From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Max Gauthier, Martin Gendron and Eric Gravel were back in   
   Quebec Superior Court at Montreal to finalize the details of   
   their upcoming April 24 motion before jury trial.   
      
   The Crown prosecutor was there and told the Court the Crown   
   handling constitutional questions from Quebec City sent a   
   last-minute email stating he wasn't coming because they didn't   
   think it had been done right. Specifically:   
      
   CR: Montreal, 17 March 2017   
      
   We note your constitutional question transmitted to the file   
   on March 7.   
      
   This motion does not respect the rules 76 and 77 of the rules   
   of practice. In effect, your motion:   
   - wasn't served on us by a bailiff;   
      
   JCT: Imagine, he's going waste time making Max hand it to a   
   bailiff to hand to them since Max handing it to them was   
   improper. What a trivial reason since they evidently have been   
   served the documentation.   
      
   CR: - does not expose precisely how the claims and methods you   
   hope to argue at the hearing;   
      
   JCT: That's his opinion and his argument he can present at the   
   hearing. Not a winning argument since the very same arguments   
   were found sufficient for Mernagh and Fontana.   
      
   CR: - Is not accompanied by any procedural Act.   
      
   JCT: I guess he wanted us to insert the Constitution to show   
   the section used and the Charter to show the Right claimed.   
      
   We therefore consider your notice unacceptable, null and   
   without effect, since it is improperly formed.   
      
   Bernard Roy (Justice-Quebec)   
   Jocelyne Larouche, Director   
   cc: Anne-Andree Charette (DPCP)   
      
   JCT: The shit hit the fan because if Max had to re-serve it,   
   it would stall the trial! Har har har har har har.   
      
   So Madam Justice St-Gelais hit the roof since he was wasting   
   her time too. She adjourned it to Mar 24 and he'd better show   
   up. Seems he also wants each of them to file their own papers   
   instead of all three signing it. Tough what he wants. Max will   
   refile one copy for himself and he strikes down the law,   
   they're off too. As if we're going to do triple printing.   
      
   Also, because of this complication, the judge delayed the   
   opening of their trial to June 20-2 giving that much more time   
   to round up witnesses.   
      
   I'm going to amend Max's Charter Challenge to strike down the   
   prohibition on converters (transformers) of the product that   
   was legalized in Smith 2 years ago. We have someone charged in   
   Thetford Mines with converting, not growing. Sure, patients   
   can have it but they have to convert it themselves. We'll have   
   some patients testify who can't or don't want to convert it   
   themselves.   
      
   And it lets me reintroduce the issue of non-instantaneity of   
   form processing that I had dropped thinking it less important.   
   But I know of one ACMPR Grow Permit that's been waiting 13   
   weeks to have their Grow Permits authorized when there's   
   nothing for them to do. They're keeping the office short-   
   staffed. But one witness will testify that it's taking 13   
   weeks so far.   
      
   So 2 new torts to add to the list.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)