TURMEL REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION FOR
HITZIG PROHIBITION RESURRECTION OPINION
DEC 23 2004
Surprise strike while the iron is hot
JCT: It's when your opponent is down or in retreat that you have your best chance to finish him off. Poor Christopher Csomor is trying to finish his TURMEL documentary and new big events keep popping up that he has to capture. When I saw how quickly the Crown caved in when faced with Mike South's signed Notice of Application to cite the Attorney General's Frankel Gang for abuse of process and contempt of court, I asked myself how I could increase their discomfort by more than merely coming back at them again next week in Ontario's highest court? How could I escalate the skirmish to all-out end-game war? Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act. Coming back at them not only in Ontario's highest court but also in Canada's highest court too? But who's got a ticket to get in at the top? Oh. I do. I've got two. With Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act.
Their weak point is S. David Frankel. When Sumbitch David Frankel comes down, the whole prohibitionist edifice comes down with him. He's the lynch-pin. Knock him off his pedestal and it's all over.
I'd been saving the Section 65.1(1) card for just the right moment, the right event, and I think the time is ripe to turn up my hole card and use Section 65.1(1) to sap the Frankel Gang's King St. tower?
When Mike had come back for his last session after his talk with the Duty Defence Counsel, he was so depressed at his chances for release that he made a throat-slitting gesture of despair. Imagine an out-of-town loner being thrust in between a bunch of prison gangs. Imagine your walk into a commons room with 30 guys grouped in gangs? Most not of your color! Talk about scary. For handling herb?
The Frankel Gang put lots of people through the same hell and they're going to have a lot of explaining to do to all those lots and lots of Canadians really really soon. I can't wait until lots and lots of Canadians are calling for their heads in stocks. They'll be the patsies; certainly not Minister Anne McLellan who'll probably beat the rap pleading ignorance. Section 65.1(1)'s going to hit them where it hurts.
Sitting there expecting to be sent back to hell, Mike says Ms. Maunder then came over to tell him that the Crown were suddenly giving up their objections to his release. He was getting out. In an instant, he went from the depths of despair to the heights of elation. So can anyone blame him for not handing up the Frankel Motion now that he was being told he was getting out and the nightmare was over?
And yet, the thrill of seeing this Crown cave-in still comes second to the Crown's cave-in when they had to get Parker an exemption before he could reach a judge in 2 hours. Talk about hot-footing it from Ottawa to Toronto and the court.
And they are only delaying the judgment day. Till the next person moves. Oh, right, now the next person is The Engineer personally in an even higher arena! Section 65.1(1) lets me do that!
My complaint is that: 1) they admitted they victimized Canadians after the prohibition had become invalid and have not corrected it; 2) they disrespect the Alberta and Canada Court Orders by continuing to victimize Canadians on the basis of an Ontario Hitzig-Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette Resurrection Opinion.
So, pending leave to appeal against the Hitzig resurrection Opinion even being granted, what is in Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act that I kept up my sleeve for so long that I can trigger now? Merry Christmas, here's a motion to empty the jails by New Year using Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act, the only chance to drag the Ministry of Justice before a Court of Justice over their admitted injustice before New Year.
So what does Section 65.1(1) say?
"Stay of execution -- application for leave to appeal 65.1 (1) The Court, the court appealed from or a judge of either of those courts may, on the request of the party who has served and filed a notice of application for leave to appeal, order that proceedings be stayed with respect to the judgment from which leave to appeal is being sought, on the terms deemed appropriate."
JCT: Who thinks I should go ask Doherty, Simmons or Goudge of the Ontario court appealed from for a stay of their Hitzig resurrection? Would be fun, actually. I could have asked Goudge this week, Simmons last week, but I prefer asking a Supreme Court of Canada judge next week.
What happens if a judge at the top stays the Hitzig resurrection? Har har har har. What a predicament for every Crown Attorney now using it to rationalize abetting their bosses in the Frankel Gang. And they have to explain their reasons why they don't want Hitzig to be stayed. The Crown has to explain why they love Alan Young's Hitzig-Myrden case so much!
And of course, in my Turmel v. Hitzig appeal #30570, I've asked for an Order of Mandamus dropping all charges and emptying all jails, so I'm now merely extending that thought and reversing the onus by asking for a contempt citation while there remain any victims of the Frankel Gang's Bogus Charges Scandal in custody.
Mike South's trek through hell reminded me it was time to focus on all the prisoners who pose no threat to me or my society but who are being physically threatened by a government-provided environment. Scares me almost as bad as government-sponsored flu-shots.
