From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Court of Appeal Orders Adrian Stuerm back to jail   
      
   JCT: Adrian Stuerm filed an appeal against his conviction for   
   Production of 65 Cannabis plants on the grounds that the Judge   
   Boucher erred in dismissing the S.601 Motion to Quash the   
   charge based on the Krieger [2003] invalidation of the S.7(1)   
   Prohibition on Production absent a valid medical exemption and   
   the Allard v. HMQ [2016] ruling that the exemption was not   
   valid between April Fool 2014 and Aug 26 2016.   
      
   The Crown applied to have the appeal of our Charter Motion   
   challenging the MMAR summarily dismissed as frivolous and   
   vexatious though we weren't appealing the dismissal of the   
   Charter Motion against the MMAR, we were appealing the   
   dismissal of the non-Charter S.601 Motion to Quash.   
      
   Adrian also filed for Leave to Appeal his 6-month month   
   mandatory minimum sentence (also charged to Guy Potier for 8   
   plants) on the grounds the Elliott [2017] decision (after his   
   sentencing) struck down the mandatory minima in British   
   Columbia. How fair would it be to send him back to finish his   
   6 months, he did 20 days before release pending appeal, when   
   it's been struck down as unconstitutional for BC.   
      
   QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
      
   Justices Louis Rochette, Nicholas Kasirer, Claude C. Gagnon.   
   Maxime Lacourciere for the Crown Applicant. A dozen lawyers in   
   the room but we're 3rd on the list.   
      
   In the Crown's Application (motion) to summarily dismiss the   
   conviction appeal as frivolous, usually the Applicant spoke   
   first. Here, they asked Adrian to speak first.   
      
   Actually, that was good and bad. The good was that I had   
   prepared a written Response I wanted to Adrian to hand in. So   
   he could. It included what the Court Record did not have, the   
   Krieger documentation for S.7 Production being struck down   
   too, not just S.4 Possession by Parker. And it had the second   
   unknown S.601 Motion to Quash of which they were all unaware.   
   The bad was that the Court didn't have all the info before   
   them and thought the idiot was appealing the Charter Motion   
   against the MMAR. Their minds were made up so they didn't need   
   to hear the Crown make his case, they knew and agreed with it.   
   Thought it was  a waste of time.   
      
   So Adrian proffered the written response with appendices but   
   the Court refused to accept them and told him make his case   
   orally! Adrian asked if John Turmel could read it since it was   
   in English. So he tried.   
      
   He tried to explain that it wasn't a Charter challenge. But   
   the judge jumped on him for paragraph 8 in the Notice of   
   Appeal for a common legal misunderstanding. Here's what I said   
   and then he's what he thought I said:   
       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.   
      
      
   When a law is still alive, a lawyer making the constitutional   
   case that it should be declared dead since such date, will say   
   "Applicant 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 back then."   
      
   Because of the weird rulings by the courts that say the   
   prohibitions are unconstitutional absent a valid medical   
   exemption, there is a unique On-Off Exemption switch judges   
   can't grasp since it's so unique.   
      
   If the Exemption is valid, Prohibition is On. If the Exemption   
   is not valid, Prohibition is Off. They're think it's on until   
   we repeat the same constitutional arguments that turned it Off   
   last time! That Krieger said "No Prohibition since the   
   Exemption was Absent" means we need a new Charter challenge   
   for a new Allard absence. We would it they hadn't included the   
   switch. A conditional unconstitutionality is what they can't   
   get their head around. Never saw an On-Off switch before! If   
   it was On, it needs a Charter Challenge to turn it Off is all   
   they know if they don't know about the conditional switch.   
   They forget how the "absent exemption" affects the Order.   
      
   As far as Judge Kasirer was concerned, when we said "It was Off by   
   previous Charter challenges," he interpreted it as "It should   
   be Off again as previous Charter challenges turned it off   
   then. And of course, he thought all those courts saying Parker   
   only turned off S.4 Possession, not any other section, and   
   didn't know about the Krieger Turn Off of Production!   
      
   So the Crown painted it to look frivolous and vexatious   
   (appealing the May 8 Charter decision as they think he was   
   doing would have been frivolous and vexatious so he had right   
   to be legitimately angry had his info been complete. But   
   with the picture painted by Max who didn't know the whole   
   picture himself, (he didn't do the Montreal Trial, he does the   
   higher courts) it sure stupid to everyone but me. Har har har.   
      
   So that's the set up going in. It sure looks like the Clerk   
   gave them a frivolous and vexatious appeal to summarily   
   dismiss, doesn't it? Now the fly in the ointment.   
      
   Adrian explained how they all had the wrong motion. He wasn't   
   appealing dismissal of the May 8 Charter motion against the   
   improperly-cited MMAR, he was appealing the May 9 dismissal of   
   the S.601 Motion to Quash against the properly-cited MMPR!   
      
   So they start searching their file for the Quash Motion that's   
   not there. Then they adjourn to go look for it.   
      
   During the break, I told Adrian to simply read the Response   
   into the Record. Then I told the clerk he could tell the court   
   that the documentation included the missing Quash motion.   
      
   A few minutes later, they reconvened and Justice Rochette told   
   Adrian they'd accept the documents! Wow. What a cave. It's   
   in. Should end up reserved to consider the new info.   
      
   But no more discussion on the Krieger/Allard conviction   
   appeal, they would have to read the response to be disabused   
   of the notion we were appealing the May 8 Charter dismissal.   
      
   They went on to the Crown's opposition to the Leave to Appeal   
   against sentence. Adrian made the mistake of starting to read   
   his Reply I'd written rather than hand it in. He did mention   
   the the Elliott decision striking down Minima in BC. Again,   
   Judge Kasirer stuck Adrian with a cute, but invalid, point.   
      
   Judge Boucher had indicated that even though the Mandatory   
   Minimum said 6 months, he'd have come to that sentence without   
   a Mandatory Minimum anyway.   
      
   Really? Had the Mandatory Minimum Sentence been only 4 months,   
   he'd have still punished such a tiny grow with 6 months?   
   Really> What if it had been 2 months? Would 6 months really   
   seem so right on? What if the mandatory minimum was 1 month? 6   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)