I was wondering the same thing.
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
There was no distinction made other than the crown laid the charges. Yes Im sure the mounties are a bit more gung ho lol. My point being its still a crime and as so if the city cop is in a bad mood he can lay a charge as well. I say just let it be legalized, and not lightly I may add, as it's made me thousands lol. Its too bad the game has changed so much in the last 20 years from a bunch of buddies and mostly honourable people selling it to now being controlled (or trying) by a bunch of thugs and bangers. Back in the day I trusted the drug dealers more than the buisness people I dealt with. Time to take away the profits I say. If I'm forced to pay $15-20 a gram I'll grow it myself lol. Really why would I change now lol.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
I spent a few minutes looking lol. Im sure there are a few more relevant statistics that would be interesting but I'm at work lol.
Lol you get where I'm coming from though? It's mostly RCMP making bust outside of Vancouver. I'd bet most of those possession charges are a direct result of how the person dealt with the cops. I know that's harder to prove but it's my theory.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
that's the guy
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
I hear ya but the point is until this is dealt with on the fed level its a crap shoot and in Ontario you'll probably end up at the station (all of them lol). I wish the two parties would just come out and say this is what we're going to do so I could pick one. My vote goes to the libs right now only because I like the guy and he seems to be spewing the least bullshit (and yup, nice hair lol) And as for a minority conservative gov., well that would be real shitty as nothing would change ..... God really lol. Also I really am quite happy I never got a med licence, that worked out just fucking peachy lol. At least now they dont know me from Jack!
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
you know that politicians lie so we will know when the election is over...
not before
iam hoping JT is acting modest to get Con votes then will come out more "Legalizational"
all i would advise is..if the NDP have a better chance in your riding then go for them
if the LIBS have abetter chance then vote for them
main thing is to get the "guy" out of office
not before
iam hoping JT is acting modest to get Con votes then will come out more "Legalizational"
all i would advise is..if the NDP have a better chance in your riding then go for them
if the LIBS have abetter chance then vote for them
main thing is to get the "guy" out of office
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i was just signing on to post this.
this will be a good thing to follow relating to our case...hopefully Tousaw wins!! that will be another nail in their coffin!
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i think he might be in the wrong court. how can a provincial judge over rule a Federal judge? I don't think a provincial win wouldn't hold water over a Federal decision
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i have another question-if Phelan said he wouldn't over rule Manson's carefully crafted decision, what is let to win? indoor/outdoor? i don't see us getting to be able to change sites or prescription increases.
we need a higher judge and CONroy discontinued that avenue so what's left??
we need a higher judge and CONroy discontinued that avenue so what's left??
Seems it worked for edibles so let's give it a try lol idk honestly. Ask him directly see what he can elaborate on.
Your guess at his legal angel on this is as good as mine. I asked on another of his fb post last week how this case wasn't stayed like all other mmj claims pending allard and didn't get a response.
Kirk TousawCase name will be Boivin, Garber, Newmarch and Sproule v. Attorney General for Canada.
Like · Reply · 1 · 23 mins
- Kirk TousawCLARIFICATION: To be very clear - this case applies only to the 4 litigants involved. They are seeking an Allard-like injunction but broader because they are high-dosage patients and one needs to move his storage site. The case is not a "class action" or "national test case" like Allard and the scope of the decision will only be the 4 litigants. There may or may not be some precedential value to other, future, litigants in BC (because it is a BC trial court decision) but at least for the time being not outside BC.
Like · Reply · 3 · 24 mins
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
@doingdishes see if you can get Turmel to do a section 56 application, have a group apply and when denied, judicial review 
TURMEL: Crown Steven White tries backroom to nix Smith BENO Overturn Conviction
JCT: Crown Steven A. White didn't serve and serve a Motion
Record in Response but instead send a letter asking the
Registrar to ask a judge to nix the motion without a
hearing.
His grounds are it's frivolous and vexations but he doesn't
want to take the time next week to come to court to trash me
in public for my frivolity and vexation over the past 9
years I've tormented him with the James Turner case in
Ottawa.
Public Prosecution Service of Canada
National Capital Region
Agent Supervision Unit
160 Elgin St. Room 1400
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H8
September 10 2015
Registrar
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen St. W.
Toronto, M5H 2N5
Dear Registrar:
Re: Court file No: M45479 - John Turmel - Application to re-
open appeal
JCT: It's actually an application for a new appeal... But
now that he mis-labelled it, he's going to shoot down re-
opening... Fortunately, there are other Overturners filed
who have not had previous appeals to re-open. What's he
going to argue for them even if he gets rid of me? How will
that work out in other provinces?