Once again, "Surprise!": 65.1 (1) The Court may order that proceedings be stayed with respect to the judgment from which leave to appeal is being sought on the request of the party who has served and filed a notice of application for leave to appeal.
That's me. I called the Court Registrar and was told I have until 5pm tomorrow evening to file my Record of Application to 1) Stay the Hitzig Resurrection Opinion and 2) cite the Crown for contempt of the Supreme Court's Order supporting the highest court in Alberta striking down the S.7 and S.4 prohibitions against marijuana in the CDSA.
Har har har har. They ducked the beating with the Krieger Contempt bat by the kid or the lawyer in Ontario's highest court and now they're going to take their beating in Canada's highest court by the Engineer who built the bat. Har har har har. And who knows how to make it hurt the most. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.
I can apply for an order that the Hitzig Resurrection proceedings be stayed. Normally they get 10 days to respond but I can ask the Court to expedite the hearing since they've been up on the documentation longer than all of us, since the first abuse. We all witnessed several of my appeals all being expedited into the Big Five at the Ontario Court of Appeal, it seems no problem if you've got the nerve to ask.
Of course, this has to be addressed to Chief Justice McLaughlin who was on the Krieger panel whose Order is being personally disrespected by the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps we can get the Krieger Coram of 3 judges to hear why the Ministry of Justice has continued prosecuting Canadians under these obviously repealed statutes?
I think the motion to expedite the end of the travesty of the Frankel Gang's Bogus Charges Scandal should be granted on the grounds of national importance. Of course, right now, it's only me saying it is so with the mighty Crown saying it isn't. No one else's voice has been raised on the matter in her ears. Maybe some other citizens may also write the Chief Justice urging her to consider the Bogus Charges Scandal a matter of national importance too.
It's time for the Supreme Court of Canada to accept the need for expediency to end any further abuse of the court's process by renegade elements in the Ministry of Justice. The Crowns who knew the law was dead with him should come down, maybe even the Crowns who had heard and continued to abuse the process without checking whether the law was dead. Most are going to feel censured for being chicken but whether cowardice merits being fired is not for me to determine. But those who worked toward the ignoble ends of the Frankel Gang may merit such punishment up to and including charges under the Criminal Code of Canada for "mischief" or "genocide." After all, they improperly kept a life-saving medicine away from people who needed it, didn't they? 3000 known dead epileptics in the 2 years since Krieger Day on Dec. 4 2002.
Should the Frankel Gang walk? Not when bringing the Frankel Gang down is the new name of the game. I'm going to use the exact same documentation as in Mike South's Application for Contempt Citation. It's all based on S. David Frankel's admission of culpability for knowing the statutes had been repealed and failing to do his job of informing the Canadian police services of that fact.
All those Crown Attorneys who read Krieger and now argue against it become accessories after the fact. Realizing that the Frankel Gang of top-court shysters and the media covered it up from even them in the trenches, refusal to prosecute is their only way out.
We need a revolt of Crown Attorneys who don't want to lose their jobs just because they were lied to by the pros. We need honorable Crown Attorneys to refuse to abuse the process by prosecuting marijuana cases once the Krieger and Parker invalidations have incontestably rendered sections 4 & 7 of no force and effect. Wouldn't a revolt of Crown Attorneys go good now? Wouldn't a revolt by rank and file Crown Attorneys take the Frankel Gang at the top of their King St. Tower by surprise? Time for a surprise strike while the iron is hot.
FRIDAY DECEMBER 24 2004 ------------------------
Frankel Gang get very non-merry Christmas
JCT: Today, I served and filed my request to stay the Hitzig Resurrection Opinion pursuant to S.65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act and cite the Frankel gang for abuse and contempt of court.
File Number: #30570
Appeal Court No: 39740
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
John C. Turmel
Requester
Applicant for leave
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Respondent for leave
Respondent in appeal
NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act)
TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John C. Turmel requests pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act in forma pauperis:
1) an Order staying the Oct 07 2003 judgment of Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig- Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette #39740 on the grounds that the Hitzig decision ruling on S.4 did not deal with the Krieger S.7 repeal but is cited as basis for continued prosecutions under all sections;
2) an Order, in the absence of proof that all inmates convicted since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have been released, citing the Ministry of Justice for abuse of the process and in contempt of the Ontario and Alberta Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parker and R. v. Krieger on the grounds Crown Attorney S. David Frankel acknowledged that the S.7 Cultivation and S.4 Possession prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court in Alberta but did not dutifully inform Canada's Law Enforcement to cease and desist arrests under the repealed statutes.
