From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: On Wednesday July 26 2017, the Crown has filed a motion   
   in the Quebec Court of Appeal at Montreal (100 Notre Dame St.)   
   to summarily dismiss the appeal of Adrian Stuerm against his   
   conviction while the MMPR was defective (which Justice   
   Schrager ruled was "not frivolous") and will oppose his motion   
   for leave to appeal his mandatory minimum sentence because of   
   the Elliott strike-down in B.C. Why, it's not written down.   
      
   It was written in French and I usually transcribe it before   
   translating but I don't have the time for the French so here's   
   just the translation. Never had a complaint in over 30 years.   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF MONTREAL                (Criminal Chamber)   
   NO: 500-10-006442-170        Between   
   C.S. 700-01-152951-171        Adrian Stuerm   
                                RESPONDENT   
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                APPLICANT   
      
             MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL   
               (S.685 of the Criminal Code of Canada)   
      
      
   TO THE REGISTRAR (CLERK) OF THE QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL:   
      
   1. On May 10 2017, after a trial by judge and jury, the   
   Respondent was found guilty of having produced cannabis under   
   (S.7(1)(2b) of the CDSA;   
      
   2. On May 23 2017, the Respondent was sentenced to the   
   mandatory minimum 6 months incarceration;   
      
   JCT: Actually, it was May 18.   
      
   3. On May 24 2017, the Respondent filed an appeal against the   
   guilty verdict by the jury. It is this appeal that is   
   challenged by the present motion;   
      
   JCT: There is still the motion for leave to appeal against   
   sentence that Adrian just cinched with the June 9 2017 B.C.   
   Court of Appeal Elliott decision striking down the mandatory   
   minimums. They tried to oppose the leave to appeal sentence   
   last time but it was passed along to this panel. But handing   
   in the Elliott decision should have taken any wind out of   
   those sails.   
      
   When Adrian sent me the motion today, he asked if striking the   
   Quash Appeal could result in his being sent back to finish his   
   sentence. Usually, but not with a sentence appeal that is   
   still ongoing, right? So they would have to summarily dismiss   
   his non-frivolous conviction appeal while at the same time,   
   not allowing him to be the first to use Elliott in Quebec;   
   pretty long odds given the "non-frivolous" Schrager   
   pronouncement.   
      
   4. During a June 7 2017 hearing, Judge Mark Schrager J.C.A.   
   granted permission for the Respondent to amend his appeal   
   procedures and released the Respondent pending his appeal;   
      
   5. In a note at the bottom of the page, the judge takes notice   
   of the intention of the AG to eventually make a motion to   
   summarily reject the appeal;1   
   1) 500-10-006442-170 June 7 judgment   
      
   JCT: Notice no mention of how Justice Schrager stated: "the   
   appeal is not frivolous." This is the appeal on the MMPR being   
   declared unconstitutional in Allard when he was busted for   
   Parker/Krieger invalidations to apply. But notice the duck of   
   the issue we'll get to point out in response. Har har har.   
      
   6. The Respondent also appealed his 6-month sentence;   
      
   7. He therefore served a motion for leave to appeal his   
   sentence on June 14 2017;   
      
   8. On June 21, 2017, Justice Marie-France Bich, J.C.A.   
   deferred the hearing of the motion for leave to appeal the   
   sentence to the panel that will hear the motion to summarily   
   dismiss the appeal on the verdict;2   
   2) 500-10-006454-175 June 21 judgment   
      
   9. The Applicant considers the Respondent's appeal on the   
   verdict is futile and vexatious and does not raise serious   
   arguments of law;   
      
   JCT: That the MMPR was defective when he was busted is not   
   frivolous, as the MMAR being defective when J.P. was busted   
   wasn't frivolous! Yet they say it does not raise serious   
   arguments? Har har har har har har.   
      
   10. In effect, the Respondent's appeal contains essentially   
   two grounds of appeal:   
      
   a. According to the Respondent, the CDSA would be   
   unconstitutional since the Ontario Court of Appeal's R. v.   
   Parker;   
      
   JCT: That's not Adrian's main argument though it is auxiliary   
   that Possession was never re-enacted by Parliament since it   
   was struck down in 2001. It's that the new MMPR exemption was   
   defective anew.   
      
   But second, he's not  relying on Parker [2000] invalidating   
   the Possession Offence by the Ontario Court of Appeal for his   
   Production Charge! He's relying on Krieger [2003] invalidating   
   the Production Offence by the Alberta Court of Appeal for his   
   Production charge. They cite the wrong case!!! Har har har.   
   He'll use Parker for his Possession charge in St. Jerome, not   
   his Production charge in Montreal.   
      
   b. Given this, the judge of first instance should have granted   
   his motion under S.601 (motion to quash);   
      
   JCT: Sure, the judges of first instance should have granted it   
   but the judges of first should have at least heard it. But   
   they all refused until Trial Judge Boucher dismissed it at the   
   end of the trial without reading it! Har har har. That will   
   teach him. When I reminded Adrian to raise the decision on the   
   Quash which had not been ruled on, I knew it was the lynch-pin   
   of his appeal as Judge Boucher dismissed it summarily saying   
   it was the same as the constitutional he had earlier   
   dismissed.   
   Quick point, the Crown has produced every court decision so   
   far including the conviction. But no mention of the decision   
   on the Quash motion! Think about that. We're appealing because   
   of the dismissal of the Quash motion and the ruling on that   
   motion isn't in the record! Har har har. Unless it's in the   
   final May 10 Boucher decision transcript. Not sure. But they   
   didn't notice the "Motion dismissed" was somewhere in there.   
      
   11. Also, the precedents cited in support of the arguments do   
   not have any application in the present file;   
      
   JCT: They just can't see how Parker-Hitzig getting J.P. charge   
   quashed applies to asking that Krieger-Allard gets Adrian   
   charge quashed. Because they can't see, it must be frivolous.   
      
   12. The Parker case concerns the medical use of marijuana;   
      
   JCT: So we don't have to win that again, do we? But we can use   
   it. Besides, we're using Krieger and the Crown hasn't noticed   
   that yet. Har har har har har har.   
      
   CR: The Ontario Court of Appeal declared the prohibition of   
   marijuana to be invalid suspending its effect for a year to   
   permit legislators to regulate the medical use of marijuana,   
   which was done.   
      
   JCT: Unsuccessfully. Har har har. It didn't work so it was not   
   "done."   
      
   13. Hitzig v. HMQ [2003] also concerns the medical use of   
   cannabis;   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)