JOHN THE ENGINEER TURMEL'S MARIJUANA PROHIBITIONS TIMELINE
http://www.turmelpress.com/timeline.htm 
To be used with fight-back forms available at:
http://www.turmelpress.com/mpforms.htm 
GENERAL FACTS:
CDSA <= Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
MMAR <= Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
Aug. 14 1997
ONTARIO MCCART J. CONVICTS CLAY'S RECREATIONAL USE 
Alan Young's first losing companion case to Parker. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/claymcca.htm  
Dec 10 1997 
ONTARIO JUDGE SHEPPARD STAYS PARKER CHARGES
Judge Sheppard stays charges against Terrance Parker ruling:
"Mr. Parker will be granted immediate protection under 
Section 24(l) of the Charter of a stay of proceeding with 
respect to count I (cultivate a narcotic, Section 6(l) 
N.C.A.) and the September 18, 1997 count (possession of a 
controlled substance, Section 4(l) of the C.D.S.A). All 
plant material (three plants) seized from him by the 
Metropolitan Toronto Police Services on September 18, 1997 
is to be returned to him forthwith..." 
"...It is ordered pursuant to Section 52, that Section 4(1) 
and Section 7(l) of the C.D.S.A. be read down so as to 
exempt from its ambit persons possessing or cultivating 
Cannabis (a schedule II substance) for their personal 
medically approved use. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/sheppard.htm 
Jul 31, 2000 
1) ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL DECLARES CDSA S.4(1) PROHIBITION 
ON POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA INVALID; SUSPENDS THE DECISION 1 
YEAR TO PERMIT MMAR TO SAVE CDSA
Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/parkero1.jpg 
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in R. v. Parker: 
[11]..I would declare the prohibition on the possession of 
marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) 
to be of no force and effect. However, since this would 
leave a gap in the regulatory scheme until Parliament could 
amend the legislation to comply with the Charter, I would 
suspend the declaration of invalidity for a year. During 
this period, the marihuana law remains in full force and 
effect. Parker, however, cannot be deprived of his rights 
during this year and therefore he is entitled to a personal 
exemption from the possession offence under the Controlled 
Drugs and Substances Act for possessing marihuana for his 
medical needs. Since the Narcotic Control Act has already 
been repealed by Parliament, there is no need to hold it 
unconstitutional. If necessary, I would have found that 
Parker was entitled to a personal exemption from the 
cultivation offence for his medical needs." 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/parkersummary.htm 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000//july/parker.htm 
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10430.html 
CROWN'S APPELLANT'S FACTUM IN PARKER APPEAL [2000]
Though the Crown is now arguing that the Doherty Court of 
Appeal changed the legislation on Oct. 7, in the original 
appeal to Parker's Rosenberg court, the Crown factum argued 
Judge Sheppard could not read in changes of legislation.
http://www.turmelpress.com/parkercm.txt 
2) ONTARIO COURT DISMISSES CLAY RECREATIONAL USE APPEAL
Christopher Clay's argument that the Crown right to prohibit 
does not balance the personal right to recreational use is 
dismissed and his conviction stands. 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/clay.summ.htm 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/clay.htm 
Sep 29 2000 
60-DAYS FOR CROWN TO APPEAL PARKER RULING EXPIRES 
The Crown does not appeal that prohibition has 
unconstitutionally barred Parker from his medicine. 
Dec 11 2000 
KRIEGER JUDGE ACTON IN ALBERTA DECLARES CDSA S.7(1) 
PROHIBITION ON CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA INVALID 
Judge Acton ruled in R. v. Krieger
"[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."
[56] I am troubled by the fact that the Canadian government 
has not made arrangements for a legal source of cannabis 
marihuana to be made available to persons who require it for 
therapeutic use. Since Dr. Kalant indicated that he was able 
to obtain cannabis marihuana for research purposes, it must 
be available from some legitimate source. I trust that if I 
put a stay of one year on the effect of my decision, similar 
to that done by the Ontario Court of Appeal, this problem 
will be solved within the year.
[57] With respect to Mr. Krieger , I am satisfied on the 
evidence of the Crown's expert witness and Mr.Krieger 
himself that it would be inhumane not to grant Mr. Krieger 
an exemption from the prohibition in s. 7(1) of the CDSA 
during the period of the suspended invalidity in order that 
he may cultivate cannabis marihuana for his own medical use. 
Pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, I would stay the 
proceedings against him under s. 7(1) of the CDSA.
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf 
Jul 30 2001 
MMAR ISSUED BUT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PARKER COURT RULING 
The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) are 
promulgated by Government trying to save the CDSA 
prohibition by complying with the Parker court's ruling. 
Three Ontario Superior Court judges and the Ontario Court of 
Appeal later found that the MMAR failed to save the CDSA 
prohibition. Though Parker was not deprived of his rights 
during this year, 2400 to 4600 Canadian epileptics who were 
not exempted with him died later in that year and every year 
since then. Four of Canada's known 400,000 epileptics die 
every day. The Parker decision was not appealed within 60 
days and applied across all Canada. 
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/controlled_substances/pdf/regulations/marihuana_06-13-01.pdf 
Aug 01 2001:00:00am
PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA POSSESSION IS REPEALED WHEN 
ROSENBERG SUSPENSION OF INVALIDATION EXPIRES
The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) failed to 
provide the required medical access to Terry Parker and the 
declaration of invalidity had taken effect and the CDSA 
prohibition of marijuana was repealed. The Crown never 
printed new legislation effecting the repeal of those 
sections which accounts for the resulting confusion. Only 
John The Engineer did an internet countdown to the Terry 
Parker Day liberation celebrations.
http://www.turmelpress.com/parkerda.txt 
Sep 14 2001 
HEALTH CANADA SENDS PARKER TEMPORARY EXEMPTION TOO LATE
Six weeks after the 1 year suspension protecting Terry 
Parker had expired, Health Canada issues him a 6-month 
temporary exemption. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/parkerhc.jpg  
Nov 28 2001
ALBERTA JUSTICE O'LEARY EXTENDS SUSPENSION ON KRIEGER 
CULTIVATION INVALIDATION
O'Leary J.A. (in Chambers) granted an Order that:
1. The period in which the effect of trial judge Madame LD
Acton's order striking down s.7(1) of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act is stayed shall be extended from one
year, as originally ordered, to last until further Order of
this Honourable Court.
http://www.turmelpress.com/oleary.pdf 
Dec 11 2001:12:00p.m.
PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION IS REPEALED WHEN ACTON 
SUSPENSION OF DECLARATION OF INVALIDATION EXPIRES 
Despite the Crown using the O'Leary J.A. extension of the 
Acton suspension of the Krieger invalidation of Section 7(1) 
to keep busting Canadians for cultivation, since the Court 
of Appeal eventually upheld the Acton invalidation, the 
prohibition became of no force and effect when Acton J. said 
it should. No one Alberta provincial judge has the power to 
keep the law busting people using an unconstitutional 
national statute in violation of a section 7 Charter right 
longer than Acton said they could. Both the prohibition on 
possession in s.4(1) and on cultivation in s.7(1) of a 
substance on Schedule 2 (marijuana) were of no force and 
effect though the Government did not reprint the legislation 
to reflect those facts. This accounts for the hundreds of 
thousands of improper charges brought before the courts 
since then with many such errors stayed or withdrawn since 
then. Knowing that the prohibitions on marijuana were no 
longer of force and effect didn't help if the Crown wouldn't 
admit it and the Crown lawyers were advising police to keep 
busting Canadians. 
Feb 28 2002
PAQUETTE WINS HEALTH CANADA EXEMPTION EXTENSION 
With just 8 days until the 6 months extension in the MMAR 
for his s.56 exemption was about to expire without Marc 
Paquette having been able to get a doctor to ignore the OMA 
letter advising them not to sign the MMAR, Marc returned to 
Federal Court for the third time seeking an court extension 
of his exemption. Crown Alan Prefontaine produced a 4-page 
Health Canada application signed by only the family doctor 
for an extension of an exemption. 
Mar 15 2002
ONTARIO JUSTICE PITT FINDS MMAR DID NOT COMPLY WITH COURT 
RULING IN PARKER FOR FAILURE OF DOCTORS TO PARTICIPATE
Terry Parker filed an application to declare that the 
invalidity Order had taken effect on Aug. 1 2001 and the 
possession prohibition was no longer known to law based on 
1) the expiry of Parker's exemption protection and 2) 
failure of the MMAR to protect Parker when the Ontario 
Medical Association refused to participate.
http://www.oma.org/pcomm/omr/dec/01marijuana.htm
Ontario Superior Court Justice Pitt. J. granted the short 
notice ex parte alternative remedy sought with an: 
"Order extending the constitutional exemption 
granted to the applicant by the Ontario Court of 
Appeal until the Government has complied with the 
court's ruling." 
This is the first Superior Court judge to find that the MMAR 
permission system for the sick had not complied to save the 
CDSA prohibition system for all. Crown Lara Speirs did not 
inform the police that Pitt J. had found that the MMAR had 
failed to save the CDSA which permitted the improper busting 
of another hundred thousand Canadians over the next two 
years.
Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/pittorde.jpg 
Apr 17 2002 
JUDGE CHAPNIK SETS ASIDE JUSTICE PITT 
Upon motion by Crown Lara Speirs supported by Friend of the 
Court Alan Young, Justice Sandra set aside the short notice 
ex parte extension of the criminal remedy granted by Justice 
Pitt on the grounds it was a civil default judgment and the 
MMAR offered plenty of protection to Parker. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/chapnikj.txt 
May 03 2002
JUDGE FELDMAN REFUSES PITT PROTECTION PENDING APPEAL 
Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Feldman refused to stay 
Justice Chapnik's Order setting aside of Parker's Pitt 
protection.
http://www.turmelpress.com/feldmanj.txt 
Jul 25 2002
MCWATT J. CONSOLIDATES PARKER (CDSA) WITH HITZIG (MMAR) 
Justice McWatt grants the Crown motion to have John The 
Engineer's "Parker application to declare the CDSA 
prohibition no longer known to law" consolidated with 
Osgoode Hall Law School Medpot champion Professor Alan 
Young's "Hitzig application the declare the no-longer-needed 
MMAR unconstitutional for those who refused to believe that 
the prohibition monster was no longer alive. If there is no 
longer any prohibition, there was no reason to seek to fix 
the no-longer-needed MMAR permission system. 
Aug 21 2002 
3600 DEAD EPILEPTICS YEARLY EPILEPSY.CA 
http://www.epilepsy.ca/eng/mainSet.html  is Exhibit A in the 
affidavit of John Turmel dated in Aug 21, 2002 in the 
application to declare the prohibition repealed as of Terry 
Parker Day which is the fact sheet of Epilepsy Canada, (1470 
Peel St.#745, Montreal, H3A1T1, Tel: (514) 845-7855 Fax: 
(514) 845-7866 Toll free: 1-877-SEIZURE (734-0873) E-mail: 
epilepsy@epilepsy.ca  which says that:
"Epilepsy still can be a very serious condition and 
individuals do die of it. Experts estimate that prolonged 
seizures (status epilepticus) are the cause of 2,400 to 
4,600 deaths in Canada each year. In a major study of status 
epilepticus, 42% of deaths occurred in individuals with a 
history of epilepsy... Some people experience a sensation 
called an aura, or warning, before a seizure starts. The 
aura may occur far enough in advance to give time to lie 
down and prevent injury from falling..."  
Of those 10 daily fatalities are 4 who had already had 
seizures and could have been saved by possessing some 
marijuana. The fact sheet is now gone and can be viewed at 
http://www.turmelpress.com/epil3600.jpg 
Aug 25 2002
CHARBONNEAU J. ADDS TURMEL-PAQUETTE TO PARKER & HITZIG
Justice Charbonneau grants the Crown motion to have John The 
Engineer's and Marc Paquette's application in L'Orignal to 
declare the CDSA prohibition no longer known to law" 
consolidated with Parker's CDSA challenge and Young's MMAR 
challenge in Toronto before Lederman. 
Sep 19 & 20, Oct 18, 2002
LEDERMAN TRIAL OF CDSA & MMAR CHALLENGES 
Parker and Turmel-Paquette applications to declare the CDSA 
prohibition unknown to law and the Young's Hitzig 
application to declare the MMAR unconstitutional were heard.  
Sep 27 2002 
JUDGE ISABELLE CONVICTS TURMEL ON 94 DORMANT CORPSES
John Turmel was convicted of contempt of court for 
publishing details of Health Canada stalling 94 "dormant" 
Section 56 Marijuana Exemption applicants to death. 
"[9]..he admits certain facts: 
3. On November 7th, 2001, the defendant admitted in the 
presence of many witnesses including Stephane Lamoureux, <I 
got excited this is bigger than Walkerton>... 
[23] On the 6th November 2001, Mrs. Cripps-Prawak testified 
for the first time on the number of persons who applied 
under the law. At that time, she mentioned that Health 
Canada has 94 + dormant ; files [i.e.] meaning inactive.
[24] John C. Turmel testifies that he concluded from that 
information that these 94 applicants were deceased. He then 
believed that this situation created an urgency to act 
rapidly in order to avoid more deaths. He therefore 
published the information for different groups even though 
he knew the existence of the publication ban."
http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccs/2002/2002qccs14830.html 
She also testified that 15 of the 94 dormants had been found 
deceased. 
