Three medpot inmates @ Montreal Court of Appeal Friday

TURMEL: Three medpot inmates @ Montreal Court of Appeal Friday

JCT: AIDS victim Marcel Mercier who has been turned down
three times on erroneous technicalities, Rodney Barclay and
Stephane Levert who were both turned down once, have filed
their applications for release pending appeal at the Quebec
Court of Appeal in Montreal today for a live hearing on
Friday Sep 16. I'm going to go see the show.

Only Rod Barclay's papers are in English and will be posted
here. He's on time so there's no question of his needing an
extension of time like the others.

CANADA QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC ----------------------
___________ No.__________________
City
Rodney Barclay
Appellant
-vs.-
THE QUEEN
Respondent
-and-
PROCUREUR GENERAL DU QUEBEC

APPLICATION TO DISPENSE WITH TRANSCRIPTS
AND FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT SITTING IN MONTREAL:

APPELLANT HAS APPEALED against his conviction on a question
of law alone and seeks release from custody pending the
appeal.

PARTICULARS OF CONVICTION:

File Number:________________________________________________

Offence(s) charged:_________________________________________

Plea at trial: _____________________________________________

Verdict:_________________________ Date:_____________________

Sentence:________________________ Date:_____________________

Judge:______________________________________________________

Place of conviction: _______________________________________

Court of first instance: ___________________________________

APPLICANT SEEKS TO DISPENSE WITH TRANSCRIPTS AND FOR RELEASE
PENDING APPEAL on the grounds:

1. The December 23 2003 Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin of
Proceedings detailing the Krieger decision #29569 where
Justices McLachlin, Major and Fish note:

NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law -
Cannabis marihuana - Cultivation and trafficking - Accused
cultivating cannabis marihuana for his own medical needs and
supplying others as well - Trial judge finding that
prohibition on production of cannabis marihuana infringing
accused's s. 7 Charter rights and not saved by s.1. Whether
The Court of Appeal erred in holding that s.7 of the Charter
guarantees the right to grow (and by implication, possess)
marihuana, to anyone with a medical need for the drug...

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
December 11 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
(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"

November 28 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta
(O'Leary J.A.)
Period of judicial stay extended until further order of the
Court of Appeal.

December 4 2002 Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Wittman, Costigan and Lo Vecchio JJ.A.)
Appeal with respect to s. 7(1) dismissed.

May 20 2003 Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed."
Appendix#10b: Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin Dec 23 2003
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/b...-12-23.bul.html

2. The Supreme Court notes that on Dec 04 2002, the "further
Order" of the Alberta Court of Appeal ended the judicial
stay by dismissing the Crown's appeal against Judge Acton's
repeal of marihuana prohibition in CDSA S.7(1).

3. In the March 18 2003 Bench Memorandum of the Dec 04 2002
Krieger decision, Justice Costigan stated for the panel:
"[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.
[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.
Appendix.2 Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta Judgment
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-20...003abca0085.pdf

4. Parliament has never re-enacted any new prohibitions
since the repeal of S.7 and S.4 by the Parker and Krieger
cases.

5. 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... But he
suggested that would not apply to the general public.."
App.#3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegher.htm
App.#4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsun.htm

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.#5: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/hillbust.jpg

7. 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.#6: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg

8. On Oct 07 2003, the Hitzig-Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-
Paquette appeal ruling fix the repealed MMAR with no mention
of CDSA.
App.#7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/hitzigo1.jpg
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/hitzigo2.jpg

9. 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
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo1.jpg
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo2.jpg

10. On Dec. 08 2003, the Crown stayed the remaining 4000 pot
charges laid since Terry Parker Day till Hitzig Day.
App.#1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4 repeal
App.#9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/stay4000.jpg

11. Of course, 2 weeks later, on Dec 23 2003, the Supreme
Court of Canada denied the Crown's application for leave to
appeal the repeal of the marijuana prohibitions by Alberta's
highest court. And so, the highest court in Alberta declared
that the prohibition on marijuana in S.7(1) was "struck,"
the Crown admits that S.7(1) has been declared of "no force
and effect by Alberta;" and the Supreme Court of Canada
notes that S.7(1) has been declared "inconsistent with the
Charter;" three different was of saying that S.7(1) was
invalidated.
App.#10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada
Order http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.jpg
Bulletin Note http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm

12. On Dec 03 2003, the 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/2003/200...l/sor387-e.html

13. The Oct 7 2003 Ontario Court of Appeal Hitzig decision
which ruled the prohibition on marijuana in S. 4 of the CDSA
to be invalid absent a constitutionally acceptable medical
exemption not only took effect on Aug 1 2001 for the absence
of the MMAR's valid exemption but once again became absent
on Dec. 03 2003 when the excised sections were re-instated
by Health Canada.

14. On April 1 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
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ag01.txt

15. 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: AIDS Society decries exemption absence
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/cdnaids.htm
http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/backgrnd.nsf/cl/cas-gen-0089

16. The Ministry of Justice acknowledges that S.7(1) of the
CDSA 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, the
Ministry did not amend the Criminal Code to reflect the
Krieger abrogation by the highest court in Alberta as it has
amended the Code to reflect the Parker abrogation by the
highest court in Ontario nor did the Ministry instruct Law
Enforcement to cease charging Canadians under the invalid
statutes. Deliberately. And the Crown continues to yet
disrespect the Alberta Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of
Canada Orders by continuing to newly victimize approximately
160 new Canadians every day.

17. 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.

