From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Adrian Stuerm was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 6   
   months for growing 65 plants in his garage. He was released   
   pending his appeal against conviction and then filed for leave   
   to appeal against the mandatory minimum sentence. The Crown   
   opposes letting him appeal:   
      
                            COUR D'APPEL   
   PROVINCE DE QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE MONTREAL   
   No: 500-10-006454-175   
   No: 500-10-006442-170   
      
   No: 500-10-006451-171   
      
                           ADRIAN STUERM   
                                                Requerant/Accuse   
      
                                 c.   
      
                        SA MAJESTE LA REINE   
                                 et   
                    PROCUREURE GENERAL DU QUEBEC   
                                                       Intimees   
      
        MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ARGUMENT SUPPORTING THE   
                UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SENTENCE   
                     Section 365 of the C.C.C.   
                          Respondent Party   
                    Attorney General for Quebec   
                          Dated Aug 9 2017   
      
   TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, THE   
   RESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR QUEBEC EXPOSES WHAT FOLLOWS:   
      
   1. On May 23 2017, the Honourable Judge Alexandre Boucher,   
   j.c.s. of the district of Montreal, sentenced the Appellant to   
   6-months imprisonment to be purged at the Saint-Jerome   
   Detention Center, as appears in the Judgment in Annex I.   
      
   JCT: It was on May 18 that the judge sentenced Adrian to jail,   
   not the 23rd. Wonder why they keep getting it wrong? And they   
   never bothered moving him from Bordeaux to St-Jerome.   
      
   2. On June 14 2017, the Appellant sought leave to appeal from   
   the sentence as appears in his motion for leave to appeal   
   sentence in Annex II.   
      
   3. On June 16 2017, the Court of Appeal transmitted to the   
   Bureau of the Attorney General for Quebec ("P.G.Q.") a copy of   
   the motion for leave to appeal from sentence ("Motion") in   
   which the Applicant argues that a mandatory minimum of 6   
   months violates his rights under S.9 and S.12 of the Charter,   
   as it appears from the transmission of his June 16 Memorandum,   
   Annex III.   
      
   4. On June 21 2017, the Honourable Judge Marie-France Bich of   
   this Court deferred the motion for leave to appeal the   
   sentence to the panel with carriage of the motion for summary   
   dismissal of the appeal against conviction (No." 500-10-   
   006442-170) as shown in Annex IV.   
      
   JCT: Also on that date, Adrian entered into the file a copy of   
   the June 9 2017 Elliott decision where the B.C. Court of   
   Appeal struck down mandatory minimums. It's been 60 days since   
   then and I haven't heard of the Crown appealing to the Supreme   
   Court. Had the Crown appealed and lost, they would be struck   
   down in Quebec. But since they gave up, does that mean that   
   it's not struck down in Quebec. We'll finally find out if the   
   Crown not appealing means they don't lose everywhere else and   
   it has to be struck down in every other province too. Seems   
   stupid but this is Canadian Justice.   
      
   5. It appears from the motion that the constitutional argument   
   raised by the Appellant should be dismissed for the following   
   grounds:   
      
   6. Firstly the Appellant raises in his motion the   
   unconstitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of 6   
   months in S.7(2)(bi) of the CDSA ("Law") for the first time.   
      
   7. By virtue of S.76 and 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure,   
   ("C.p.c."), a person who intends to raise the   
   unconstitutionality of a legislative provision must serve his   
   Notice to the P.G.Q. at least 30 days before the hearing.   
      
   8. But, no such notice was served in the Superior Court   
   hearing.   
      
   9. By this fact, the constitutional challenge is more than   
   late.   
      
   JCT: He was convicted on May 10 and hastily sentenced on May   
   18, not quite the 30 days needed to file a notice on time.   
      
   10. Secondly, the Appellant does not expose in a precise   
   manner the pretensions he is making, not the grounds that   
   justify them, contenting himself with invoking in a simple   
   paragraph of his motion that the mandatory minimum "is a   
   draconian violation" of the Appellant's rights protected by   
   S.9 and 12 of the Charter.   
      
   JCT: True. At the time he filed for leave to appeal sentence,   
   it's all he argued. Then 2 days later, we heard about the   
   Elliott decision and so can adopt his successful arguments.   
      
   11. Yet, the legislator aimed at strict regulations to follow   
   for people who seeks to challenge the "constitutional   
   applicability or validity of a provision of a law of Quebec or   
   Canada. From all evidence, the third paragraph of the motion   
   does not equal a serious Notice of intention to raise the   
   unconstitutionality, because meets none of the established   
   criteria.   
      
   JCT: Who cares what the Crown thinks isn't serious. The point   
   it is righteous and it's up to the Court to find a way to   
   allow the self-defender to win his day if there is a way and   
   they know of it.   
      
   12. Moreso, the P.G.Q. could have submitted into evidence   
   elements to support the constitutionality of the mandatory   
   minimums on drugs ("minima" in real Latin), as in the Martin   
   and Landry decisions where the mandatory minimum sentence of 1   
   year in S.7(2)(biii) of the Law was challenged. In these two   
   cases, the P.G.Q. proved it effectively, not only with several   
   documents, but also with the testimony of experts.   
      
   JCT: Experts in mandatory minimums? What kind of expertise is   
   that? Har har har. And why can't they make those arguments   
   now?   
      
   13. Hence, given this question was not raised before the Trial   
   Judge, there is an absence of sufficient evidence to argue the   
   question before this Court.   
      
   JCT: Until we file our Memoranda.   
      
   14. The P.G.Q. is unable to prepare a constitutional   
   contestation and properly defend the provision challenged.   
      
   JCT: Until I file my Memorandum.   
      
   15. Also, it should be stressed that the Trial Judge takes the   
   time to lay out in Paragraph 10 of his decision that the   
   sentence imposed on the Accused "would have been reasonable   
   even without a mandatory minimum prescribed by Law."   
      
   JCT: 6 months in jail for 65 plants in his garage when others   
   suffer far less and James Turner even had charges withdrawn   
   for 2,800 plants?   
      
   Also, the principle of judicial withholding (retenue) should   
   be applied to the present case.   
   Dated Aug 9 2017 at Montreal   
   Bernard, Roy   
   For the Respondent   
   Attorney General for Quebec.   
      
   JCT: So there's the first parsing of the Sentence appeal   
   motion. His Applicant's Reply is going to say he adopts the   
   winning arguments in Elliott including claiming Elliott is   
   binding in Quebec too now that the Crown gave up to the   
   Supreme Court.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)