Dec 04 2002
ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL SUPPORTS ACTON REPEAL OF 
 CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION PROHIBITION IN KRIEGER
The further Order of the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed 
the Crown's appeal against Acton J.'s Krieger declaration 
that the cultivation prohibition under s.7(1) of the CDSA 
was of no force and effect with Justice Costigan ruling for 
the panel: 
Costigan, J.A. (for the Court):
[1] The Respondent was charged with possession of marihuana
for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 and
unlawful production of marihuana contrary to s. 7(1) of the
Act.
[2] The Crown appeals a voir dire ruling which struck down
s. 7(1) and also appeals the Respondent's acquittal by a
jury of the s. 5(2) charge.
[5] We agree with the trial judge that s. 56 creates an
absurdity because there was no legal source of marihuana.
That absurdity is not removed by the fact that the
Respondent had a personal supply at the time the charge was
laid. There was no evidence as to how long the supply would
last nor as to the duration of the potential s. 56
exemption.
[6] Nor are we satisfied that the trial judge imposed a
positive obligation on the Crown to ensure a supply. The
trial judge struck s. 7(1). Her order imposed no obligation.
[7] Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as it relates to the
voir dire ruling.
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf 
Dec 05 2002
The Calgary Herald and Sun news 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.."
http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegher.htm 
http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegsun.htm 
Dec 19 2002 
CADIEUX J. ACQUITS ST-MAURICE OF MONTREAL COMPASSION CLUB
Quebec Judge Cadieux acquits members of the Montreal 
Compassion club of possession for the purpose of 
trafficking: 
[2] They are jointly charged with having had in their 
possession for the purpose of trafficking a substance 
inscribed in annexes II and VII of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act (CDSA)...
[5] Nevertheless, the principal question to be litigated is 
whether the use of marihuana for therapeutic purposes and 
the interdiction in section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act against distributing marihuana to sick and 
suffering people while there is no legal source from which 
these persons may procure the substance. 
[238] In the Krieger case, Judge Acton invalidated the 
section prohibiting the production of marihuana for personal 
therapeutic uses and accorded an exemption during the period 
of suspension of the declaration of invalidity. As to the 
section prohibiting the traffic and possession for the 
purpose of trafficking, the judge refused to invalidate 
because Krieger took it upon himself to distribute cannabis 
without insisting on a medical recommendation. 
[246] Like Judge Acton in the Krieger case, we can ask 
ourselves as to the reasonableness of the character of a 
system of exemptions permitting possession and cultivation 
of marihuana while there exists no legal source in Canada 
from where the holder of an exemption may obtain dried 
marihuana to consume or viable seeds to cultivate.
[317] As to the constitutional question, I have concluded 
that the interdiction edicted by section 5 of the CDSA 
against distributing, for therapeutic purposes, marihuana to 
sick and suffering people for whom this substance is 
necessary for medical reasons, according to the 
recommendation of their treating physician, while there is 
no legal source from which these persons might producer this 
substance, violates the rights and liberties guaranteed in 
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties, more 
particularly the right to life, to liberty and to the 
security of the person guaranteed by section 7 and that this 
interdiction does not conform with the principles of 
fundamental justice.
[318] I have concluded that this restriction is not 
reasonable nor justified according to the criteria of 
section 1 of the Charter and in consequence, a stay of 
proceedings with respect to the three counts in the 
indictment is the only just and appropriate remedy given the 
circumstances. 
Gilles Cadieux, J.C.Q. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/cadieux.txt  Translation
Jan 02 2003
PHILLIPS J. RULES PROHIBITION REPEALED IN WINDSOR
Ontario Judge Phillips in Windsor rules in R. v. J.P. that 
whether the MMAR amending formula failed to save the CDSA 
prohibition or not, the legislation itself had to be 
completely enacted anew by Parliament and had not been.
[7] It is submitted by the Applicant therefore, that 
Rosenberg, J. A.'s judgment had the effect of declaring 
invalid the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 (1) effective on 
July 31, 2001 - twelve months after the release of the 
reasons in R. v. Parker. It is therefore argued that in 
keeping with s. 2(2) of the Interpretation Act(2), the 
enactment was deemed repealed. 
(2)See the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21 at 
Section 2(2) which states: "For the purposes of this Act, 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."
[8] The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was not amended 
by Parliament, and no prohibition on the simple possession 
of marihuana has been re-enacted(4).
[22] Simple possession of marihuana in s. 4(1) of the 
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was struck down by the 
Court of Appeal. But the Court of Appeal went further in 
identifying whose task it was to address a remedy, writing:
"...this is a matter within the legislative sphere. There is 
also a particular problem in the case of marihuana because 
of a lack of a legal source for the drug. This raises issues 
that can only be adequately addressed by Parliament."
[23] Repeatedly Rosenberg J. A. returns to the theme of 
Parliamentary authority to address the remedy:..(8)
<<<<8) Throughout the Parker dicta, reference is made to the 
need to legislate by Parliament. Parliament was repeatedly 
identified as the body competent to create such a framework, 
not the Government. Rosenberg J. A. must be taken to have 
known the difference between Parliament and the 
Government.>>>>
[26] The Applicant therefore argued as follows, that as of 
July 31, 2001, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act at 
s.4 (1), could no longer be said to prohibit the simple 
possession of marihuana.(11) 
<<<<11) The Applicant refers the court to the consequences 
of repealed addressed in s. 43 of the Interpretation Act, 
R.S.C. 1985 c. I-21 at s. 43 which states: s. 43 
"Where an enactment is repealed in whole or in part, the 
repeal does not (a) revive any enactment or anything not in 
force or existing at the time when the repeal takes effect."
[36] To repeat: the Regulations were designed to meet the 
demands of R. v. Parker. Did the Regulations achieve that 
result? The Applicant did not put that in issue directly 
before this Court.(19)
[38].. it may very well be that the Regulations do 
not meet the rigorous objectives of the Court of Appeal 
decision in R. v. Parker. Were the Regulations to fail to 
meet the required standards as stipulated in R. v. Parker, 
then the declaration (having been determined effective at 
the end of the twelve-month July 31, 2001) would be in place 
and the impugned section currently of no force and effect.
[41] But, and in my view this is the nub of the issue: Can 
Parliament provide a total discretion to the federal Cabinet 
(through the mechanism of a Governor General-in-Council 
order) in creating the remedy to address Parker? How is that 
fundamentally different from the authority granting power to 
the Minister of Health to stipulated exemptions in s.56 of 
the Act? Regulations can be changed with every publication 
of the Canada Gazette, without consideration of Parliament 
and the debate that that would entail.
[46] While Regulations were enacted, but the legislation 
was not amended, the "gap in the regulatory scheme" (to use 
the language of Rosenberg J. A. in Parker) was not 
addressed. In my view, the establishment by Parliament of 
suitable guidelines in legislation fettering administrative 
discretion was requisite, but lacking. This is simply not 
the sort of matter that Parliament can legitimately delegate 
to the federal cabinet, a Crown minister or administrative 
agency. Regulations, crafted to provide the solution (even 
were these fashioned to create sufficient standards 
governing exemptions) cannot be found to remedy the defects 
determined by the Parker dicta. Therefore, since a statutory 
framework with guiding principles was not enacted within the 
period of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity, 
it follows in my view that the declaration is now 
effectively in place. 
