From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: The Crown asked that Adrian Stuerm be sentenced to the   
   mandatory minimum sentence for more than 6 plants of 6 months   
   in prison.   
      
   When Adrian pointed out how Justice Buffoni had sentenced   
   Nicola Fontana to community service for 26 plants, and how   
   Rene Ouellet's Crown had offered him no prison for a plea,   
   Justice Alexandre Boucher noted they were both mandatory   
   minimums and took 20 minutes to go check it out.   
      
   Then he came back and sentenced Adrian to 6 months. Guess   
   Buffoni and the Gatineau Crown didn't know. Adrian was sent to   
   Bordeaux but the judge did recommend he serve his sentence in   
   St-Jerome to be near his family.   
      
   Last night, I prepared his Notice of Appeal and Motion for   
   Release Pending Appeal to be filed today. I can't reach him   
   but he authorized his wife will sign for him and I've asked   
   the court to accept it.   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF ST-JEROME               (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: ST-JEROME   
   NO: 500-01-113376-146        Between   
                                Adrian Stuerm   
                                APPELLANT/Accused   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                RESPONDENT/Prosecution   
      
            [On Appeal from the May 18 2017 judgment of   
        Superior Court of Quebec Justice Alexandre Boucher]   
      
                          NOTICE OF APPEAL   
              (Pursuant to S.813 of the Criminal Code)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant appeals his conviction upon a   
   question of law alone.   
      
   (a)  Offence: S.7(1) production of 65 cannabis plants and 24   
   clones;   
      
   (b)  Sentence imposed: 6-months mandatory minimum;   
      
   (c)  Date of verdict and judgment: May 10 2017;   
        Date of sentence: May 18 2017;   
      
   (d)  Place of trial: Montreal;   
      
   (e)  Court of first instance: Superior Court of Quebec;   
        Court file number: 500-01-113376-146;   
      
   (f) the grounds of appeal and remedy sought:   
      
   1. The learned Judge failed to Quash the Charge as a nullity.   
      
   2. In R. v. Parker [2000], the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled   
   that the Possession prohibition is Invalid without a valid   
   medical exemption.   
    3. In 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Hitzig v.   
   HMQ that the exemption had been unconstitutionally defective   
   and struck down the flaws to now make it constitutional.   
      
   4. Absent a working exemption, the same Court ruled in R. v.   
   J.P. that the Prohibition was Invalid while the MMAR was   
   deficient supporting the Superior and Provincial Court judges   
   who had quashed the charge. Rather than appeal, 60 days later,   
   the Crown stayed 4,000 possession charges across Canada that   
   had been laid while the exemption had been absent from Aug 1   
   2001 to Oct 7 2003.   
      
   5. In 2012, Justice Taliano declared the MMAR absent for the   
   failure of doctors to participate and followed Parker to   
   declare the prohibitions on Possession and Cultivation   
   invalid. It was overturned and sent back for trial upon the   
   ground that there was no evidence that 90% of Canada's doctors   
   had not had sound medical reasons for their refusals. Before   
   the patients could again testify to the non-medical reasons   
   the doctors had used to refuse, the Crown stayed the charges.   
      
   6. In contrast to those 9 Ontario judges who have followed   
   Parker's "Prohibition Invalid Absent Exemption" dictum, the   
   Crown will cite even more courts who later refused to declare   
   the prohibitions invalid while accepting the exemption was   
   absent. The Crown may cite such failure to follow Parker as   
   proof Parker is no longer valid.   
      
   7. In 2016, in Allard v. HMQ, Federal Court of Canada struck   
   down the MMPR as unconstitutional   
      
   8. Since the MMPR was not a valid medical exemption, Appellant   
   seeks a declaration that S.4(1) and S.7(1) of the Controlled   
   Drugs & Substances Act were constitutionally invalid at the   
   time of the offence.   
      
   9. The appeal upon such precedents is well-founded.   
      
   (g) the civic address and electronic address:   
   Adrian Stuerm   
      
   (h) the name, civic address and, if available, the electronic   
   address of the respondent:   
   Eric Cote, 25 de Martigny O., St-Jerome, J7Y 4Z1   
      
   Dated at Montreal on May 19 2017.   
   Adrien Stuerm, Appellant   
      
   JCT: If the Court insists he sign it personally, then Caroline   
   will have to get it through security to him as fast as   
   possible. Next scheduled Motions day is May 29. Having a   
   lawyer would make it all easy.   
      
                 MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL   
      
   TO AN HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL   
   CHAMBER) SITTING IN MONTREAL, the Appellant states:   
      
   1. Pursuant to S.52(2), Applicant would ask that any affidavit   
   for this motion for interim release be excused and ask the   
   Court to rely upon the Statement of Facts signed by the   
   Accused and Crown prosecutor for the trial and allow any   
   uncontested statements made herein.   
      
   (b) I have had full-time employment for ________ years at   
   ________________________________________________________.   
      
   (c) I have no previous convictions.   
      
   (d) I have an outstanding charge of Possession for the Purpose   
   of Trafficking on the same facts coming up in St-Jerome on   
   June 20 2017.   
      
   (e) I do not hold a Canadian or foreign passport and have not   
   applied for one.   
      
   Given my family with 4 small children to support, there is no   
   flight risk but reason for expedition of the motion.   
      
   Being incarcerated without a lawyer, swearing, signing and   
   transmitting documents is very complicated. I have authorized   
   my wife to sign my name for me and ask the Court to so allow.   
      
   Dated at Montreal on May 19 2017   
   Adrien Stuerm, Appellant   
      
                          NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that at 9:30 on May 19 2017 or as soon thereafter   
   as may be heard a motion on short notice seeking an Order   
   releasing the Appellant pending his appeal.   
      
   Appellant asks that the motion be heard by telephone under   
   Rule 40.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission as to form, color, font, margins,   
   content which the Honourable Justice may allow.   
      
   Dated at Montreal on May 19 2017.   
   Adrien Stuerm, Appellant   
      
   JCT: So, he's asking the judge to schedule a telephone hearing   
   later today or as soon as they can get around to it. Ray's   
   going to take it and see if it gets in with so much unusual   
   stuff being requested. Short notice, by telephone, signed by   
   proxy.   
      
   Worst case, he's heard on regular motions day on May 29.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)