CR: Pursuant to S.685(1) of the Criminal Code, I am asking
you to refer this matter to the Court to have it summarily
dismissed.
JCT: Instead of coming to public Court on Monday, he'd like
it summarily dismissed in the backroom without a hearing.
Unorthodox backroom moves worked against James Turner. He
even got a temporary Trial Judge before the real Trial Judge
got appointed? Har har har.
CR: This is not properly an extension of time to file a
notice of appeal motion as the appeal in this matter has
already been heard and dismissed eight years ago.
JCT: That's the old appeal based on POLCOA (Parliament Only
Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate). And because that Court of
Appeal is now functus officio, I ask a new Court of Appeal
to consider new evidence, not old evidence that has already
been ruled upon.
CR: By way of background, Mr. Turmel was convicted of
possession of Cannabis Marihuana for the purposes of
trafficking...
JCT: To Prime Minister Chretien, Justice Minister, Supreme
Court of Canada, Superior Court of Ontario, RCMP and Ottawa
Police...
http://johnturmel.com/turmel11.jpg
CR: (s.5(2) CDSA) on March 10 2006 and his sentence imposed
on March 29 2006 by Justice Paul R. Belanger in the Ontario
Court of Justice, Ottawa.
Mr. Turmel appealed his conviction to this Court (C45295
C44587 and C4458
. This Court dismissed Mr. Turmel's
appeals (2007 ONCA 133), holding that the CDSA offence
provisions with respect to cannabis marihuana (s.5(2) CDSA)
remained in "full force and effect."
JCT: Actually, they said they had no jurisdiction to
over-rule the previous 3-judge panel without asking the
Chief Justice for a 5-judge panel. I did, he said no, they
said they had no jurisdiction! Don't expect that story to
have made the record.
CR: Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on these
matters was denied (2007 S.C.C.A. Nos. 216, 217, 21.
Beyond this case having been conclusively resolved, this
Court has repeatedly rejected the type of argument Mr.
Turmel again advances, coloquially referred to as "Bad
Exemption = No Offence" or "BENO" see: R. v. McCrady et al,
[2001] O.J. No. 5 935 (C.A.).
JCT: "the type of argument referred to as BENO!" Sure,
courts have repeatedly rejected the shots from my artillery
in the past but now there's different ammo!
CR: The Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Smith does not
assist Mr. Turmel in any manner.
JCT: If Steven says so? Wonder why?
CR: quite apart from his cases having reached finality y.
JCT: No why. Yes, because Steven Says so.
CR: The offence sections of the CDSA remain in force.
JCT: We're seeking the Court's opinion on that issue, not
Steven White's.
CR: This is one of the rare instances in which an appeal is
truly frivolous and vexatious.
JCT: No one found it frivolous when the J.P. raised Parker-
Hitzig BENO and won though I can imagine the vexation for
the Crown with us now raising Parker-Smith BENO to win.
CR: The Crown asks that this application be dismissed
summarily, pursuant to S.685. Yours truly,
Steven A. White.
JCT: The only thing of real interest is his attempt to have
it be dismissed without letting me reply at a hearing. Or
without him having to explain why Parker-Smith doesn't work
for me like Parker-Hitzig worked for J.P. "Steven Says"
won't cut it.
Anyway, among the seven others who have served their motions
for Sep 21 are several who don't have previous appeals to
"re-open." There's is nothing much they can do to keep them
out. Doug Nielsen and Mike Spottiswood Rob McCrady, Carolyn
Kenny, Bela Beke and Joe Dickinson are served and submitted.
So what do you think. With all these other appeals hitting
the docket on the same day, will the judge want me there to
keep things moving smoothly. If it's one of the judges who
have already had me, I'd think the Crown's request to
summarily get rid of KISS (Keep It Super Simple) me (talk
fast; say it once) may not go down so well.
But there won't be a recording of the move in the court.
Only in the backroom registry.
I've uploaded the kits for Quebec, Nova Scotia and BC at the
http://johnturmel.com/overturn page. Alberta soon. Time to
help get someone in at the top of your province.
JCT: Crown Steven A. White didn't serve and serve a Motion
Record in Response but instead send a letter asking the
Registrar to ask a judge to nix the motion without a
hearing.
His grounds are it's frivolous and vexations but he doesn't
want to take the time next week to come to court to trash me
in public for my frivolity and vexation over the past 9
years I've tormented him with the James Turner case in
Ottawa.