Conclusion
[47] In light of that analysis the young person's 
application must succeed. 
Released: January 2, 2003 Signed: Justice D. W. Phillips
http://cannabislink.ca/legal/windsordecision.htm 
Jan 03 2003
CROWN FAILS TO APPLY FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL KRIEGER 
Cultivation is officially repealed once the 30 days the 
Crown has to apply for leave to appeal the Krieger decision 
striking Section 7 cultivation runs out. 
Jan 09 2003
ONTARIO JUSTICE LEDERMAN RULES MMAR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 
PARKER FOR FAILURE OF SUPPLY 
Ontario Superior Court Justice, Lederman J., declared that 
the MMAR permission system was unconstitutional because it 
failed to comply with the Parker court's ruling by not 
ensuring Parker a supply of marijuana and suspends his 
declaration of invalidity of the MMAR for 6 months. He 
ignored the Parker and Turmel-Paquette applications to 
declare the CDSA prohibition no longer known to law. 
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10584.html 
Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero1.jpg 
http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero2.jpg 
http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero3.jpg 
http://www.turmelpress.com/ledero4.jpg 
Feb 13 2003
SUPREME COURT NIXES PITT PROTECTION PENDING APPEAL
Parker's application for appeal against the decision of 
Madam Justice Feldman supporting the ruling of Madam Justice 
Chapnik to strip Parker of his Pitt protection was denied by 
Justices Gonthier, Major, Arbour JJ. 
Mar 25 2003 
CROWN MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL KREIGER ALLOWED 
Supreme Court of Canada Justice Arbour granted the Crown 
motion for an extension of time of 60 days to file and serve 
their Application for Leave to Appeal the Krieger Costigan 
decision. 
Mar 31 2003
ONTARIO WEILER J.A. STYLES PROCEEDING "PARKER ET AL" 
On a motion to consolidate the Hitzig AND Turmel-Paquette 
applications into the Terry Parker case, Madam Justice K.M. 
Weiler of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled: "For the sake 
of clarity, the style of proceedings is to reflect the name 
of Mr. Parker first in the list of parties..." 
May 14 2003
JOHN THE ENGINEER'S 3.3KG HOUSE OF COMMONS PUFF
On the day before the Minister of Justice was to introduce 
legislation to newly re-criminalize prohibition of marijuana 
with double the penalties, mis-named "de-criminalization," 
John The Engineer, Guinness record candidate for the House 
of Commons two dozen times, candidate for mayor of Ottawa 
and candidate in all Ottawa provincial elections and 
byelections, appeared at the doors of the House of Commons 
with 3.3Kg of marijuana to dare a life sentence to show that 
the prohibition was no longer valid in Canada and still 
inoperable without a workable medical exemption which this 
legislation did not. Charged with s.5(2) possession for the 
purpose of trafficking 'under 3Kg" for possession 3.3Kg.
http://www.turmelpress.com/taipei.jpg 
May 15 2003
JOHN THE ENGINEER HOLDS BACK MARIJUANA BILL
The Globe & Mail headline "Ottawa holds back marijuana bill"
Caption: Pro-marijuana advocate John Turmel is arrested 
yesterday on Parliament Hill for alledgedly possessing more 
than three kilograms of the drug. Justice Minister Martin 
Cauchon said Ottawa will not table legislation to change 
Canada's marijuana laws for at least another week." 
Since the Chretien Government never passed any called 
legislation ever again, it should have been headlined "John 
The Engineer holds back marijuana bill" with life-sentence 
gamble. The other caption: "Minister denies he delayed 
tabling new pot legislation because of pressure from 
Americans" is true, it was pressure from John The Engineer.
http://www.turmelpress.com/hillbust.jpg  
May 16 2003
ONTARIO ROGIN J. RULES CDSA IS REPEALED FOR FAILURE
 TO RE-ENACT NEW CDSA PROHIBITION LEGISLATION
Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin dismisses the Crown 
appeal of the Windsor J.P. decision on the technicality that 
ruled that once the legislation was going to be struck down 
on Terry Parker Day, a new statute had to be enacted by 
Parliament, not a fix of the statute that was being struck 
down. This is the third Ontario Superior Court Justice to 
have ruled that the MMAR had not functioned to save the 
CDSA. 
[9] (1) On July 31, 2000, Rosenberg J. in R. v. Parker, 
severed marihuana from s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act and declared it invalid. Section 4 as it 
relates to substances other than marihuana remains in full 
force and effect.
(2) The declaration of invalidity was suspended for a period 
of 12 months from July 31, 2000. Mr. Parker was granted an 
exemption from the marihuana provision in s. 4 during the 
period of suspended invalidity.
(3) As of July 31/01, s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act as it related to marihuana was invalid... 
[10] In addition, since s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act has not been re-enacted, as it relates to 
marihuana, there is no penalty in the act for simple 
possession of marihuana even if it had been prohibited by 
the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. It is to be noted, 
that there are no penalty sections set out in the Medical 
Marihuana Access Regulations.
[15] It follows from these reasons, that neither Count 1 nor 
Count 2 contains an offence known to law...
[16] The Crown Appeal from the judgment of Phillips J. is 
dismissed.
Steven Rogin, Justice Released: May 16, 2003
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10765.html 
May 16 2003 
CROWN SCC MEMORANDUM ADMITS KRIEGER REPEALED CULTIVATION
Crown Attorney S. David Frankel's Memorandum to the Supreme 
Court of Canada pleaded for Leave to Appeal the Krieger 
invalidation of S.7 and S. 4 of the CDSA because "[57].. as 
matters now stand s.7(1) has been declared of no force and 
effect by the highest court in Alberta." The Crown did not 
seek a stay of the judgment declaring S.7 and S.4 of no 
force and effect. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegcm.txt 
http://www.turmelpress.com/frankel.jpg  signature
May 20 2003 
KRIEGER APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED 5 MONTHS LATE
Had the new marijuana prohibition legislation been 
introduced on May 15 as planned, this leave to appeal the 
strike down of the old prohibition would have been no longer 
necessary. 
May 26 2003
ONTARIO AITKEN J. WON'T QUASH PARLIAMENT HILL BUST 
Ontario Superior Court Justice Aitken dismissed John The 
Engineer's motion to quash the Parliament Hill Bust charge 
by an Order of Prohibition on the grounds that without new 
legislation effecting the the Parker and Krieger rulings, 
they could only be effected by the deletion of the word 
marijuana from Schedule II of the CDSA, thus invalidating 
the prohibitions in the other sections too. S.4(1) says it 
is an offence to possession anything on "Schedule II of 
banned substances." Section 7(1) says it is an offence to 
cultivate anything on "Schedule II of banned substances." 
