From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Bob Woolsey gave his Reply to the Crown Response to his   
   Quash Motion yesterday morning:   
      
   BW: Well John this morning was a wonderful opportunity to   
   repeat once again to the court the very reasons we are here   
   once again attempting to find a judge who will follow the   
   Interpretations Act sec. 43 rather than following all the   
   previous cases where the courts have corrected only parts of   
   the regulations and not repealed the actual laws. As long as   
   the regulations are flawed IN ANY WAY they must be REPEALED   
   and re-legislated by our government.   
      
   Judge Skilnick has his work cut out for him, he believes there   
   are precedents here in BC that will force him to dismiss the   
   Quash, we aren't so sure.   
      
   JCT: I doubt it. POLCOA and BENO were never presented to BC   
   courts. The only BC case is Beren where the judge declared the   
   exemption defective with the same two flaws as Hitzig had   
   decried but then didn't quash the charge as they did for J.P.   
      
   BW: The crown had only 2 comments after my rebuttal both had   
   to do with mistakes we pointed out in his Factum, he admitted   
   one error but claimed he wasn't wrong on the other.   
      
   JCT: But he made so many! The whole thing was correcting his   
   errors. What did he think he'd done right?   
      
   BW: He did make some comments on the fact that I raised no new   
   information in my reply. Which is very true we aren't   
   attempting to introduce NEW information we are trying to get   
   the court to understand the information presented a dozen   
   times over the years.   
      
   I have a very good feeling, although the Judge is very   
   concerned that he may be forced by precedents in BC courts or   
   Supreme Court to dismiss my Quash motion he did tell the court   
   that he will endeavour to explain fully to me his reasons and   
   reasoning.   
      
   JCT: Good because I doubt he'll find anything to support the   
   Ontario Court of Appeal reviving a 2-year dead law.   
      
   BW: Should be an interesting morning Jan. 15th 2018. Crown   
   asked for clarity on scheduling coming up in January to which   
   Judge Skilnick responded he will render his decision on the   
   Quash 9 am Jan. 15th if Quash dismissed.. on to Constitutional   
   Challenge, the crown was concerned with my witness list which   
   still includes 14 officers, it was decided that we would get   
   witness list done in coming days so everyone can be notified.   
      
   JCT: Now that you're dropping the personal remedies to go for   
   the dead law, I don't see you'll need them. I'd bet the Crown   
   and judge will love that.   
      
   Plus you'll be able to file an additional constitutional   
   motion raising all the other flaws not yet mentioned in the   
   MMPR.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)