TURMEL: Crown Response to Parker Claim for Seized Medpot at Supreme Court

[KingofthePaupers]

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

RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
(Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules Supreme Court)
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM

CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Overview

1. This is the third time that this Court is being asked to
consider the marijuana offences in the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (CDSA) have been repealed by virtue of lower
court decisions. As with two other cases, there is no issue of
public importance that warrants further review by this Court
and this application should be dismissed.

2. The Applicant also seeks to have this Court review the
lower court's finding of fact that he made minimal efforts to
comply with the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
which lead to the determination that the Applicant was not
lawfully entitled to possess marijuana under the existing
statutory scheme.

JCT: Proving the scheme failed to comply with the Parker Court
ruling to exempt Terry Parker!

CR: This Court is not a court of error. The discretionary
factual findings of the lower court therefore do not give ruse
to an issue of public or national importance that would
justify this Court's consideration.

JCT: 18,000 Dead Epileptics since Parker won his 1-year
Court of Appeal- and Pitt-granted exemptions.

CR: The findings of the courts below were both reasonable and
correct.

B. Facts

3. The Applicant has epilepsy. He has used marihuana to
alleviate his symptoms since 1969. His quest for legal access
to marihuana started in 1987 when he was charged with one
count of simple possession. In his defence, he submitted an
opinion from his treating physician that expressed the view
that his use of marihuana was medically necessary. The trial
court agreed. The Applicant was not convicted.

JCT: What happened? Quashed? Stayed, Not Guilty?

CR: 4. In 1997, the Applicant was tried on three related
charges: one count of simple possession; one count of
possession for the purpose of trafficking; and one count for
cultivation. As part of his defence, the Applicant challenged
the marihuana prohibitions under the Narcotic Control Act and
the CDSA arguing that they infringed his rights under S.7 of
the Charter. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal
agreed. As a result the federal government enacted the MMAR.
The regulations came in force on July 30, 2001 and created a
process

JCT: "that didn't work" later said the Hitzig Court

CR: allowing individuals to possess and produce marihuana for
their medical needs.

5. On Mar 12, 2002, the Applicant, together with applications
brought in the matter of Hitzig v. Canada, argued that the
MMAR, as drafted, did not provide for an adequate source or
supply of their medicine. Lederman J. agreed. The Court of
Appeal also agreed and "determined that the MMAR were
constitutionally defective insofar as they did not provide for
reasonable access to a legal source of supply of marihuana for
medical purposes."

6. The federal government responded by passing the Regulations
Amending the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, which
enabled the Government to supply dried marihuana directly to
those individuals authorized to possess it for their medical
needs.

7. In April 2006, a package of marihuana addressed to the
Applicant was seized by Canada Post and turned over to the
Peel Regional Police. The Applicant brought application, which
is now the subject of this leave application, for the return
of the marijuana. He argues once again that the marijuana
offences have been repealed by case law.

JCT: Pursuant to S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act which says
an act declared of no force by a court is deemed to have been
repealed. Pretty simple English unless you're a lawyer or a
judge.

CR: C. The Courts below

8. By notice of application dated June 2, 2006, the Applicant
sought an Order under s.24 of the CDSA for the return of
marihuana seized from him. The basis of his application was
that he was legally entitled to possess marihuana for legal
purposes.

9. The application was dismissed by Clements J. on Dec 07
2007. Clements J. found that the MMAR and CDSA were
constitutionally valid, and therefore, the Applicant was not
exempt from compliance with the MMAR.

10. The Applicant appealed the dismissal by Clements J. to the
Superior Court of Justice. The appeal was dismissed by Tulloch
J. on Se. 30 2009. Tulloch J. found the MMAR and CDSA were
constitutionally valid and therefore the Applicant was not
exempt from compliance with the MMAR.

JCT: And because the Applicant Parker was not exempt, the MMAR
was not compliant with the Parker decision to exempt him.

CR: 11. The Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario. The Applicant's argument was "that the combined
effect of Parker (2000) and Hitzig (2003) was that all
marijuana offences had been completely repealed.

JCT: This is a lie. 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 by
Parker and Hitzig and only the S.7(1) cultivation offence was
invalidated by Krieger (2003) and Hitzig. The Crown has
repeated this lie so many times that the less discerning
courts below have even repeated it too.
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 the other
sections that have nothing to do with his application? Har har
har har har.

CR: 12. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding:
[23].. This argument is based on a misreading of the law..
[24].. In R. v. Turmel (2003) released concurrently with
Hitzig and J.P.

JCT: And Parker! They forgot the Hitzig and others appeal was
originally called Parker and others! And not only was the
original Appellant in the Parker, Hitzig, Turmel, J.P.
switched out of the headline, now he's been dropped out of
that game and he's now in this game. Imagine that.

Check out the Style of Cause on June 25 2003 that had been
ordered to list Terry Parker first!
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/parkerM29602.htm
The Justices Doherty, Simmons and Goudge surreptitiously
switched the names on the style of cause in the back rooms
with no Order overturning the decision of the earlier judge to
list Parker first. Back-room dirty dealings at the Ontario
Court of Appeal. And Alan Young's Hitzig case that did not
launch the appeal made the "justice" books and John Turmel's
true Terry Parker case got switched out by the backroom trio
who now, after 9 years, have almost 15,000 dead epileptics to
their K-slab. Har har har har. Sure, judges and lawyers may
not be very good at math but future generations get how their
tricking Canada's epileptic 400,000 population into thinking
they had brought the prohibition on their medicine back into
force despite S.43 of the Interpretation Act cause those extra
15,000 epileptic deaths. Looks good on them.

CR: [25] Following Hitzig and Turmel (2003) this court has
repeatedly confirmed that the marijuana offences in the CDSA
remain in full force.

JCT: It's pretty funny to say that the offences remain in full
force after admitting in J.P. that the marijuana offences were
not been in full force during the Parker-Hitzig 2 years. Har
har har. Once they were invalid, they could remained invalid,
but they can now not have "remained" valid! Har har har har.

CR: See for example R. v. Turmel (2007) at para.2; R. v. Real
Martin (2010) paras.6-8; and R. v. Ethier at paras.3-4.

JCT: I don't care how many times they want to repeat their
errors.

CR: [26] Clements J. properly rejected the appellant's
argument as a reason why he should be considered lawfully
entitled to possess marihuana.

JCT: The Parker ruling said so and make it up to the
government to find a way to comply; and so far, not yet.

CR: Tulloch J. was correct that Clements J. made no error of
law in this respect.

13. The appeal was dismissed on Dec. 22 2011. The Applicant
now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.

PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE

14. The only issue to be determined in this application is
whether the decisions of the courts below raise an issue of
national or public importance or an important issue of law
that ought to be considered by the Court.

PART III - ARGUMENT

A. The Legal Issue is Settled

15. The determination that the marijuana offences in the CDSA
have not been repealed but remain" in full force and effect"

JCT: "remain" what it didn't used to be. Har har har har har.

CR: was a straightforward application of existing law which
was adequately dealt with by the court below; that is to say,
the marihuana offences in the CDSA remain in full force

JCT: After not having been in full force. If he repeats, I do
and the power to change that rests solely with Parliament. And
the courts which may declare bad laws of no force so they're
deemed to have been repealed. I guess the Crown forgot the
courts can too. Har har har.

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.
R. v. McCrady

JCT: Yes, it explained its reasons for resurrecting the
marijuana offences without the help of Parliament.

CR: In particular, is has noted that in Hitzig and J.P., the
marijuana prohibitions in the CDSA were held to "remain" in
full force;

JCT: If they pretend it "remained" in full force, they can
ignore it was not in full force between 2001-3. Same lie
again. It did not "remain" in force, it became "in force." I
think I'm going to call the government a liar in this one.

CR: and, similarly, that the Federal Court's decision in Beren
and the British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in
Sfetkopoulos also found no provision in the CDSA to be
invalid.

JCT: Not having been asked to do so.... They've got the wrong
courts for the Beren and Sfetkopoulos decisions.

CR: 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.

18. The Applicant's assertion that the marijuana offences in
the CDSA

JCT: The possession offence

CR: were repealed by the decisions in Hitzig, J.P.,
Sfetkopoulos, Beren and/or Krieger is therefore fundamentally
misconceived. Courts can read legislation down, read elements
into it, or declare it to be of no force and effect.

JCT: And S.2(2) of the Interpretation Act says: 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. Har har har har har har. I guess
government lawyers forgot.

CR: B. Finding of Fact is Not an Issue Warranting Review

19. The 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.

JCT: Applicant did not assert the court erred in finding that
he made minimal effort. He did. The court erred in finding
that that minimal effort was insufficient, not minimal.

CR: In this case, the Applicant asserted at the Court of
Appeal that only one in 60 doctors participated in the MMAR
scheme

JCT: In Ontario, 431 out of 27,000, that's 1/63.

CR: 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.

JCT: And of course, there was the evidence in the discoveries
of 431 doctors out of 27,000.

CR: This was a discretionary, factual finding which this Court
need not review. Issues that turn on the specific and unique
facts of a case do not give rise to any issue of public
importance, particularly when settled jurisprudence answers
all legal issues.

JCT: The unique facts of this case do give rise to an issue of
public importance since they relate to the Terry Parker whose
personal facts show that the MMAR did not comply with the
original Parker ruling.

CR: C. Conclusion

20. The Applicant's argument is based on a misreading of the
law. The marihuana offences remain "in full force and effect"

JCT: They remain valid after being invalid? Har har har.

CR: based on well-settled principles of law, and therefore,
the applicant's argument does not raise any issue of national
or public importance.

PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

21. Nothing raised in this application rebuts the usual rule
that costs should follow the cause.

PART V - NATURE OF ORDER SOUGHT

22. The Respondent requests that the application for leave to
appeal be dismissed with costs.

Victor J. Paolone
Of Counsel for the Respondent
Her Majesty The Queen

JCT: Not so majestic a pack of lies. Notice they dealt with
not one issue raised by Parker. Not one. All they said was
that it had been dismissed before and below and it should be
dismissed again. But not one point on S.43 POLCOA, Mernagh
BENO, whether Parker had to be exempted for the exemption
system to be declared successful. Throw in a few lies and
that's the government's case.

Here's the text of Parker's Magnificent Seven Memorandum
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/4160 and the
video of my reading it in at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSV5e5EsAXQ

And their only answer was their screwing up and killing 18,000
epileptics over the past 12 years isn't of national or public
importance. Har har har har.