JCT: Last year, James Turner started an application to
prohibit his marijuana charges based on the Parker and
Krieger POLCOA arguments.

Courts Only Abrogate laws
Parliament Only Legislates laws.
So when the Hitzig case said they were legislating the
prohibition of marijuana back to life, they had no power to
do so: Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate:
POLCOA.

The Crown has responded with a motion to summarily dismiss
his application:

File No: 06-17008
COURT OF ONTARIO
(Superior Court of Justice)
(Ottawa Region)
BETWEEN
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
and
JAMES TURNER

NOTICE OF BASIS FOR CROWN'S
OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION

Pursuant to Rule 27.05 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules and
the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in The Queen v.
Karen Dumont dated Sep 19 2000, take notice that the Crown
will oppose the Application filed in the above matter by the
Applicant. The Crown seeks the Application to be summarily
dismissed on the basis that the Applicant does not show a
substantial ground for the Order sought,

JCT: He seeks an order prohibiting the prosecution of his
marijuana charge as no longer known to law pursuant to
Section 601 of the Criminal Code. The fact the Supreme
Court of Canada let the Krieger ruling by the Alberta Courts
that the cultivation (and by implication possession) section
was no longer known to law is quite substantial.

the Applicant does not have standing for the remedies
requested,

JCT: Being accused, he certainly does have standing to file
a Section 601 challenge to the existence of the law.

the requirements of the Courts of Justice Act and Criminal
Proceedings Rules concerning Applications of this nature
have not been complied with

JCT: Usually, the cite which requirements and which rules
have not been complied with.

and the issues raised in the Application have already been
decided upon by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

JCT: Well, that's almost true. The issues have been
dismissed on technicalities but never ruled upon.

Should this Honourable Court not grant an order for summary
dismissal pursuant to Rule 6.11(2) of the Criminal
Proceedings Rules, the Crown opposes the Application filed
in the above matter by the Applicant, and the basis for its
opposition consists of the expected testimony of the Crown
witnesses as disclosed to the Applicant or Applicant's
Counsel, to be heard at the time and place of the scheduled
hearing and such other evidence as counsel may advise and
this Honourable Court may permit.

JCT: So the Crown opposes the challenge to the existence of
the law with testimony of the "maybe-not-alive-law" being
broken. Har har har. Not quite on topic.

Should this Honourable Court schedule a hearing date for the
Application filed, the Crown would request that the hearing
date be scheduled at a time and place subsequent to Oct 1
2008. The R. v. Long [2007] O.J. No. 2774 decision is
presently under appeal to the Superior Court of Justice and
appeal submissions are scheduled to be argued on June 18th
2008. The Long appeal may address issues similar to those
raised by the Applicant.

JCT: The only similar issue being addressed in Long is
whether the law remains repealed due to POLCOA or whether is
is newly struck down due to a technicality. Either way, if
the statute is no longer known to law, James wins. So it's
okay to see what happens with the technicality before moving
on to James' substantive Parker and Krieger POLCOA issues.

More particularly, in opposition to the Application, the
Crown intends to argue, inter alia, the following:

1. On Sep 28 2006, James Turner was charged with production
of marihuana, namely 2879 plants, contrary to section 7(1)
if the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

JCT: 80 plants and 2800 2-inch clones!

possession of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking
contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA and possession of
proceeds of property obtained by crime contrary to section
354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

2. James Turner has elected to be tried before the Superior
Court of Justice.

3. On June 4 2007, James Turner scheduled a preliminary
hearing before the Ontario Court of Justice on Nov 22 2007
at 10am in courtroom #9.

4. On Nov 14 2007, James Turner served the Public
Prosecution Service of Canada - National Capital Region
office, with an Application to he heard in Ottawa on Nov 19
2007 at 10am.

JCT: This was his Parker-Krieger POLCOA application.

5. On Nov 19 2007, Mr. Turner did not appear at the
Application hearing and the Application was dismissed by the
Honourable Mr. Justice McWilliams without prejudice to Mr.
Turner's option to re-file the Application at a future date.

