John The Engineer Turmel's
Marijuana "Stay-Out-Of-Jail" Quash and Prohibit charges forms
Appeal old convictions and "Get-Out-Of-Jail" Inmate Appeal Forms

 stay4k.jpg (12832 bytes)          

Author: Kim Lunman
     Justice Department spokeswoman Pascale Boulay said yesterday Ottawa is making it a green Christmas for 4,000 people - it plans to stay thousands of charges of pot possession as a result of legal battles over medicinal marijuana.The decision will apply to every person in Canada charged with possession of marijuana
between July 31, 2001, and Oct. 7 2003.
     The Justice Department intends to cease prosecutions on the cases because of an Ontario court ruling in 2000 that found medicinal marijuana users had the right to possess less than 30 grams of pot. The judge delayed that ruling's effect for one year in the hope the federal government would introduce a
medicinal one day before the year long grace period ended 2001. The Ontario ruling created a legal loophole, effectively invalidating Canada's marijuana possession law as unconstitutional because it failed to provide an exemption for medical use. "We estimate there are about 4,000 pending files," Ms. Boulay said.

What about the 100,000 Canadians
convicted while the law was invalid?
What about those still in jail?
     On July 31 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker declared the invalidity of the prohibition on possession of marijuana would take effect on Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2001.
     The greatest class of victims are those convicted after the law's repeal were those charged since Aug. 1 2001 to Oct 7 2003 and whose convictions may be overturned on appeal upon receiving an extension of time because the Court had not yet ruled that the law had been dead when you were convicted.
     Sure the Attorney General stayed charges against the last pending cases but did nothing to correct the injustice to the 100,000 people who were convicted over 26 months while the s.4(1) prohibition was repealed. The press covered up the largest judicial foul-up in Canadian history. And now, 50,000 more since last year.
     Court's can't legislate so how could a court decision stop the prohibition from being invalid on Oct. 7 2003? No matter what anyone tells you, the old prohibition is dead until Parliament brings in the new prohibition, and no set of judges have Parliament's power to re-impose criminal sanctions once we were free of them.
     On Dec. 20 2004, Crown,to avoid a motion for contempt of court, consented to the release pending appeal of inmate Mike South doing 3 months for possessing 5 ounces of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking under Section 5 using S.4 Parker and S.7 Krieger wins.
     Lately, Derek Francisco had his marijuana cultivation and possession charges withdrawn, the return of his grow equipment and a S.24 Order for the return of his marijuana after he got his exemption proving he had been sick all along. In Nov 2009, Ken Surgent in Windsor has his charges withdrawn upon filing of his POLCOA application and wasn't even sick! 

Urging kits on friends, use this page:

 50 Brant Ave.,
Brantford, Ontario, N3T 3G7
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122
Cell: 519-717-1012


Self-Defender Wins Page

MedPot Combat Engineer's page   

Medpot Self-Defence kits page

MedPot Engineer's Yahoogroup

The Medpot Engineer's MedPot-Discuss YahoopGroup
MedPot Timeline of decisions since Parker (1997-2005) 
KingofthePaupers YouTube Channel  
John Turmel's Home Page 
Facebook Wall for Current Comments


taipei.jpg (12713 bytes)

       The POLCOA Proposition, by John C. Turmel 
Ontario Provincial and Superior Court judges Phillips
and Rogin dismissed the s.4(1) marijuana possession 
charge against J.P. as "no longer known to law"
because, after the Parker decision struck down the
prohibition on possession of marijuana in CDSA s.4(1)
because the MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker
ruling, they had to follow Parliament's Interpretation
Act s.2.2 which said that struck-down laws were to be
"deemed repealed."
Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Doherty, Goudge and
Simmons over-ruled them ordering courts to deem the
struck-down prohibition as not "repealed" but only
"absent" until fixed by the courts, even after two
years of absence.
There exists no provision for laws being absent
sometimes and not absent at other times but the court
just made up whatever was needed to trick Canadians
into believing courts could bring laws back to life. A
Crown who decides to fight a POLCOA motion puts the
judge in the difficult position of::
Obeying Parliament and disobeying the Higher Court, or,
Obeying the Higher Court and disobeying Parliament.
If your judge decides he's going to use the Nazi
Nuremberg defence of "just following superior orders"
to disobey Parliament, then the Sfetkopoulos and Beren
decisions show that the MMAR became flawed just two
months after they had been fixed by the courts so that
Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet's Memorandum to the Supreme
Court of Canada admitted:
"[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." Beren added: "since S.54(1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR." has all 
the Canadian jurisprudence leading up to 2005. After 
that it's all in Prohibition of Charges kit. 

By remaining mute pursuant to Section 606(2) of the 
Criminal Code, you retain privileges that you lose by 
pleading not guilty.Never plead not guilty. Stand mute 
Your lawyer makes more money defending the 
charge than quashing it so lay the lawyer off until 
the charge is quashed or not. If no, you are back 
to square one and can re-hire the lawyer then. Do 
not diss the lawyer for not knowing about these cases,
they're trained to defend. To quash is offence, 
best left to combat engineers.   


These pages provide instructions on how to 
use the guerrilla law forms I have engineered
to help have those criminal records overturned
and fines returned to those innocent victims. All
they have to do is learn the case law timeline.
The Documents now include a motion to cite
the Attorney General for abuse of process and
contempt of court for deliberately ignoring the
Parker and Krieger decisions and continuing to
bust Canadians after admitting the sections were
invalid to the Supreme Court. So Quash as
Unknown to law, Stay as an abuse of process,
and cite Crown for contempt of courts.

IF EVER CHARGED (kits have instructions):
Marijuana Legal Defence & Offence Kits  
- Motion to Quash (S.601) 
- Motion for Charter relief
- Motion for Return of Controlled Substance
- Motion to expunge bogus conviction
- Motion for release pending appeal
- Motion citing Crown for contempt of court for 
trying to get the court to convict under an 
offence that has been struck down. 

Court rules at: