From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: I've had to revise the Quash Kits that worked while the   
   MMPR was unconstitutional before Aug 24 to new kits that work   
   now while the not-yet-declared-unconstitutional ACMPR is in   
   force. I've tailored it to work for all marijuana charges.   
      
   Court File No. ________   
      
   Between:   
                   ______________________________   
                                           Applicant/Accused   
                               and   
      
                      Her Majesty the Queen   
                                        Respondent/Plaintiff   
      
                   NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO QUASH   
                 AND RETURN OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE   
          (C.C.C S.601 and C.D.S.A S.24, not the Charter)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on _____________, 20__ at ______ a   
   Non-Constitutional Application pursuant to S.601 that raises no   
   Constitutional Question will be heard by any Judge, not a   
   Justice of the Peace, with leave if the Accused has pleaded, at   
   the Courthouse at   
   THE APPLICATION IS FOR AN ORDER:   
   A) quashing Accused's marijuana charges as still unknown to law   
   since the possession on marijuana in S.4 of the CDSA was   
   invalidated in R. v. Parker [2000] and the production of   
   marijuana in S.7 of the CDSA was invalidated in R. v. Krieger;   
   2) the seized Controlled Substance be returned to Applicant upon   
   completion of the prosecution pursuant to S.24 of the CDSA.   
      
   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.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION ARE that S.43 of the   
   Interpretation Act states that once the Ontario Court of Appeal   
   quashed the possession charge in R. v. J.P. [2003] ruling that   
   after their Hitzig v. HMQ [2003] ruling had declared the MMAR   
   constitutionally defective, the R. v. Parker [2000] Order   
   declaring the prohibition on marijuana in S.4 of the CDSA   
   invalid came into force while the exemption was deficient. So   
   too, the Smith Worse "Bad Exemption" [2015] by regulated Mis-Use   
   of medication; and the Allard v. HMTQ [2016] decision that the   
   MMPR was unconstitutional between April 1 2014 and Aug 24 2006   
   means there was "No Offence" in force after July 31 absent an   
   acceptable medical exemption when the Accused herein was charged   
   in 2002. This Court is bound by the Parker and Krieger   
   declarations of invalidity as the judges in J.P. were.   
   Dated at __________________ on _________________________   
   _____________________________   
   Applicant/Accused Signature   
      
                    APPLICANT'S FACTUM TO QUASH   
                 AND RETURN OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   PARKER/KRIEGER: NO EXEMPTION = NO OFFENCE   
      
   1. In 1997, Justice Sheppard stayed possession and cultivation   
   charges in R. v. Terrance Parker and granted an exemption from   
   the offences.   
      
   2. On July 31 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v.   
   Parker declared the prohibition on possession of marijuana   
   in CDSA s.4 to be invalid absent an adequate medical   
   exemption (No Exemption = No Offence); said it would have also   
   struck down the S.7 prohibition on production had it been   
   before them; suspended 1 year for time to set up a viable   
   acceptable constitutional working medical exemption during which   
   time Parker was exempted from the Cultivation and Possession   
   prohibitions in the CDSA. Crown did not seek leave to appeal.   
      
   3. On Dec 11 2000, Alberta Superior Court Justice Acton   
   adopted the reasons of the Ontario Court of Appeal to strike   
   down the prohibition on cultivation in S.7! suspended 1   
   year; sustained by the Alberta Court of Appeal, Leave to   
   Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied.   
      
   4. On July 30, 2001, Health Canada issued the Marihuana   
   Medical Access Regulations MMAR to comply with the requirement   
   for an acceptable medical exemption to the prohibitions but   
   with no time for Terry Parker to apply before his one-year   
   exemption expired the next day.   
      
   5. On Aug. 1 2001, Terry Parker's court exemption lapsed   
   without his being exempted in compliance with the Order of the   
   Parker Court despite Health Canada's claim to have instituted   
   a working exemption on time. A working application form was   
   instituted on time for Parker, not a working exemption.   
      
   6. On Jan 2 2003, in R. v. J.P. (Youth) Ontario Provincial   
   Court Judge Phillips quashed the charge for Possession of   
   marijuana on the grounds the Accused's charge was laid in 2002   
   when the Parker invalidation of the S.4 prohibition on   
   possession took effect when the MMAR did not provide a   
   properly legislated medical exemption.   
      
   7. On Mar 18 2003, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the   
   Crown appeal. When the Crown did not obtain a stay from the   
   the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, the Acton decision   
   striking down the S.7 prohibition on production took effect.   
   Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied.   
      
   8. On May 16, 2003, Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin   
   dismissed the Crown's appeal. 4,000 marijuana charges laid while   
   there was a Bad Exemption and No Offence starting on Terry   
   Parker Day   
   Aug. 1 2001 were stayed or withdrawn across Ontario.   
      
   9. On Oct 7 2003 in Hitzig v. HMQ, the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal struck down the patients-to-grower and growers-to-   
   garden caps in MMAR S.41 and S.54 that limited supply to the   
   extent the exemption was illusory. Professor Alan Young had   
   not asked to invoke the Parker and Krieger rulings to   
   invalidate the prohibitions: Paragraph 170:   
       [170] First, if we do not suspend our order, there will   
       immediately be a constitutionally valid exemption in   
       effect and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA   
       will immediately be constitutionally valid and of full   
       force and effect.  In R. v. Parker, supra, this court   
       declared the prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by   
       that date the Government had not enacted a constitutionally   
       sound medical exemption. Our decision in this case confirms   
       that it did not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in   
       s. 4 has been of no force or effect since July 31, 2001.   
       Since the July 8, 2003 regulation did not address the   
       Eligibility deficiency, that alone could not have cured the   
       problem. However, our order has the result of   
       constitutionalizing the medical exemption created by the   
       Government. As a result, the marihuana prohibition in s. 4   
       is no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the   
       Constitution. Although Parliament may subsequently choose to   
       change it, that prohibition is now no longer invalid, but is   
       of full force and effect. Those who establish medical need   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)