18. When the highest courts in Canada affirm a ruling which
strikes down an unconstitutional violation of a Charter
right and the courts then see that ruling ignored by the
Attorney General and that invalid statute enforced against
an unsuspecting populace, it has to be the duty of the
courts to see that their Orders are obeyed? If not, who else
can tackle such renegade elements in the Ministry of
Justice?

19. That the media, Crown and Defence misrepresented a
general striking down of S.7 and S.7 prohibitions for all
Canadians as a personal victory for Krieger does not make it
so. Even if it's true that S.7(1) and 4(1) were repealed by
the sick Parker and Krieger, the Court of Appeal for Alberta
did not say that the law was struck down "only for the
sick," Crown David Frankel did not say that S.7(1) had been
declared of no force and effect by the highest court in
Alberta "only for the sick," the Supreme Court of Canada did
not say that S.7(1) was declared inconsistent with the
Charter "only for the sick." Therefore, S.7(1) was not
repealed "only for the sick."

21. This is not an application to declare bad laws
unconstitutional. It's a motion to declare that S.7(1) was
abrogated in Krieger and S.4(1) was abrogated in Parker and
that Parliament never re-enacted them. If sections 7(1) and
4(1) have already been abrogated by the Krieger Court, this
motion cannot be another constitutional challenge against
the same S.7(1) that is already invalidated. A
constitutional challenge necessarily has to be against a law
that is in force! But since the government has refused to
erase the S.7(1) prohibition from the Criminal, the courts
and the bar are under the impression that this challenge
must once again abrogate the law as did Krieger's. My motion
is to declare that the law was already abrogated and should
have been removed from the Criminal Code of Canada. What
constitutional right have I invoked in my motion, even if I
am not sick like Krieger or Parker! If Krieger killed
S.7(1), do I have to kill it too because they refused to
remove it from the Criminal Code once it had been repealed?

22. We do not have to re-declare the laws unconstitutional
one more time for the only reason that the ministry refuses
to amend the Criminal Code. So, the courts and the bar are
under the impression that these challenges are to abrogate
the law once again like Krieger abrogated it before.

23. On Dec 20 2004, Justice Goudge, one of the three judges
of the Ontario Court of Appeal who caused 4000 pot charges
to be stayed after declaring that the possession law had
been abrogated since Aug. 1 2001, treated the Krieger
cultivation decision seriously enough to release Mike Love
pending his appeal against a possession conviction.
App.#14 Inmate appeal of Mike South.

24. On Feb 01 2004, an appeal was filed by the Nielsen
family based on the Krieger invalidation against the charge
of possession.
App.#15 Nielsen Notice of Appeal

25. The invalidation of S.7(1) by the highest court in
Alberta will be considered in Edmonton Alberta in the case
of R. v. Cornelssen on Sep 21 2005 and should be treated as
a serious challenge.

26. If there is a chance that the abrogation of the
prohibition of marijuana cultivation in Section 7(1) by the
highest court in Alberta once the decision has been
sustained by the Supreme Court of Canada, keeping me in
prison pending my appeal under a dead law would constitute
an abuse of the court process.

27. The Court of Appeal for Quebec suggested in February
that judges below must be more sensitive to suggestions of
suspended sentences "avec sursis" for those found guilty in
cases of marijuana cultivation. It should also apply for
releases pending appeal.

APPELLANT SEEKS any Order abridging the time for service,
filing, or hearing of the motion, or amending any defect as
to form or content of the motion or any Order deemed just.

FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, GRANT the
application to:
- dispense with the Applicant's affidavit for release
pending appeal;
- dispense with the trial transcripts;
- release the appellant pending appeal for:

1) a declaration that Sections 7(1) and 4(1) of the CDSA
have already been abrogated by the Krieger ruling since
December 04 2002;
2) Order the quashing of the conviction and acquitting of
the Appellant;
3) Order retraction of the guilty plea and a new trial.
Dated at __________________ on ______________ 2004
_____________________________
Appellant Signature
______________________________________________________________________
Appellant's Address - Phone/Fax
______________________________________________________________________
Crown's address - Phone/Fax

"DECLARATION BY SELF-REPRESENTED COUNSEL"
IN LIEU OF AFFIDAVIT
(Pursuant to R. v. Henry in S.678 of the Criminal Code)

I, Rodney Barclay, the Appellant in the present file,
residing at ___________________________ in Gatineau declare:

______________________________________________________________________
Addresses over the past 3 years?
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
Employment, if any, prior to conviction?

______________________________________________________________________
Intended employment and employer if released?

______________________________________________________________
Is Criminal record (with convictions outside Canada)
appended?

______________________________________________________________________
Are criminal charges are pending anywhere?

______________________________________________________________________
Do you have a passport?

All the facts alleged in the case are true.

_____________________________
Appellant's Signature

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: Clerk of the Court of Appeal
100 Notre Dame St. E.
Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 1By
Tel: 514.393.2202

_____________________________________________________________________
Procureur general du Quebec office

TAKE NOTICE that on Friday Sep 16 2005 a motion will be made
to the Court of Appeal at the Palais de Justice of Montreal
in person.
Dated at Gatineau on _____________ 2005
_____________________________
Appellant's Signature
_______________________________________________________________
Appellant's address - phone/fax

JCT: If you have any connections to the Montreal media,
please call and tell them that these three inmates are going
to be in the highest court in Quebec arguing that the
highest court in Alberta invalidated the S.7(1) cultivation
law.

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics