INSTRUCTIONS TO "OVERTURN" CONVICTIONS FORMS
Unless you were convicted within the last 30 days, you will need
to file an application for an extension of time to appeal. The
Ontario Court of Appeal sits daily at 130 Queen St. W. M5H
2N5 and you need to give the Crown at least 2 days notice.
So you fill out the forms:
Record cover (buff color)
Notice where you pick a date for court and sign and date.
Notice back
Affidavit sworn before a J.P. or a suit
Affidavit back
Record back (buff color)
Once your forms are filled out and sworn, then make 5 copies; 3
for the court; one for the Crown, one for you and one for me if
you're going to want me to help you take it to the Supreme Court.
You could go down to 130 King St. W. Toronto and serve the Appeal
Crown office. They've never refused to accept service where small
service blurb on the back of the record cover for jurisdictions
where they might not sign.
Or, if you live far away and only want to go to Toronto once,
1) serve a copy on your local Crown and get another copy signed
for acceptance of service. If the Crown won't sign, I've provided
the small affidavit of service blurb on back of the record cover
which you can again get a JP or suit to swear;
2) then mail it and two more copies in to the Court of Appeal
with plenty of time. That way, you show up in Toronto only once.
contact:
Derek Francisco: 705-308-6337
John Turmel: 519-753-5122 Cell 519-717-1012
IF CONVICTED:
http://johnturmel.com/turmeloverturn.doc is used if you were convicted while the law was repealed between Dec 3 2003 and Mar 31 2010 and want to appeal late and have your conviction overturned and your fine returned. It includes your Notice of appeal where you enter the judicial info about your charges and dispositions.
http://johnturmel.com/turmelgetout.doc is used by inmates who want to be released pending their appeal. It's a 1-pager they append to the Notice of Appeal form provided by the prison so they don't need another Notice of Appeal, just the grounds.
Finding people to file these last two in the Court of Appeal are 30 times more effective than filing any of the 3 motions, quash, prohibit Beren, prohibit POLCOA, do below.
When you appeal, you get 3 judges out of 23, say a choice of 8 panels. Below, there are 242 Superior Court judges in Ontario who sit one at a time. Pretty tough to plug them up below but not so tough to plug them up above. Enough plugging and they're going to have to correct the bogus convictions for everyone when they get tired of correcting them one at a time. Remember Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet's own words:
"[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."
Then Pallister Crown Attorney Kevin Wilson points out they fixed the flaws on May 14 2009 and Mar 31 2010 to bring the prohibition back alive a la Hitzig resurrection.
The "Pallister Pass" Out of Jail or Charges
http://johnturmel.com/pallpass.txt
Sfetkopoulos Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet to SCC:
"[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."
Pallister Crown Attorney Kevin Wilson to SCO:
"20. In express response to Sfetkopoulos paragraph
41(b.1) of the MMAR was amended Effective May 14 2009
to permit the holder of a production licence to grow
for up to two ATP-holders. Although Sfetkopoulos
determined that the pre-amendment regime was
constitutionally defective, it necessarily has made no
such determination with respect to the post-amendment
regime. As the offence date of the Applicant's charges
is October 2 2009, the alleged offences took place
under the post-amendment regime. The MMAR were amended
before the Applicant's alleged offence."
People facing charges during the Pallister Period of
prohibition invalidity before Flaw 41 in the MMAR found
by Sfetkopoulos was fixed on May 14 2009 can hand in
Kevin Wilson's admission and point out that they were
charged before the Sfetkopoulos Flaw 41 was fixed.
John 'The MedPot Engineer' Turmel
http://johnturmel.com