Public Prosecution Service of Canada
National Capital Region
Agent Supervision Unit
160 Elgin St. Room 1400
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H8
September 10 2015
Registrar
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen St. W.
Toronto, M5H 2N5
Dear Registrar:
Re: Court file No: M45479 - John Turmel - Application to re-
open appeal
JCT: It's actually an application for a new appeal... But
now that he mis-labelled it, he's going to shoot down re-
opening... Fortunately, there are other Overturners filed
who have not had previous appeals to re-open. What's he
going to argue for them even if he gets rid of me? How will
that work out in other provinces?
CR: Pursuant to S.685(1) of the Criminal Code, I am asking
you to refer this matter to the Court to have it summarily
dismissed.
JCT: Instead of coming to public Court on Monday, he'd like
it summarily dismissed in the backroom without a hearing.
Unorthodox backroom moves worked against James Turner. He
even got a temporary Trial Judge before the real Trial Judge
got appointed? Har har har.
CR: This is not properly an extension of time to file a
notice of appeal motion as the appeal in this matter has
already been heard and dismissed eight years ago.
JCT: That's the old appeal based on POLCOA (Parliament Only
Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate). And because that Court of
Appeal is now functus officio, I ask a new Court of Appeal
to consider new evidence, not old evidence that has already
been ruled upon.
CR: By way of background, Mr. Turmel was convicted of
possession of Cannabis Marihuana for the purposes of
trafficking...
JCT: To Prime Minister Chretien, Justice Minister, Supreme
Court of Canada, Superior Court of Ontario, RCMP and Ottawa
Police...
http://johnturmel.com/turmel11.jpg
CR: (s.5(2) CDSA) on March 10 2006 and his sentence imposed
on March 29 2006 by Justice Paul R. Belanger in the Ontario
Court of Justice, Ottawa.
Mr. Turmel appealed his conviction to this Court (C45295
C44587 and C4458
. This Court dismissed Mr. Turmel's appeals (2007 ONCA 133), holding that the CDSA offence
provisions with respect to cannabis marihuana (s.5(2) CDSA)
remained in "full force and effect."
JCT: Actually, they said they had no jurisdiction to
over-rule the previous 3-judge panel without asking the
Chief Justice for a 5-judge panel. I did, he said no, they
said they had no jurisdiction! Don't expect that story to
have made the record.
CR: Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on these
matters was denied (2007 S.C.C.A. Nos. 216, 217, 21
. Beyond this case having been conclusively resolved, this
Court has repeatedly rejected the type of argument Mr.
Turmel again advances, coloquially referred to as "Bad
Exemption = No Offence" or "BENO" see: R. v. McCrady et al,
[2001] O.J. No. 5 935 (C.A.).
JCT: "the type of argument referred to as BENO!" Sure,
courts have repeatedly rejected the shots from my artillery
in the past but now there's different ammo!
CR: The Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Smith does not
assist Mr. Turmel in any manner.
JCT: If Steven says so? Wonder why?
CR: quite apart from his cases having reached finality y.
JCT: No why. Yes, because Steven Says so.
CR: The offence sections of the CDSA remain in force.
JCT: We're seeking the Court's opinion on that issue, not
Steven White's.
CR: This is one of the rare instances in which an appeal is
truly frivolous and vexatious.
JCT: No one found it frivolous when the J.P. raised Parker-
Hitzig BENO and won though I can imagine the vexation for
the Crown with us now raising Parker-Smith BENO to win.
CR: The Crown asks that this application be dismissed
summarily, pursuant to S.685. Yours truly,
Steven A. White.
JCT: The only thing of real interest is his attempt to have
it be dismissed without letting me reply at a hearing. Or
without him having to explain why Parker-Smith doesn't work
for me like Parker-Hitzig worked for J.P. "Steven Says"
won't cut it.
Anyway, among the seven others who have served their motions
for Sep 21 are several who don't have previous appeals to
"re-open." There's is nothing much they can do to keep them
out. Doug Nielsen and Mike Spottiswood Rob McCrady, Carolyn
Kenny, Bela Beke and Joe Dickinson are served and submitted.
So what do you think. With all these other appeals hitting
the docket on the same day, will the judge want me there to
keep things moving smoothly. If it's one of the judges who
have already had me, I'd think the Crown's request to
summarily get rid of KISS (Keep It Super Simple) me (talk
fast; say it once) may not go down so well.
But there won't be a recording of the move in the court.
Only in the backroom registry.
I've uploaded the kits for Quebec, Nova Scotia and BC at the
http://johnturmel.com/overturn page. Alberta soon. Time to
help get someone in at the top of your province.