TURMEL: Non-Inmate Turner Reply to SCC re: Inmate Appeal

JCT: James files his Reply to the Supreme Court of Canada
yesterday about his appeal being dismissed as an inmate appeal:

File Number: #33365
Appeal Court No: C49904
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)
BETWEEN:
James Earl Turner
Applicant
Appellant in appeal
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Respondent in appeal

APPLICANT'S REPLY
JAMES EARL TURNER, APPLICANT

1. The Crown has repeatedly stated that the Applicant was
derelict in pursuing the appeal despite the delay being
attributed to the Ottawa Court Reporter's death, not to the
Applicant.

2. The Crown did not respond about the failure comply with the
Rules of the court:
16. Rule 16(1) "EXCEPT IN AN INMATE APPEAL, all parties to an
appeal shall deliver a factum." There are no exceptions for
skipping the filing of factums in a non-inmate appeal so
Appellant asked the Registry if this R. v. Turner appeal was the
first to go to hearing without any factums in the record?
17. Rule 18(1) "EXCEPT IN AN INMATE APPEAL, the appellant shall
serve on every other party to the appeal one copy of the appeal
book, one copy of the transcript and one copy of the appellant's
factum and immediately thereafter shall file with the Registrar
proof of service of the appeal book, the transcript and the
factum..." There are no exceptions for skipping the filing of the
transcripts, factums, proofs of service in a non-inmate appeal
either.
18. Rule 18(2) The appellant shall file with the Registrar two
copies of a certificate of perfection stating..." It doesn't even
say "except in inmate appeals," so everyone's got to file a
Certificate of Perfection. Is this the first appeal ever
scheduled without a Certificate of Perfection or has the Crown
been skipping them for inmate appeals already?
19. Rule 18(3) "The appellant shall perfect the appeal within 90
days after the transcript has been delivered to the Court of
Appeal." Transcripts were mailed to the Court of Appeal on Aug 7
2009 leaving Appellant until Nov to perfect the appeal.

3. As to the Registrar of the Ontario Court of Appeal's error in
scheduling the appeal without having first verified that Rule
18(3) requiring transcripts, Rule 16(1) requiring facta, Rule
18(2) requiring Certificates of Perfection and Rule 18(1)
requiring proofs of service for non-inmate appeals had been
complied with, the Crown has no comment.

4. The Crown has obsessed with the fact that some of these
arguments have been raised before in R. v. Turmel and that makes
skipping the rules all okay. The case is frivolous and vexatious
so the rules don't have to be followed. But new case law such as
Sfetkopoulos and R. v. Beren have recently been handed down
bolstering the argument that the prohibition remains invalid.

5. The Crown alleged that Mr. Turner filed a notice of appeal
from the dismissal of the prohibition application on January 20
2009, 20 days beyond the time for appeal and without seeking any
extension of time to appeal. The Registry does not accept notices
of appeal 20 days beyond the time for appeal.

6. Also, since the Crown felt the transcript was not necessary,
rather than seek an order dispensing with it, the Crown just
skipped it as unnecessary!

7. The Crown says the only question raised by the applicant
relates to the propriety of the dismissal of his appeal when it
is the propriety of an inmate appeal for a non-inmate that is at
issue.

8. As to the Court of Appeal's erring in using Inmate Appeal
Rules for a non-inmate, at no point, despite mentioning the
"appeal" "hearing" dozens of times, not once does the Crown
mention that this was an inmate appeal.

9. As to the Court of Appeal erring in dismissing the Inmate's
Application for Leave to Appeal when no Inmate Application for
Leave to Appeal had been filed by the non-inmate Appellant, the
Crown remains silent.

10. As to the Inmate Appeal Court erring in dismissing an Inmate
Appeal as abandoned because the guards couldn't find the
prisoner, again the Crown has no response.

11. As for the Crown side-stepped the Rules of Procedure by mis-
labeling the Appellant an inmate so as to take advantage of
exemptions to the normal rules that Appellant was due, facta of
arguments from both parties in the record, no answer.

8. As for the Crown's argument that this is not a question of
national importance, a precedent letting the Crown drag non-
inmates though inmate courts is quite important.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

Applicant seeks an order granting leave to appeal the judgment of
Ontario Court of Appeal Justices Stephen Goudge, Robert
Armstrong, and Robert Blair which dismissed the Appellant's
Appeal against the Nov 26 2008 decision of Justice Lalonde.


Dated at Ottawa on Oct 19 2009.
For the Applicant:
James E. Turner
C-2501 Prince of Wales
Ottawa, ON, K2C 3H1
Tel/fax: 613-212-3344/221-9042
Email: jamesturner1326@yahoo.com

JCT: Now we sit back and watch 3 Supremes give the okay to this
incredible maladministration of justice. Har har har. Nyuk nyuk.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]