From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Caroline Stuerm files Quash for rare Double Jeopardy!!   
      
   JCT: Double jeopardy rarely comes up, a very rare move. Last   
   time at the Quebec Court of Appeal, I told Crown Maxime   
   Lacourciere that they should expect a motion for double peril   
   if they didn't drop the lesser Possession charges in St-   
   Jerome. Remember, if Double Jeopardy applies to Caroline who   
   was found not guilty of the greater crime, it also applies to   
   Adrian who was found guilty of the prime crime of production.   
      
   I had prepared this a couple of weeks ago but when Adrian   
   brought the motion to the clerk to get a date, the clerk   
   decided that it had to be put off to her upcoming pre-trial   
   hearing on Aug 29 2017 and booked it then.   
      
   I wanted her off the hook before Adrian and make the same   
   motion on the 29th. His point is that either he loses his   
   conviction appeal and double jeopardy applies to the lesser   
   charge or he wins and the lesser charge is dead!!! Since the   
   lesser charge is dead if he wins and double jeopardy if he   
   loses, what purpose can there be to continue prosecution of   
   the lesser charge?   
      
   So I had Ray go in and the use the Magic Words to sap the   
   clerk's defence and get it on the judge's roll. He just went   
   in, asked when were the next sitting of the Court for criminal   
   motions, he inserted Aug 10 into the Notice of Motion, went   
   and served it and came back with a "fait accomplit" and   
   insisted it had to be dealt with by a judge. So it's on:   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE TERREBONNE   
   LOCALITE ST-JEROME                 COUR DU QUEBEC   
   NO: 000-25-005466-161            (Criminal Chamber)   
      
                                 Between   
                                 Caroline Stuerm   
                                 Applicant   
      
                                 -and-   
      
                                 Attorney General for Quebec   
                                 Respondent   
      
                    APPLICATION TO QUASH FOR DOUBLE-PERIL   
      
   TO AN HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF QUEBEC (CRIMINAL   
   CHAMBER) SITTING IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF TERREBONNE, the   
   Applicant states:   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. On Apr 17 2016, I and Adrian Stuerm were charged with   
   growing 65 plants in our garage under S.7(2)(b)(i) Production   
   of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking and S.5(2)   
   Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.   
      
   2. The Production charge was tried in Superior Court before a   
   jury. The Possession charge is now being tried in Cour du   
   Quebec before judge alone.   
      
   3. On May 10 2017, a jury found Adrian Stuerm guilty but I was   
   found not guilty.   
      
   4. With no evidence I had participated in the production, the   
   Crown has not filed an appeal of my acquittal within the   
   required 30 days.   
      
   5. The Crown is continuing prosecution of the charge of   
   possessing the plants I was acquitted of producing.   
      
   PART II - ISSUE   
      
   6. Based on the same facts, is the derivative nature of the   
   Possession upon Production sufficiently similar to constitute   
   Double Jeopardy?   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT   
      
   7. In the Wikipedia definition of Double Jeopardy, it cites   
   S.11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights:   
      
       Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an   
       accused person from being tried again on the same (or   
       similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid   
       acquittal or conviction.   
       If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before   
       the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary   
       matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the   
       projected trial will be prevented from proceeding.   
       In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United   
       States, the guarantee against being "twice put in   
       jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[1][2]   
       The doctrine appears to have originated in Roman law, in   
       the principle non bis in idem ("an issue once decided must   
       not be raised again").[6]   
       Canada   
       The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes   
       provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double   
       jeopardy. However, this prohibition applies only after an   
       accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted.   
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy   
      
   8. Since one cannot Produce without Possessing, Possession is   
   not only similar to Production but "derivative" of Production.   
   With no Production, there could be no Possession. Possession   
   derives from Production. A derivative is more than merely   
   similar.   
      
   9. Applicant submits prosecuting a charge of Possessing what I   
   was found not guilty of producing constitutes double jeopardy.   
      
   PART IV - ORDER   
      
   Applicant asks the Court for an Order to Quash the Accused's   
   Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking charge for Double   
   Jeopardy.   
      
   Dated at __________________________ on ______________ 2017.   
   _____________________________   
   Applicant/Accused Signature   
   Caroline Stuerm   
      
      
                             AFFIDAVIT   
      
   I, Caroline Stuerm, make oath as follows:   
      
   1. On Apr 17 2016, I and my husband Adrian Stuerm were charged   
   with growing 65 plants in our garage under S.7(2)(b)(i)   
   Production of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking and   
   S.5(2) Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.   
      
   2. The Production charge was tried in Superior Court before a   
   jury. The Possession charge is now being tried in Cour du   
   Quebec before judge alone.   
      
   3. On May 10 2017, a jury found Adrian Stuerm guilty but I was   
   found not guilty.   
      
   4. With no evidence I had participated in the production, the   
   Crown has not filed an appeal of my acquittal within the   
   required 30 days.   
      
   5. The charge of possessing the plants I was acquitted of   
   producing has not been withdrawn.   
      
   This Affidavit is made in support of a motion to quash the   
   S.5(2) Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking charge for   
   Double Jeopardy.   
   Sworn before me at St. Jerome on __________ 2017   
   _____________________________   
   Applicant/Accused Signature   
   Caroline Stuerm   
   __________________________   
   A COMMISSIONER, ETC.   
      
                          NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that on Aug 10 2017 at the courthouse in St-Jerome   
   will be the heard the Motion to Quash the S.5(2) Possession   
   for the Purpose of Trafficking charge for Double Jeopardy.   
      
   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 ___________________________ Quebec on ________ 2017.   
   Applicant/Accused Signature   
   Caroline Stuerm   
      
   JCT: So Aug 10 2017 will be a great show about an extremely   
   rare case of double jeopardy for initially "acquittal" and   
   then for "guilty." Neat eh? Ask any lawyer if they've ever   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)