From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: I think I can explain why lots of judges may have gotten   
   the "S.601 Quash motion is constitutional" wrong. Here is the   
   document title with the sections I referred to:   
      
              APPLICATION FOR ALLARD-SMITH BENO QUASH   
                 AND RETURN OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE   
                    (S.601 and S.24 of the CDSA)   
      
   Now, I'd bet every judge looked at that and first saw S.24 and   
   thought I'd meant S.24 of the Charter which everyone uses. But   
   it's S.24 of the CDSA to get the pot returned.   
      
   Now, the CDSA, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, is part of   
   the Criminal Code but apart from S.601. So I made a mistake   
   too in saying S.601 of the CDSA, it really was S.601 of the   
   CCC. But I think I've come up with one heck of a fix to   
   prevent such judicial errors in the future: here's the new   
   references I'm added to the http://johnturmel.com/allard page   
   kits.   
      
         (C.C.C S.601 and C.D.S.A S.24, not the Charter)   
      
   JCT: Har har har har har har. Not the Charter. Right in the   
   title. If that doesn't get the judge's attention that this is   
   something different, what else will?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)