From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: The Crown asked for particulars so they could better   
   understand the Constitutional Challenge.   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU       SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC   
   Dossier: 550-01-090365-158     (Criminal Chamber)   
   Evenment: 137-150630-004   
   CM-2017-000323                Between   
                                 Nicholas Fontana   
                                 Applicant   
      
                                 -and-   
      
                                 Attorney General for Quebec   
                                 Respondent   
      
      
                      APPLICANT'S PARTICULARS   
          Notice of Constitutional Questions of Feb 6 2017   
      
   TO: Honorable Jean-Francois Buffoni   
      
   1. In response to the Crown's demand for particulars:   
      
   MMPR v ACMPR   
      
   2. CR: "the ACMPR took effect on Aug 24 2016. At the date of   
   the commission of the infraction alleged against Mr. Fontana,   
   that on our about July 8 2015, the applicable regulatory   
   regime was the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations   
   ("MMPR").   
      
   3. I cited the challenged provisions in both the MMPR and the   
   ACMPR. If the Crown argument is Applicant may not strike down   
   the provisions in the ACMPR because he was charged while the   
   MMPR was in effect, Applicant still submits that even if the   
   MMPR provisions may not be struck down now that they're gone,   
   those flaws still made the MMPR defective at the time of the   
   offence as they do make the ACMPR defective now. The Applicant   
   will submit that the Parker Order that the Prohibition is   
   invalid absent a valid Exemption means the prohibition was   
   invalid while the exemption was invalid at the time the   
   accused was charged.   
      
   OMISSIONS   
      
   4. CR: We submit that this notice does not meet the criteria   
   of articles 76-68 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   
      
   5. And yet such Charter challenges did meet the criteria to be   
   adjudicated in other jurisdictions. R. v. Mernagh S.C.Ont.   
   [2012], R. v. Spottiswood S.C.Ont. [2012], R. v. Godfrey   
   P.C.N.S. [2014].   
      
   6. CR: - the Notice doesn't indicate the facts related to Mr.   
   Fontana himself, for example, what Mr. Fontana does in life,   
      
   7. I have a farm that grows organic vegetables and fruit.   
      
   8. But I submit my personal facts are as irrelevant to whether   
   the prohibitions are invalid (Parker-Krieger) absent the   
   exemption (Hitzig) as were irrelevant healthy J.P.'s facts and   
   the facts of the 4,000 other Canadians whose charges were   
   dropped while the exemption was absent. The fact all accused   
   faced loss liberty gave standing to benefit from the   
   Prohibition Invalid when Exemption Absent. If the law was dead   
   for all them once it was shown the exemption was faulty,   
   irrespective of their personal facts, it should be dead for   
   all of use once Smith-Allard showed the exemption was absent.   
      
   9. CR: and why and what purposes did he produce cannabis   
   marihuana on or about the date of the infraction July 8 2015.   
      
   10. I produced cannabis for:   
   a) prevention of all the illnesses it's good for once you've   
   got them before getting them; and   
   b) health benefits..   
   Accused is submitting a Will-Say with more details.   
      
   11. CR: - The Notice does not indicate how the diverse   
   sections being challenged apply to Mr. Fontana personally and   
   how;   
      
   12. In R. v. J.P., the youth did not have to show how the   
   Hitzig decision showing an Absent Exemption affected him   
   personally. He only had to show how the Absent Exemption   
   affected the Prohibition which was affecting him personally.   
   As does the Applicant herein.   
      
   13. CR: - This Notice does not indicate which rights or   
   liberties Mr. Fontana are violated by the application of these   
   diverse contested statutes.   
      
   14. Applicant cites only the Charter S.7 Right to Life,   
   Liberty and Security.   
      
   15. CR: Without prejudice to this motion for particulars, and   
   alternatively, inadmissibility, the PGQ is not in the position   
   to adequately prepare for the March 6 hearing in opposition to   
   Mr. Fontana's Notice of Constitutional Questions because:   
      
   - the PGQ does not the name of people Mr. Fontana intends to   
   have testify in support of his constitutional challenge nor   
   the object of their testimony (will-say).   
      
   16. The Will-Says of several patient witnesses have been   
   submitted and more soon will be.   
      
   17. CR: - the PGQ does not know if Mr. Fontana intends to   
   produce documents in support of his constitutional challenge,   
   and if yes, have not yet received them.   
      
   18. Applicant has now submitted a Record of Expert Witness   
   Report with more Will-Says.   
      
   19. CR: - the PGQ doesn't know if Mr. Fontana intends to   
   produce any expert testimony in support, and if yes, had not   
   yet received it and does not know the name of any experts and   
   has not received their written report.   
      
   20. The Expert Witness in the Mathematics of Gambling is John   
   C. Turmel, B. Eng.   
      
   21. In order to shorten the Charter challenge, patient   
   witnesses are filling out a template listing the harmful   
   provisions alleged so each can indicate which topics they can   
   testify about.   
      
   22. The Expert Witness will give the opinion that the   
   provisions harm more than help, decreasing the chances of   
   survival rather than increasing them. The Crown can rebut by   
   showing the benefits.   
      
   23. But once the Court has heard the fifth witness testify how   
   not being able to get insurance coverage because there was no   
   Drug Identification Number was financially painful, the Court   
   may order no more need for testimony on that point.   
      
   24. Once the Court has heard the fifth witness testify how   
   having to break the law by not destroying last month's surplus   
   from light pain upon receipt of next month's supply in case of   
   shortage next month from heavy pain was stressful, the Court   
   may order no more need for testimony on that point.   
      
   25. As soon as the Court has heard sufficient detail on any   
   point, only witnesses for the remaining points will need to be   
   heard. It could go a lot faster than it may have seemed.   
      
   26. Should the Charter challenge be dismissed, I will then   
   proffer an Agreed Statement of Facts so there's no need for   
   prosecution witnesses to the truth I don't deny.   
      
   Dated at Mirabel Quebec on Feb 26 2017.   
   _____________________________   
   Applicant/Accused Signature   
   Nicholas Fontana   
   CC: Me. Mario Normandin   
      
   JCT: There's going to be another teleconference call this   
   afternoon. Stay tuned.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)