Section 5(2) says it is an offence to possess for the 
purpose of trafficking anything on the "Schedule II of 
banned substances." On Aug. 1 2001, the day on which the 
courts have found that the invalidation of the prohibition 
on the possession of marijuana in the CDSA by the Parker 
Court to have taken effect, there was only one way for the 
publication of the new legislation to reflect that fact. 
Since marijuana is not mentioned in the CDSA sections 4, 5, 
7, but only on the Schedule II of banned substances, the 
invalidation of the prohibition can only be effected by the 
deletion of the word "marijuana" from Schedule II of banned 
substances. There is no other way for the invalidation to 
have taken effect given the state of the out-of-date 
legislation. 
May 30 2003 
JUDGE KENKEL SAYS QUASH UNKNOWN CHARGES, STAY UNFAIR
"Where an information on its face does not disclose an 
offence known to law, can the Crown pre-empt a motion to 
quash the information by staying the charge? In R. v. J.P., 
a decision binding on this court, Mr. Justice Rogin held 
that simple possession of marihuana is no longer "an offence 
known to law". 
The accused/applicant has applied to this court to quash the 
information alleging simple possession of marihuana. At the 
same time, the Federal Crown has asked that the charge be 
stayed... The Federal Crown submits that their motion to 
stay the proceedings deprives this court of jurisdiction to 
hear the motion to quash... 
Proceedings stayed under s.579 may be recommenced without 
laying a new information within one year. Thus, the accused 
person remains in jeopardy of prosecution on the original 
information until that period expires. The discretion of the 
Crown under s.579 to intervene by directing a stay of 
proceedings should not normally be interfered with by the 
court. However, where the charge before the court is itself 
a nullity, then in my view there is nothing to stay. It 
would be wrong to keep a citizen in jeopardy of prosecution 
for a period of one year on an information that does not 
disclose an offence. 
Conclusion: The information before the court will be quashed 
as not disclosing an offence as required by s.581(1) c.c. 
Hon. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel 
R. v. Peddle, [2003] O.J. No. 2096 (Ont. Prov. Ct.).
Jun 10 2003
JOHN THE ENGINEER TRIPS UP CROWN APPEAL 
Lederman Appellant John The Engineer fails to file the 
Appeal Certificate of Perfection thereby tripping up the 
Crown's attempt to have the appeal heard before the Lederman 
suspension of the invalidation of the MMAR elapses on July 9 
2003. 
Jun 25 2003
CARTHY J.A. REFUSES TO EXTEND SUSPENSION TO SAVE MMAR
In Parker, Turmel-Paquette, Hitzig et al v. HMTQ, Carthy 
J.A., unlike Alberta's O'Leary J.A. who had extended Acton 
J.'s suspension of the declaration of invalidity for the 
s.7(1) cultivation offence in Krieger, did refuse to extend 
the suspension of the Lederman declaration of invalidity of 
the MMAR. The Crown appealled believing the Court of Appeal 
can do Parliament's job of bringing the MMAR back to life, 
maybe. 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/parkerM29602.htm 
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html 
Jul 09 2003
LEDERMAN SUSPENSION OF MMAR INVALIDATION EXPIRES
The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) becomes of 
no force and effect at midnight. In the vain hopes of 
pulling off a resurrection if the appeal of the refusal to 
extend the suspension wins and they extend it so the MMAR 
can be kept alive, the Ministry of Justice announces it is 
shipping out the pot to Canada's exemptees in compliance 
with the Lederman Order that has come into effect. Though 
they have accepted the Lederman Order about the necessity of 
providing the pot, they failed to accept the Lederman Order 
about the invalidity of the MMAR legislation. The MMAR law 
was gone like the CDSA law it was trying to save two years 
too late. So, the artificial MMAR heart didn't work to save 
the CDSA patient by July 31 2001 and the patient was 
declared dead. Now the artificial MMAR heart that didn't 
save the CDSA is declared bad on July 9 2003. For the first 
time, both the CDSA ship and its MMAR lifeboat are sunk. 
There is no CDSA prohibition system, there is no MMAR 
permission system.
Jul 29 2003
ONTARIO APPEAL COURT HEARS BIG 5 APPEALS & HITZIG & J.P. 
John The Engineer's Big Five Appeals to kill the CDSA 
against Chapnik J., Lederman J. x2, Charbonneau J., Aitken 
J. were all expedited and heard together with the Windsor 
Rogin J. appeal and the Hitzig Lederman J. appeal to fix the 
MMAR. Rather than hear the cases in chronological order with 
Parker first and Hitzig second, the Court of Appeal insisted 
on hearing them backwards, putting the Hitzig case first, 
then surreptitiously altering the style of cause from 
"Parker et al" to the now infamous "Hitzig et al" without 
directly overturning Justice Weiler's Order. Doing things 
backwards ended up with backward results.
While only John The Engineer and Team were proclaiming 
prohibition was repealed, everyone else in Canada had been 
told or were pretending that the law was still valid. 
Unfortunately, Global-CanWest was the only source of media 
through which filter all the other media got their reports. 
Reporter Shannon Kari did not focus on the parties who were 
right about the CDSA law being repealed and only 
concentrated on the Professor who was wrong about the CDSA 
prohibition law still being repealed while still working on 
fixing the MMAR permission legislation.
Aug 01 2003 
5) COURT UPHOLDS CARTHY J.'S REFUSAL TO EXTEND SUSPENSION OF 
MMAR INVALIDATION
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal in Parker 
et al (including Hitzig) against Carthy's refusal to suspend 
the declaration of invalidity. 
"We treat this as a request by the Crown for stay of the 
order of Lederman J.. We do not propose to make any order." 
The Crown was still asking for a continued stay of Lederman 
Order to be able to argue that though it had come into 
effect and repealed the MMAR, this later stay would cancel 
that effect and unrepeal the MMAR. So, for sure, the MMAR 
permission legislation was repealed on July 9 2003 and was 
not alive when the Court started the Hitzig operations on 
the bad parts out of the MMAR cadaver. 
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html 
Sep 04 2003
BC JUDGE CHEN QUASHES CHARGE AS UNKNOWN TO LAW 
In the application to quash marijuana charges as unknown to 
law in R. v. Kurtiss Lee Masse, Judge Chen ruled: 
"[66].. If I am wrong in this, and it is possible for 
regulations addressing the concerns raised in Parker to halt 
the operation of the declaration of s.4's invalidity, then I 
agree with the decision in Hitzig that the MMAR were 
inadequate for this purpose because, as long as there is no 
legal supply of marihuana for persons requiring it for 
medical use, the infringement on s. 7 Charter rights 
identified in Parker has not been cured. The enactment of 
the Marijuana Exemption (Food and Drugs Act) Regulations on 
July 8, 2003 may or may not address the concerns raised in 
Hitzig but came too late to have any effect on the 
declaration of invalidity in Parker. July 31, 2001 had, by 
that time, already come and gone, and the legislation had 
already been rendered invalid. ONCE INVALID, IT BECAME A 
NULLITY AND COULD NOT BE RESUSCITATED; IT COULD ONLY BE RE-
ENACTED.