6. On Nov 22 2007, Mr. Turner appeared for the scheduled
preliminary hearing however, the hearing was adjourned for
Mr. Turner to address a medical condition and obtain
counsel.

7. Following the preliminary hearing date counsel, Mr.
Zachary Horricks, appeared on Mr. Turner's behalf for 7
court appearances as well as a judicial pre-trial with the
Honourable Justice Ann Alder of the Ontario Court of
Justice.

JCT: I hope he was paid to make all these worthless court
appearances by Legal Aid.

8. At the most recent court appearance on May 28 2008, Mr.
Horricks indicated that Mr. Turner is presently a self-
represented accused person and as a result, a judicial pre-
trial was scheduled with Mr. Turner to he held on June 23
2008 with the Honourable Ann Alder in Courtroom #9 at 9am.

9. That same day, Mr. Turner served the Public Prosecution
Service with an application to be heard in Ottawa on June 16
2008 at 10am.

Grounds relied upon by the Respondent:

10. As a preliminary hearing has yet to occur, committal to
trial is still an issue and this Honourable Court should, in
the Crown's respectful submission, decline jurisdiction to
adjudicate the Application until such time as a trial judge
has been assigned.

JCT: This is a pre-plea motion to any judge. No trial judge
needs to be assigned until it's decided whether the law is
dead or alive.

11. Mr. Turner does not have the requisite standing to
request the remedies sought.

JCT: He certainly has the standing to make a Section 601
motion to quash as no longer known to law.

In particular, Mr. Turner does not have public interest
standing to obtain an order for a prohibition of the
prosecution of all marijuana-related offences in Canada or a
remedy on behalf of all persons charged with marihuana-
related offences in Canada.

JCT: Terry Parker's appeal affected all. The J.P. case did
too.

In the absence of the requisite public interest standing,
Mr. Turner may only seek remedies as they apply to his
specific legal proceedings.

JCT: Okay, let the judge declare the prohibition "no longer
known to law" for just James and no one else. Har har har.

12. Mr. Turner's request for an order staying his specific
charges as an abuse of the process on the grounds that all
statutes governing marihuana are of no force and effect, is
an allegation that his rights as protected by section 7 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been
infringed. This issue has been disposed of by the Court of
Appeal for Ontario in a number of cases and most recently
re-iterated in R. v. Turmel, [2007] O.J. No. 724.

13. Mr. Turner has no standing to seek an order citing the
Minister of Justice in contempt of a court order.

JCT: As a victim of the Crown's contempt for the Parker and
Krieger decisions, I wonder if he has no standing.

14. Mr. Turner has not complied with the requirements
concerning Applications as set out in the Courts of Justice
Act or the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

JCT: Again she doesn't say which of the thousands of rules
Turner has not complied with. I guess when one can't state
which rules were not complied with, it's easier to just
state they weren't complied with with no particulars.

15. An official transcript of the court proceedings may be
made available to Mr. Turner should he wish to supplement or
replace his hand-written notes. A further recording of the
proceeding for any other purpose is contrary to section 136
of the Courts of Justice Act.

JCT: She has that backwards. Section 136 says Mr. Turner can
tape record to supplement or replace his hand-written notes.
Nowhere does it say that he can't supplement or replace his
hand-written notes with a tape-recorder because transcripts
are available months later.

Relief sought:

16. That this Application should be dismissed.

Should this Honourable Court request it, the Respondent will
file a factum.

Dated at Ottawa this 10th day of June 2008.

Elizabeth O'Grady
Counsel
Public Prosecution Service of Canada
800-160 Elgin St. Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8
Tel/Fax: 613-957-7000/9043

JCT: Yes, the Court of Appeal has said that POLCOA does not
apply when their court legislated the new law and most
judges just bend over and take it. When the dismiss it
having no jurisdiction against their superiors, it pushes
the case upwards until we get to a court with jurisdiction
to correct their superiors.