protecting their right to life. After more
than a decade, 99% remain unprotected! No epileptic should be
without a cannabis joint or other more acceptable delivery
option. No set of application rules should have left any
epileptic unexempted. And no prohibition against marijuana can
exist while the majority of Canada's epileptics remain
unexempted.

25. That any court could judge performance in the protection
of Canada's epileptics right to life as acceptable brings the
administration of justice into disrepute. The courts have
blood on their hands and it's time to end the bloodbath.

Dated at Toronto on Monday _________________, 2012.
__________________________
For the Applicant:
Terrance Parker
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ontario, M6R-2H6
Tel: 416-533-7756
Fax: 519-753-0645
E: terryp...@sympatico.ca

TO: Registrar of this Court

AND TO: Victor J. Paolone
Department of Justice,
3400-130 King St. W.
Box 36 Toronto M5X 1K6
Tel/fax: 416-973-9741/4323
E: Victor....@justice.gc.ca
Counsel for the Respondent
Attorney General of Canada

JCT: That's all folks!