[67] It follows therefore, that there is no offence known to 
law at this time for simple possession of marihuana. The 
application is allowed.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2003/2003bcpc328/2003bcpc328.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAWUi4gdi4gS3VydGlzIExlZSBNYXNzZQAAAAAB 
Oct 07 2003
THE ENGINEER'S CDSA & ALAN YOUNG'S MMAR RULINGS
The Court of Appeal changed the name of the case from the 
Appellant "Parker and others" to the Cross-Appellant "Hitzig 
and others" versus The Queen. How often is a case named 
after the cross-appellant's and not the Appellant?
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigsynopsis.htm 
1) COURT VALIDATES REPEAL OF CDSA AND MMAR IN PARKER AND 
TURMEL-PAQUETTE 
The Ontario Court of Appeal grants John The Engineer's 
applications in Parker and Turmel-Paquette to declare that 
the CDSA prohibition on marijuana became invalid on Aug. 1 
2001, Terry Parker Day, because the Marijuana Medical Access 
Regulations (MMAR) had failed to safety Terry Parker. 
Unfortunately, they misplaced our relief sought in the J.P. 
and Hitzig rulings, but not in ours. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo1.jpg 
http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo2.jpg 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm 
2) COURT UN-REPEALS MMAR & CDSA LEGISLATION IN HITZIG 
In Alan Young's Hitzig case, the Court of Appeal ruled that 
it was re-enacting the MMAR legislation after 3 months of 
being repealed in order to cut out the offensive parts 
Young's applicants were complaining about, thus making the 
MMAR workable and unrepealed which would then make the CDSA 
prohibition legislation that had been killed by the Parker 
26 months earlier unrepealed too. Without the Alan Young's 
Hitzig case to fix the MMAR access after the CDSA 
prohibition had died, there would have been no new court-
enacted MMAR legislation to put the new un-repealed CDSA 
prohibition back up again. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/hitzigo1.jpg 
http://www.turmelpress.com/hitzigo2.jpg 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm 
3) COURT REJECTS WINDSOR TECHNICALITY 
The Court of appeal overturned the Rogin decision in J.P. 
and ruled that merely amending the not-yet repealed CDSA 
legislation to comply with Parker by Order in Council would 
have been good enough had it been on time. But since the 
prohibition had been repealed on Terry Parker Day and J.P. 
had been charged after Aug. 1 2001, he was the first 
Canadian to benefit by having his charges quashed for having 
fallen in the Window of Death for Prohibition legislation 
between Aug. 1 2001 - Oct 7 2003. 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm 
4) COURT RULES MARIJUANA STILL ON SCHEDULE II WITHOUT PRINT
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Aitken J.'s 
refusal to prohibit prosecution of my Parliament Hill Bust 
because "marijuana" had to have been stricken from Schedule 
II for all related sections without any new print job 
detailing the exemption ruling that there was no need to 
strike the word "marijuana" from Schedule II when the the 
courts would remember which sections Section II applied to 
or not without actually having to put it in print. 
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/turmelC40127.htm 
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10599.html 
5) COURT NIXES SUPERIOR COURT POWERS
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Chapnik 
J.'s setting aside the decision of Superior Court Justice 
Pitt "extending the exemption granted by the Court of Appeal 
to Terry Parker until the government has complied with the 
court's ruling" on the grounds that Superior Court Justice 
Pitt had no powers to grant short notice ex parte relief 
despite Rule 2.03: "The court may, only where and as 
necessary in the interest of justice, dispense with 
compliance with any rule at any time." Except for Pitt J. 
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10593.html 
Oct 23 2003
PEI JUDGE MATHESON ACCEPTS HITZIG RESURRECTION 
In R. v. Stavert, Justice Jaqueline Matheson wrote: 
"[16] The effect of the Hitzig decision from the Ontario 
Court of Appeal is to create a constitutionally valid 
medical exemption for marihuana users to s.4 of the CDSA, 
thus making s.4 of the CDSA constitutionally valid and in 
full force and effect."  
http://www.canlii.org/pe/cas/pesctd/2003/2003pesctd85.html 
Nov 2003
PARLIAMENT FAILS TO RE-ENACT PROHIBITION IN FALL SESSION
In the fall session, the Minister of Justice introduced the 
new re-criminalization prohibition with doubled penalties 
despite the Court of Appeal having recriminalized marijuana 
for them. Many Committee meetings were held but the few 
reminders that "whoever brings back the new prohibition will 
takes the credit away from the three judges for 4 dead 
epileptics a day from now on" passed on from John The 
Engineer to Prime Minister Jean Chretien seem to have 
decided him on proroguing the House without any new 
Parliament-enacted prohibition getting through.  
Dec 03 2003
HEALTH CANADA REINSTATES REPEALED SECTION!!
Health Canada Notice of Changes to the Marihuana Medical 
Access Regulations (MMAR) which became effective December 3 
2003 and include: 
"(4)To maintain control over the production and distribution 
of marihuana in keeping with the principles of the CDSA and 
the FDA, and to maintain compliance with Canada's 
international obligations, the limits on the production of 
marihuana for medical purposes by DPL holders will be 
maintained:
Paragraph 41(b) will be re-enacted to reinstate on a 
national basis, the limit on the number of persons for whom 
one designated person can produce marihuana; under the MMAR, 
one DPL holder can cultivate for only one ATP holder; and 
Section 54 will be re-enacted to reinstate on a national 
basis, the limit on the number of DPL holders who can 
produce marihuana in common; under the MMAR, a DPL holder is 
not permitted to produce marihuana in common with more than 
two other DPL holders." 
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2003/20031217/html/sor387-e.html 
Dec 07 2003 
HITZIG APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT 
Hitzig Application for leave to appeal announced to the 
Supreme Court of Canada, filed late on Jan 7 2004, and 
dismissed on May 6 2004. Turmel Application in Forma 
Pauperis gets more time. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/hitzsccl.txt 
Dec 08 2003
OTTAWA STAYS POT CHARGES IN 4,000 CASES
Upon expiry of the 60-day period to seek leave to appeal the 
Terry Parker Day victories, the Crown was forced to announce 
the stay of all 4,000 pending improper s.4(1) charges after 
July 31 2001 but not after Oct 7 2003 when the new court-
enacted legislation came into force and effect, just like 
the charges for J.P. in Windsor. As Judge Kenkel pointed 
out, the charges laid under a null statute should have been 
withdrawn or quashed, not stayed and kept over their heads 
for an extra 6 months. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/stay4000.htm 
Also, the Crown has done nothing about the 100,000 Canadians 
who were improperly convicted while the law was of of no 
force and effect because Lara Speirs and later Crowns were 
all wrong. Firing the Keystone Krowns would be nice but 
forms for late appeals to correct this injustice one at a 
time may be found at John The Engineer's site:
http://www.turmelpress.com/mpforms.htm  
Dec 23 2003
SUPREME COURT DISMISSES KRIEGER CROWN LEAVE APPLICATION; 
CLAY, CAINE, MALMO-LEVINE APPEALS 
1) SCC DISMISSES CROWN'S KRIEGER CULTIVATION APPEAL
The Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown's application 
for leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in 
R. v. Krieger where "[57 as matters now stand s.7(1) has 
been declared of no force and effect by the highest court in 
Alberta." 
