From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: After being stopped in her car, my niece Marie was   
   charged with S.4(1) Possession of marijuana for a 3-gram bud   
   and S.7(1) Production for 3 clones! Producing in a car! Har   
   har har har har har.   
      
   She filed a motion to Quash and the first Judge Anouk   
   Desaulniers adjourned it stating it needed a constitutional   
   notice though the motion cited Ontario Superior Court Justice   
   Rogin explaining why constitutional Notice wasn't necessary   
   for a S.601 Quash motion. She hadn't read it when ordering the   
   Notice of Constitutional Question be served on all provincial   
   Attorneys-General. She also recused herself due to past   
   history as Crown Attorney against Ray a dozen years ago.   
      
   So I wrote a Notice of NO Constitutional Question and fax   
   served it on all the Attorneys General. Watch them say Quebec   
   has a different number and one department doesn't communicate   
   with another.   
      
   But at the Gatineau hearing before provincial Court of Quebec   
   Judge Laflamme, the Crown explained how the actual Crown with   
   carriage of the case had had a sudden surgery the night before   
   and couldn't be there. He also argued their Quebec Office had   
   not received the Notice and that such notice. Then the judge   
   said it had to be served by a bailiff, not by fax.   
      
   The judge said he'd read the motion and that the Accused was   
   arguing she didn't need a Notice of Constitutional question at   
   all. Then he put it off to the afternoon for argument.   
      
   The judge seemed like a sharpie and I really expected him to   
   say it didn't need a Constitutional Notice but that he'd   
   adjourn the hearing for the right Crown to respond.   
      
   So it surprised me when he later ruled that the Notice of   
   Constitutional Question had to be served by a bailiff and put   
   it off to Sep 23 for a hearing to prove that such service had   
   been effected.   
      
   The problem is, we can't serve them Notice of a hearing without a   
   date for that hearing. And Judge Laflamme didn't give us a   
   date for the hearing but a date to see if we'd filed it right.   
      
   Rather than show up and complain how we need a date before we   
   can fax out the Notice of that date, Marie's going to file for   
   the hearing of the Quash motion on Sep 23 and fax out the   
   Notice for that date. She'll personally serve Quebec at their   
   Gatineau office personally.   
      
   If the Quash motion gets stalled again, at least the Notice is   
   still good for the next date it was adjourned to.   
      
   As we were leaving in the elevator and I complained about how   
   silly it was for people to have to fax a Constitutional Notice   
   to every other provincial Attorney General but that the Quebec   
   one needed service by a bailiff didn't make sense, a lady   
   lawyer exiting said that was wrong, the rules had changed   
   since Jan 2016 this year! Now service could be done in all   
   sort of ways, not bailiff, fax, email, "almost service by   
   Facebook."   
      
   I told her our judge had just told us we needed to have it   
   served by the bailiff and she said he was wrong. It all   
   changed in January with all sorts of new service methods are   
   available without bailiffs.   
      
   Anyway, Marie fax it to the other AGs and personally serve   
   Quebec in the Gatineau office to ensure there is no "we didn't   
   get it" again.   
      
   So, my niece's Quash will be set for Sep 23 2016 with only   
   another song and dance from the Crown to get it put off.   
      
   Eric Forde in Orillia next.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)