3) an Order expediting any response from the Crown in order to empty the jails by New Year and reduce future injustices on the grounds the Crown has had months to ready for this adjudication and will suffer no prejudice by such expedition.
AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT should a hearing of the request be ordered, Requester seeks approval to turn on a portable tape recorder pursuant to S.136 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act which states that "nothing prohibits a party acting in person from unobtrusively making an audio recording of the court hearing for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes in the manner that has been approved by the judge;" or for any other manner of audio-taping deemed preferable by the court.
AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to form or content of the application, or for any Order deemed just.
Documentation to be used:
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4.........(A1) App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7...(A2) App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article............(A4) App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article...............(A5) App.5: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause.......(A6) App.6: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill..........(A7) App.7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix........(A8) App.8: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day.....(A10) App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day.......(A12) App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order...(A13) App.11: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more.........(A15) App.12: 2004 Nov 22 AIDS Society decries exemption absence..(A16)
Dated at Brantford on Friday Dec 24 2004 _________________________________ For the Requester/Applicant John C. Turmel, B. Eng.: johnturmel@yahoo.com
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
(Pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act)
OVERVIEW:
In the Crown Memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada in Krieger, Queen's Counsel S. David Frankel acknowledged knowing that "[57 AS MATTERS NOW STAND S.7(1) HAS BEEN DECLARED OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN ALBERTA" and knowing that the highest court of Alberta had struck down the marijuana prohibitions, did not instruct Law Enforcement to cease charging Canadians under the invalid statutes. Deliberately.
PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. On Aug. 1 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal's Parker decision which ruled the prohibition on marijuana in S. 4 of the CDSA to be invalid absent a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption took effect when the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) failed to remedy that absence within 1 year. App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4.........(A1) http://turmelpress.com/parkero1.jpg
2. On Dec. 11 2000, Alberta Judge Acton in R. v. Krieger ruled:
"[44] 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... [55] 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." Krieger Application for Leave to Appeal SCC #29569 www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf
3. On Dec 04 2002 the Alberta Court of Appeal sustained the Acton repeal of prohibition in S.7 and Parliament has never since re- enacted any new prohibitions. App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7...(A2) www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf
4. The Calgary Herald and Sun 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.. App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article............(A4) http://turmelpress.com/kriegher.htm App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article...............(A5) http://turmelpress.com/kriegsun.htm
5. On May 16 in 2003, the Crown's Memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada in Krieger, Queen's Counsel S. David Frankel pleaded for leave to appeal because "[57 AS MATTERS NOW STAND S.7(1) HAS BEEN DECLARED OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN ALBERTA." Crown Attorney S. David Frankel, Q.C., knew that the marijuana prohibitions in S.7 (and by implication S.4) of the CDSA had been declared of no force and effect by the highest court in Alberta on Dec 04 2002 and did not so inform Canada's police services. App.5: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause.......(A6) http://turmelpress.com/frankel.jpg
6. On May 14 2003, John Turmel holds back marijuana bill with 7 pounds of marijuana. S.7 nor S.4 were ever re-enacted. App.6: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill..........(A7) http://turmelpress.com/hillbust.jpg
7. On Oct 07 2003, the Hitzig-Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette appeal ruling fix the repealed MMAR. No mention of CDSA. App.7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix........(A8) http://turmelpress.com/hitzigo1.jpg http://turmelpress.com/hitzigo2.jpg
8. On Oct 07 2003, the Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for the declaration that prohibition was repealed on Terry Parker Parker Day App.8: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day.....(A10) http://turmelpress.com/turmelo1.jpg http://turmelpress.com/turmelo2.jpg
9. On Dec. 08 2003, the Crown stayed the remaining 4000 pot charges laid since Terry Parker Day till Hitzig Day. App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day.......(A12) http://turmelpress.com/stay4000.htm
10. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown's application for leave to appeal the striking down of the marijuana prohibitions by Alberta's highest court. App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order...(A13) http://turmelpress.com/kriegscc.jpg http://turmelpress.com/kriegsc2.htm
11. On April Fools 2004, John Turmel demanded the Attorney General redress the injustice done to those convicted under the invalid sections with no result. App.11: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more.........(A15) http://turmelpress.com/ag01.txt
12. On Nov 22 2004, the Canadian AIDS Society decried the renewed absence of constitutionally acceptable medical exemption once Health Canada had reinstated two of the constitutionally cancerous conditions that had been struck down by the Hitzig ruling. App.12: 2004 Nov 22 AIDS Society decries exemption absence..(A16) http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/backgrnd.nsf/cl/cas-gen-0089
PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
13. (1) Should the Oct 07 2003 judgment of Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig- Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette #39740 be stayed on the grounds that the Hitzig decision ruling on S.4 did not deal with the Krieger S.7 repeal?
