From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA   
   COUNTY OF SHELBURNE   
      
                 PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
                             - and -   
                        DAVID LEWIS BUTLER   
                                                     Applicant   
      
                       REPLY TO RESPONDENT   
                    (Defence Motion to Quash)   
      
      
   1. Applicant agrees the Crown has fairly presented my   
   arguments. Applicant agrees Provincial Court does not have   
   jurisdiction to deal with declaratory relief but Applicant   
   will have standing to raise them upon any appeal to a court   
   with such jurisdiction.   
      
   2. Whether all sections of the CDSA including S.5   
   trafficking are unconstitutional is for later declaratory   
   argument. This application deals strictly with only the non-   
   constitutional Motion to Quash a S.7 cultivation charge   
   pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code.   
      
   3. The Motion for Return of Controlled Substance may seem   
   premature since it cannot be adjudicated until after the   
   charge is quashed but must be filed within 60 days or as   
   soon thereafter before any controlled substance deemed   
   unnecessary for evidence could be destroyed.   
      
   4. In R. v. Parker [2000], the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled   
   that the Possession Prohibition was Invalid Absent an   
   Exemption for medical use (suspended to July 31 2001) and   
   would have struck down the S.7 cultivation prohibition had   
   it been before them too.   
      
   5. The Crown notes how many times the BENO argument has been   
   rejected by courts in similar quash motions. It was a   
   mistake to use the acronym BENO Bad Exemption No Offence   
   though a better acronym than PIAE Prohibition Invalid Absent   
   Exemption with the actual words of the court. BENO seems to   
   have confused many courts for that reason. Just can't get   
   how Bad Exemption No Offence means the same thing as   
   Parker's Prohibition Invalid Absent Exemption.   
      
   6. The Crown repeatedly states that S.7 has never been   
   declared invalid. Appendum #1 is the decision with reasons   
   of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench in R. v. Krieger [2003]   
   whose judge adopted the reasons of the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal in Parker to strike down the S.7 prohibition on   
   cultivation absent a valid exemption and whose Court of   
   Appeal dismissed the Crown appeal. Appendum #2 is the ruling   
   at the Supreme Court of Canada dismissing the Crown Krieger   
   appeal against the invalidation of the S.7 cultivation   
   prohibition. Applicant further notes that Justice Taliano in   
   R. v. Mernagh [2012] struck down both S.7 cultivation and   
   S.4 Possession absent exemption because doctors were not   
   signing but overturned for failure to show doctors didn't   
   have good reason to refuse and then let their patients die.   
      
   7. In Hitzig v. HMQ [2003], the Ontario Court of Appeal   
   ruled that the exemption had been absent based on a few   
   infirmities. In the companion J.P. appeal, the Court quashed   
   J.P.'s possession charge ruling the Hitzig decision meant   
   the Parker ruling had taken effect to invalidate the   
   prohibition on possession in S.4 of the CDSA with only those   
   few infirmities.   
      
   8. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that its amendment   
   making the exemption valid and no longer absent had the   
   result of resurrecting the CDSA prohibition on possession   
   after 2 years of invalidity without any input from   
   Parliament. But the Court could not resurrect the   
   prohibition on cultivation struck down by the Alberta Court   
   of Appeal in Krieger.   
      
   9. The Crown makes issue of how many times the various   
   regimes have had features condemned while the rest of the   
   regime was left intact and working. It's like saying Hitzig   
   found 4 defects in the car, 2 flat tires, seized brake and   
   no engine, but the rest of the machine is left intact and   
   still works fine. And Smith only found one defect, no   
   steering wheel, and the rest of the machine is intact and   
   working fine.   
      
   10. The Crown points out how many times flaws in the   
   exemption have been struck down and how many times judge did   
   not follow the J.P. precedent to obey the Parker Order of   
   Invalid Prohibition Absent Exemption.   
      
   11. The Crown notes that the Supreme Court in Smith did not   
   declare the CDSA prohibitions invalid when declaring the   
   MMAR exemption absent, the B.C. Court of Appeal in Beren did   
   not declare the prohibitions invalid when declaring the   
   exemption absent for the same defect as Hitzig had, the   
   Federal Court of Appeal in Sfetkopoulos did not declare the   
   prohibitions invalid when declaring the exemption absent for   
   another reason as Hitzig had. Those courts did not refuse to   
   obey the Parker Order, they were not asked. And the Ontario   
   Court of Appeal in Hitzig did not declare the absent   
   exemption made the prohibition invalid. So, sure, lots of   
   courts weren't asked and did not comply with Parker.   
      
   12. But the Court was asked by counsel for J.P. Brian   
   McAllister that the possession offence against his client be   
   quashed as invalid absent exemption and he won. Then, in   
   December 2003, rather than appeal, the Crown quietly stayed   
   the remaining 4,000 possession charges across Canada whether   
   medically needy or not.   
      
   13. And many other courts that were asked to quash did not   
   comply for various pretexts.   
      
   14. The Crown argues the rejection of Parker [2001] was   
   similar to this Quash. He had not been charged and was   
   seeking Return of marijuana seized by Canada Post.   
      
   15. The Parker and Krieger invalidations of S.4 possession   
   and S.7 cultivation offences absent exemption remain.   
      
   16. The Smith decision has found that the machine couldn't   
   work despite only one small flaw, having to only smoke dried   
   herb, not being able to use it properly as oil for tumors.   
   Yet, though only the steering wheel is missing, the Crown   
   argues the rest of the machine was intact and working when   
   Applicant was charged.   
      
   Dated at _______________________ on _______ 2016.   
   David Lewis Butler   
      
   JCT: So that's our best shot at a Quash coming up June 9.   
   Could be a great show.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)