From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Adrian Stuerm Quash & Charter motions to judge   
      
   JCT: Adrian filed a Quash Motion which was put off to the trial judge   
   for the usual wrong reason that it needed constitutional notice and a   
   few weeks ago Adrian filed the Charter Motion that does need Notice of   
   Constitutional Question to provincial Attorneys-General and the   
   Affidavit of fax service to them.   
      
   So Justice Boucher who is presiding over this pre-trial management   
   conference and will also hear the trial gets to find out that the   
   S.601 Quash motion has to go first before any plea to start the trial   
   and then hear the Charter Motion within the trial.   
      
   So does the judge want to spend the day on the pre-trial Quash Motion   
   with the potential jurors paid to wait too? Or would he want to rule   
   on the Quash Motion at the very start of the trial?   
      
   Since Adrian has nothing more to say than the written word, the easy   
   solution is to let the Crown take a few days file a written Response   
   with a few days for our potential Reply so the judge can rule on it at   
   the opening of the trial and not keep the jurors waiting. It's   
   offering him a way to get to the judgment part of the Quash before the   
   jurors get into the building.   
      
   And Adrian will ask for the Crown to serve it by emailled PDF and the   
   Reply also be served by emailled PDF to the Registry.   
      
   I'd love to be there to see someone with both the Charter and non-   
   Charter motions in each hand pointing out only one needed Notice to   
   the AGs, not the other the original judge said also needed it.   
      
   Just found out that Adrian just got an email from the Crown yesterday   
   afternoon demanding particulars for the Charter Motion before today's   
   hearing:   
      
   Julien Bernard   
   Date: 2017-04-25 1:35 PM   
   Objet: Adrian Stuerm et al c. P.G.Q. - 700-01-148088-167   
      
   Nous representons les interets de la Procureure general du Quebec   
   (PGQ), suite a la reception du document Notice of Constitutional   
   Question (une page) que vous retrouverez en annexe. A ce jour, il   
   s'agit du seul document que vous nous avez transmis   
        We represent the interests of the Attorney General for Quebec   
   after reception of your Notice of Constitutional Question (one page)   
   that you'll find in the annex. So far, it's the only document you've   
   transmitted to us.   
      
   JCT: So they got the Notice of Question while the Crown Attorney got   
   the Constitutional Motion with the Question. This clown doesn't even   
   have the right file.   
      
   Cet avis semble contester certaines dispositions du Reglement sur   
   l'acces au cannabis a des fins medicales (RACFM).   
        This notice seems to contest certain provisions of the Access to   
   Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR).   
      
   JCT: We can't very well challenge the bad conditions in only the old   
   regime that also exist in the new regime. Duh.   
      
   Au moment de la commission de l'infraction qui vous est reprochee, le   
   ou vers le 17 janvier 2016, le regime reglementaire applicable a   
   l'usage du cannabis (marihuana) a des fins medicales etait le   
   Reglement sur la marihuana a des fins medicales (RMFM)   
        At the time of the infraction you are charged with, on or around   
   Jan 17 2016, the regulatory regime applicable to the use of marijuana   
   for medical purposes was the Marihuana for Medical Purposes   
   Regulations (MMPR).   
      
   De plus, l'avis recu ne rencontre pas les exigences des articles 76 et   
   77 du Code de procedure civile. Nous estimons donc que votre avis est   
   vague, imprecis et irrecevable, notamment, en ce qu'il i'indique pas   
        Also, the received notice does not meet the requirements of   
   sections 76 and 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We find your Notice   
   to be vague, imprecise, and irreceivable, notably, in that it does not   
   indicate   
   - Les faits propres a votre situation personelle, telles que les   
   raisons et a quelles fins vour produisiez du cannabis au moment de   
   l'infraction elleguee;   
        - the reasons and to what ends you were producing cannabis at the   
   time of the alleged infraction:   
      
   JCT: He was growing cannabis because the prohibitions against cannabis   
   were invalid.   
      
   - En quoi les dispositions contestees s'appliquent a vous   
   personellement et de quelles manniere;   
        - How the contested provisions apply to you personally and in   
   what way;   
      
   JCT: The CDSA provisions that apply to me are those dependent on the   
   MMAR provisions being valid.   
      
   - Quel(s) droit(s) ou quelle(s) liberte(s) garanti par la charte   
   serait(aient) viole(s) par l'application des diverses dispositives   
   contestees.   
        - What rights or liberties  guaranteed by the Charter are   
   violated by the application of the diverse contested provisions.   
      
   JCT: The S.7 Right to Liberty, to not being jailed while the contested   
   provisions pollute the Exemption Regime.   
      
   Sans prejudice a cette demande de precisions et, alternativement,   
   d'irrecevabilite, la PGQ n'est pas en mesure de se preparer   
   adequatement a une audition parce que:   
        Without prejudice to this request for particulars and,   
   alternatively, of irreceivability, the PGQ is not able to adequately   
   prepare for a hearing because:   
      
   - La PGQ ne connait pas le nom des personnes que vous entendez faire   
   temoigner au soutien de votre contestation constitutionelle, ni   
   l'objet de leur temoignage (will say);   
        - The PGQ does know the names of the people you want to have   
   testify in support of your constitutional challenge, nor the object of   
   their testimony (will say);   
      
   JCT: Though he has handed in a dozen so far, they can't see the link   
   to the constitutional motion.   
      
   - La PGQ ne sait pas si vous entendez produire des documents au   
   soutient de votre contestation constitutionelle et, dans   
   l'affirmative, ne les a pas recu.   
   - The PGQ does know know if you intend to produce documentation in   
   support of your constitutional challenge and, affirmatively, has not   
   received any;   
      
   JCT: Yet, Adrian did serve and file those Will-Says already.   
      
   - La PGQ ne sait pas si vous entendez produire des expertises au   
   soutient de votre contestation constitutionelle.   
        - The PGQ does not know if you intend to produce an expert   
   testimony supporting your constitutional challenge.   
      
   JCT: Guess he hasn't seen the Expert Report that was served on his   
   office (improperly he says) and filed with the court.   
      
   Nous vous prions donc de remediez a ces lacunes pour la conference de   
   gestion devant se tenir le 26 avril prochain.   
        We ask that you remedy these lacunas (gaps) for the pre-trial   
   conference to be held next April 26. Tomorrow.   
      
   JCT: Okay, I added the "Tomorrow!" But notice he sent his demand for   
   particulars yesterday afternoon. If he insists, Adrian can ask for   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)