14. (2) Should, in the absence of proof that all inmates convicted since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have been released, an Order be made citing the Ministry of Justice for abuse of the process and in contempt of the Ontario and Alberta Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parker and R. v. Krieger on the grounds Crown Attorney S. David Frankel acknowledged that the S.7 Cultivation and S.4 Possession prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court in Alberta but did not dutifully inform Canada's Law Enforcement to cease and desist arrests under the repealed statutes.
15. (3) Should an Order be made expediting the response from the Crown in order to reduce future injustices and empty the jails by New Year on the grounds that the scope of the tragedy warrants expedition and where the Crown has had months to ready for this adjudication and will suffer no prejudice by such expedition?
16. (4) Did the Supreme Court have a duty to speak up when its affirmation and the Alberta Court of Appeal Order striking down the cultivation and possession prohibitions were flouted by the Crown by continued prosecutions under repealed statutes?
PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
(1) Stay of execution of Hitzig Resurrection Order
17. The Ontario Court of Appeal's Hitzig opinion that the striking down of conditions which made impossible a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption did resurrect Section 4 of the CDSA has been misrepresented to courts in Canada as resurrecting Section 7 which was struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Court couldn't even resurrect S.4. A stay of the Hitzig resurrection opinion would end the ambiguity.
(2) Abuse of Process and Contempt of Court
18. By dropping the charges for the pending 4000 charges laid under S.4, the Crown admits they victimized Canadians after the prohibition had become invalid. They have not corrected the record for those convicted and still in jail. It is not right for any Canadian to still be in jail having been convicted under an invalid statute and the Crown has not sought to release any improperly jailed Canadians.
19. The Crown continues to disrespect the Alberta Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada Orders by continuing to newly victimize approximately 160 new Canadians every day on the basis of the Ontario Hitzig-Myrden Resurrection Opinion.
20. Nothing but the threat of a citation for contempt of court will move the Ministry of Justice to remedy their failures and omissions.
(3) National importance and scope of tragedy warrant expedition
21. The invalid prosecutions, persecutions, of hundreds of thousands of Canadians is so egregious an abuse of the process of the court that instant reaction by the courts to such contempt is mandated.
(4) Supreme Court duty to see its Orders obeyed?
22. When the highest court in Canada affirms a ruling of a province's highest court which strikes down an unconstitutional violation of a Charter right and the highest court then sees that ruling ignored by the Attorney General and that invalid statute enforced against an unsuspecting populace, it has to be the duty of the highest Court to see that the Orders of the courts below are obeyed? If not, who else can tackle such renegade elements in the Ministry of Justice?
23. That the media, Crown and Defence misrepresented a general striking down of prohibition for all Canadians as a personal victory for Krieger does not make it so. The Attorney General for Canada has known about the sections having been repealed since the highest court in Alberta struck them down on Dec 04 2002. The Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of mischief and genocide, after all, it did involve denying patients who needed access to cannabis such access on the basis of the enforcement of invalid statutes. 3000 extra dead epileptics since they could have all had a joint to protect them from seizures.
24. This request is made for
1) an Order staying the Oct 07 2003 judgment of Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig- Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette #39740 on the grounds that the Hitzig decision ruling on S.4 did not deal with the Krieger S.7 repeal but is cited as basis for continued prosecutions under all sections;
2) an Order, in the absence of proof that all inmates convicted since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have been released, citing the Ministry of Justice for abuse of the process and in contempt of the Ontario and Alberta Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parker and R. v. Krieger on the grounds Crown Attorney S. David Frankel acknowledged that the S.7 Cultivation and S.4 Possession prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court in Alberta but did not dutifully inform Canada's Law Enforcement to cease and desist arrests under the repealed statutes.
3) an Order expediting any response from the Crown in order to empty the jails by New Year and reduce future injustices on the grounds the Crown has had months to ready for this adjudication and will suffer no prejudice by such expedition.