Order: http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegscc.jpg 
Krieger Note: http://www.turmelpress.com/kriegsc2.htm 
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html 
"Trial judge finding that prohibition on production of 
cannabis marihuana infringing accused's s. 7 Charter rights 
and not saved by s. 1..."  
"(Acton J.)  Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act, inasmuch as it relates to cannabis 
marihuana, declared inconsistent with the Charter; 
declaration suspended for one year; Respondent granted an 
exemption from the application of s. 7(1); charge stayed" 
"December 4, 2002 Court of Appeal of Alberta  h(Wittman, 
Costigan and LoVecchio JJ.A.) appeal with respect to s. 7(1) 
dismissed." 
2) SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CLAY APPEAL 
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Clay and 
Caine/Malmo-Levine recreational use cases 6 judges to 3. 
Terry Parker's 4-dead-epileptics-a-day should sway a few 
more on medical use necessary for all of Canada's 400,000 
epileptics, not just the 40 out of 400,000 who can qualify 
with the strict Health Canada requirements. All epileptics. 
All people who can benefits from this completely safe, non-
toxic herb.  
In Clay, the Supreme Court does explain: 
"3. In this trilogy of cases, we affirm the legislative 
competence of Parliament to prohibit the possession of 
marijuana....
4. The task of the Court in relation to s.7 of the Charter 
is not to micromanage Parliament's creation or continuance 
of prohibitions backed up by penalties. It is to identify 
the outer boundaries of legislative jurisdiction set out in 
the Constitution. Within those boundaries, it is for 
Parliament to act or not to act... The Court's concern is 
not with the wisdom of prohibition but solely with its 
constitutionality.  We have concluded that it is within 
Parliament's jurisdiction to criminalize the possession of 
marihuana should it choose to do so, but it is equally open 
to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise soften any 
aspect of the marihuana laws that it no longer considers to 
be good public policy."
The Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada: 
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2003/vol3/texte/2003scr3_0735.txt 
2) SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CAINE, MALMO-LEVINE APPEALS
The Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada: 
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2003/vol3/texte/2003scr3_0571.txt 
Apr 01 2004
DEMAND TO MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR 100K CORRECTIONS
Since the 4000 charges still pending from the Aug. 1 2001 to 
Oct 7 2003 period were invalid, convictions had to be too. 
The Engineer demanded that the convictions registered 
against the other over 100,000 Canadians (Statistics Canada) 
who were charged and pleaded guilty during those 26 months 
be expunged and any jailed victims released
http://www.turmelpress.com/ag01.txt 
May 2004
PARLIAMENT FAILS TO RE-ENACT PROHIBITION IN SPRING 2004
In the Spring session, the Minister of Justice introduced 
the new recriminalisation prohibition with doubled 
penalties. Reminders from John The Engineer to Prime 
Minister Paul Martin that the number of dead epileptics he'd 
cause with the new legislation would be published online day 
by day during the election, (now, it's the judges who are 
responsible for fooling Canada's epileptics into not 
protecting themselves with a joint) and Mr. Martin ended the 
session with no new Parliament-enacted legislation. 
May 13 2004
TORONTO TRIO FILE MOTION TO QUASH 
The Toronto Trio at the Section 56 Compassion Club of Ryan-
Champagne-Wallace who were busted last year during the 
Prohibition Window of Death filed to quash their charges for 
cultivation and possession for the purpose of trafficking of 
marijuana. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/ryannoti.jpg 
Jun 09 2004
TRIO'S POT CASE NIXED 
Upon motions to quash on the grounds Parliament has not 
legislated a new prohibition after the Parker and Krieger 
cases invalidated the marijuana prohibitions, the Crown in 
Toronto withdrew charges against Bruce Ryan, Pierre 
Champagne, James Wallace for cultivation, possession (over), 
possession for the purpose of trafficking which occurred in 
the Window of Death. The Crown cannot produce the new court-
enacted legislation keeping marijuana on Schedule II for all 
other offences than s.4(1) and s.7(1). 
http://www.turmelpress.com/totrio.jpg 
Jun 15 2004
CROWN WITHDRAWS CHARGE AGAINST ED MARTIN 
Charge of possession withdrawn in Toronto against Ed Martin. 
Jun 17 2004
KRAMER FIRST WITHDRAWAL AFTER HITZIG UN-REPEAL
The Crown withdraws possession under 30 grams vs Sandra 
Kramer charged after Window of Death is said to have been 
closed by the courts. In every instance where the Crown was 
challenged to produce the new court-unrepealed legislation, 
the charges have been withdrawn. Seems every one of the 
100,000 people improperly charged are going to have to ask 
the government to correct the government's error in their 
case. 
Jul 22 2004
NIELSEN MOTION TO QUASH ON PARLIAMENTARY PREROGATIVE
The motion in R. v. Nielsen (Doug, Laurel, Danielle) was 
heard by Judge Edward to quash the charges of possession 
under CDSA s.4(1) and possession for the purpose of 
trafficking 21 grams in their home on the grounds Parliament 
never re-enacted the marijuana prohibition after the Parker 
Court of Appeal for Ontario had repealed the possession 
prohibition and the Krieger Court of Appeal for Alberta had 
repealed the cultivation prohibition. Judge Edward asked the 
Crown if a court can resurrect a legislative provision that 
has been struck down as a violation of rights in the 
Charter. The Crown could not show any such power but did 
note that the Court had resurrected it. And they wouldn't 
have if they couldn't have so they must be able to. In 
essence, the court can because the court did. Judgment to be 
delivered on Sep 14 2004. 
Aug 04 2004
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS FOR RESURRECTION ORDER
http://www.turmelpress.com/jcmno2.txt 
http://www.turmelpress.com/jcmnom.txt 
Aug 18 2004
JUDGE SHEPPARD ORDERS RETURN OF TO TRIO GROW-OP
After ordering the return of the equipment and money from 
the S.56 Club's Toronto Trio who had their charges 
withdrawn, Judge Sheppard reserved his decision on returning 
their marijuana to Oct 19. 