Dated at Brantford on Friday Dec 24 2004 For the Requester/Applicant John C. Turmel, B. Eng.: johnturmel@yahoo.com
FAX COVER PAGE TO REGISTRAR
a) Document being transmitted: Request for stay of execution
b) Sender: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.: johnturmel@yahoo.com 8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3 Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
c) Party being served: Department of Justice, Ontario Regional Office 130 King St. W. #3400 Toronto, ON, M5X 1K6 Croft Michaelson: cmichael@justice.gc.ca Christopher Leafloor: christopher.leafloor@justice.gc.ca Vanita Goela: vgoela@justice.gc.ca Tel: 416-952-7261, 973-0392, 973-9638 Fax: 416-952-0298
d) date and approximate time of transmission; Dec 24 2004 3:30
e) pages transmitted: 33 with fax certificates & cover pages
f) the fax number of the transmitting fax machine: 519-753-0645
g) For transmission problems: John Turmel: 519-753-0645.
JCT: So that's it. Didn't even have to leave the house.
1) The judge can stay the Hitzig decision which really throws a monkey wrench into the Crown works if it's no longer resurrected but dead again. Har har har har.
2) The judge can choose to expedite a hearing in which case the Crown had better empty the jails of their victims pretty fast because they don't need any left in chains when they show up for their own judgment day in Canada's highest court.
3) Or the judge can just do nothing and in 10 days, the Crown must reply and explain why Hitzig should not be stayed. The judge can then a) decide or b) defer it to the whole panel who will hear the application for leave to appeal.
But at least I've got the Frankel Gang cornered into having to provide a written answer explaining that they need their Hitzig- Myrden decision because it's what bringing the law back to life! Har har har har.
They have to respond and explain their crimes. Har har har har. 10 days of delay maximum to Jan 3, or by next week minimum! Pay- back time for the Frankel Gang. The Lone Ranger's coming to town. It's silver bullet time for the Vampire of DEAth.
If anyone wants to let Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice McLaughlin know that they think the Supreme Court of Canada's Krieger Coram need to deal with the Frankel Gang of renegades in the Ministry of Justice responsible for the Bogus Charges Scandal, be polite but make sure to stress it is urgent her Coram's Order and those of the Alberta and Ontario Courts of Appeal be obeyed and enforced. The Supreme Court of Canada fax number is: 613-996-9138.
SUNDAY DECEMBER 26 2004 -----------------------
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is lynch-pin
JCT: Boy do I feel like an idiot mis-writing the name of the Chief Justice as McLaughlin when it's McLachlin.
The court isn't sitting again until Wednesday. Hope there's a pile of mail urging the Chief Justice to stay the Hitzig- Myrden Resurrection Decision (always include "resurrection") and bring the Frankel Gang to Justice.
>breefairy >Re: scc chief justice letters [Re: elagabalus] >Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 12:18 PM
Everyone take the time to write your local media and the supreme court of canada, chief justice beverley mclachlin at Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, K1A 0J1 Telephone: (613) 995-4330 Fax: (613) 996-9138 E: reception@scc-csc.gc.ca
JCT: True, those number and email should get to the court but I think it's better sending them directly to the:
Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice, Wendy Shoenherr-Geoffroy Tel: (613) 992-6940 Fax: (613) 952-3092 Email: eacj-aejc@scc-csc.gc.ca
JCT: We've got until Wednesday to stuff her box with pleas for justice.
For those of you who have been charged, the Nielsens, the Johnsons, Pierre Drouin, Real Martin, Mike South, Noreen Evers, do include your medical need while explaining you're going to do the Turmel Eight-Step and only bring up the medical need in Step 5 after attempting to down the law first.
1) Quash, 2) Prohibit, 3) Appeal, 4) Leave to appeal, 5) Stay, 6) Trial, 7) Appeal, 8) Leave to appeal.
1) Motion to Quash charges already up at the mpforms site; 2) Motion to Prohibit which stays proceedings below; 3) Appeal to the Court of appeal; 4) Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court;
5) Motion to stay for constitutional medical need like Parker/Krieger; 6) Only then do you have a trial; 7) Appeal to the Court of appeal; 8) Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court.
At least she'll get an idea of the kind of sad cases that will be pushed through her court if she doesn't do something now.
There aren't too many times for an ordinary Canadian to have a big influence in changing the laws. This is one of them. Now's the time to fax and email your letters demanding justice from the Chief Justice and her court.
Just like Frankel's the lynch-pin that brings the whole prohibitionist establishment crashing down, McLachlin is the lynch-pin that can bring the whole 9 Big Bricks down on Frankel's head. Now's the time to send an email to your whole address book urging them to strike while the iron is hot. And it's red-hot now. It's hotter than it's ever been before. Strike the match under Frankel's ass. Sumbitch David Frankel's coming down.
Full timeline at http://turmelpress.com/medpot.htm