Sep 14 2004
JUDGE EDWARD OBEYS RESURRECTION OPINION TO PROSECUTE 
NIELSENS
Citing paragraph 2 of the Hitzig decision which states that 
the Court's MMAR operations have resurrected the prohibition 
in s.4, Judge Edward ruled he was bound by the highest court 
of his province. And on the ruling in R. v. Turmel on 
section 5(2) possession for the purpose of trafficking 
http://www.turmelpress.com/edwardo1.txt 
Sep 16 2004
JUSTICE DOHERTY REFUSES TO SIGN RESURRECTION ORDER
Justice Doherty refused to include the resurrection of the 
CDSA prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA when requested 
relegating the resurrection of the prohibition stated in the 
Hitzig decision to mere opinion, not Order. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo1.jpg 
http://www.turmelpress.com/turmelo2.jpg 
Oct 07 2004
SCC TURMEL APPLICATIONS IN RESURRECTION AND REMEMBER APPEALS
John Turmel filed application #30570 for leave to appeal to 
the Supreme Court of Canada the Hitzig resurrection with: 
1) an Order overturning the court's opinion which has been 
deemed by lower courts to render the prohibition on cannabis 
in s.4(1) of the CDSA no longer invalid and declaring that 
the prohibition on marijuana remains repealed since Terry 
Parker Day Aug. 1 2002;
2) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General for 
Canada to withdraw all current s.4(1) prosecutions. 
3) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General to 
release all prisoners and expunge all convictions registered 
under s.4(1) of the CDSA since: 
a) the Charter was enacted; or 
b) Aug 1 2000 when the section was deemed unconstitutional; 
or 
c) Aug 1 2001 when the section was deemed repealed. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/sccjcm.txt 
John Turmel filed application #30571 for leave to appeal to 
the Supreme Court of Canada the Aitken "We'll remember" 
ruling refusing to extend the invalidity to all sections 
with an Order declaring that the word "marijuana" was 
deleted from Schedule II for all sections of the CDSA on the 
grounds that without the underpinning of the cultivation and 
possession statutes, all other prohibitions lack the spirit 
of the law as well as the letter of the law. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/sccdare.txt 
Oct 19 2004
JUDGE SHEPPARD RULES HITZIG BARS TO TRIO'S POT RETURN
Judge Sheppard rules he is bound by the Hitzig Resurrection 
Opinion not to give the TO Trio their pot back. 
Oct 22 2004
JUDGE EARLE-RENTON DISMISSES QUASH IN HILL BUST TRIAL
Judge Earle-Renton dismissed the motions to quash the 
Parliament Hill charges as unknown to law and as impossible 
to prove possession under 3Kg by evidence of over 3Kg and 
adjourned the trial to Feb 10 2005 because she is bound by 
the Court of Appeal statement that section 5(2) was valid at 
the time of the charge.
Oct 25 2004
JUDGE SHEPPARD RULES NO JURISDICTION ON S.24 POT CLAIM
Judge Sheppard rules he had no jurisdiction to give the TO 
Trio their controlled substance back pursuant to an 
application under section 24 of the CDSA (must be appealed) 
and Orders the return of grow-op equipment and money. 
http://www.turmelpress.com/totrio.jpg 
Nov 22 2004 
CANADIAN AIDS SOCIETY DECRIES ABSENCE OF EXEMPTION
The Canadian AIDS Society pleaded for Health Canada to cure 
the absence of constitutionally acceptable exemption by 
complying with the Court's Order in their Nov 22 2004 
Submission on the Proposed Amendments to the Marihuana 
Medical Access Regulations (MMAR): 
"MMAR & Hitzig Decision (Ontario Court of Appeal):
The Hitzig decision (Ontario Court of Appeal) (8) struck 
down three provisions of the MMAR, as they existed at that 
time: (1) limit on one person holding more than one licence 
to grow; (2) limit on licence holders growing in common with 
more than two holders; and (3) the prohibition on designated 
growers charging for doing the work. Despite the fact that 
these provisions were found to be unconstitutional and of no 
force and effect, in the 2003 amendments, Health Canada re-
enacted the same provisions that the court struck down under 
(1) and (2). Health Canada repealed the third provision and 
the MMAR now enables designated growers to get paid. 
We CALL on Health Canada to comply with the Ontario Court of 
Appeal's ruling and REQUEST that section 41.(b) and section 
54 be removed from the MMAR. WITHOUT ELIMINATING THESE 
LIMITATIONS, authorized persons and other seriously and 
chronically ill Canadians will continue to seek other 
sources and buy-in into this program will continue to be 
low." 
In Hitzig, the court said in paragraph [1]: 
"[1] In R. v. Parker (2000), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 193, this court 
held that the criminal prohibition against the possession of 
marihuana in s. 4 of the CDSA was of no force or effect, 
absent a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption." 
Given the Canadian AIDS Society attests that a 
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption is again 
absent from the legislation, the prohibition can no longer 
remain resurrected since the day Health Canada re-attached 
the unconstitutional limitations. The resurrection lasted 
barely 2 months if it took place at all. 
http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/backgrnd.nsf/cl/cas-gen-0089 
Dec 20 2004
MIKE SOUTH RELEASED PENDING APPEAL
Mike South released pending appeal of S.5 charge on the 
basis of Parker S.4 and Krieger S.7 challenges.
Dec 24 2004 
TURMEL FILES FOR HITZIG STAY OF EXECUTION
Supreme Court of Canada Applicant files Section 65.1(1) 
request for stay of execution of Hitzig resurrection. 
Jan 14 2005 
ONTARIO JUDGE DISMISSES NIELSEN PROHIBITION ORDER 
Ontario Superior Judge Festeryga dismissed the motion for an Order
of prohibition having not read it and not knowing what it was about. 
Jan 18 2005 
ONTARIO JUDGE SERRE RESERVES JOHNSON S.7 QUASH DECISION 
Ontario Justice Serre reserved her decision to Feb 1 2005 on 
a Krieger application to quash charges under S.7 and S.5(2) 
of the CDSA. 
Jan 27 2005 
ONTARIO JUDGE ROGERS RESERVES ETHIER S.5 QUASH DECISION 
On Jan 27, Ontario Justice Rogers reserved his decision on a 
Krieger application to quash S.5 charges to March 31 2005.   
Updated by John The Engineer Turmel on 2004 Oct 23; 
Oct 31; Nov 10; Nov 25; Dec 17, Jan 31 2005. 

 

RETURN TO:

Self-Defender Wins Page

MedPot Combat Engineer's page   

Medpot Self-Defence kits explanations

Medpot Self-Defence kits page

MedPot Engineer's Yahoogroup 
The Medpot Engineer's MedPot-Discuss YahoopGroup
KingofthePaupers YouTube Channel  
John Turmel's Home Page 
Facebook Wall for Current Comments