From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: McConnell & Popham serve motions on same Crown as Paquette!!   
      
   JCT: On Oct 9 2018, Tim McConnell's trial is coming up in   
   Gatineau. Yesterday, he served his constitutional motion on   
   Crown Marie-Claude Daoust in Gatineau.   
      
   On Oct 30 Howard Popham's trial is coming up a hundred kms   
   away in in Campbell's Bay Quebec. Today, he served his   
   constitutional motion on Crown Marie-Claude Daoust in   
   Gatineau! She does both towns.   
      
   And don't forget that she just dealt with Luc Paquette's   
   constitutional motion before Judge Laflamme in Gatineau last   
   month.   
      
   So the three Quebec cases that make it to constitutional   
   voir dire at the opening of the trial are all with the same   
   Crown!! What a fluke.   
      
   Judge Laflamme used some bogus cards as excuses to dismiss   
   Luc's Mernagh-Plus-Why constitutional motion. So I had to   
   rebut them in these next motions so the next judge can't   
   adopt his wrong reasons too.   
      
   Remember, the argument is that Mernagh was won a motion that   
   the prohibitions are invalid because the doctors were not   
   signing but overturned when the court said they might have   
   had good reasons.   
   So we file the same motion with witnesses who will state the   
   non-medical reasons they used:   
   - Doctor's association is against,   
   - Insurance company is against   
   - Don't want to be known as a pot doctor   
   - Don't know anything about it.   
      
   And so far, no judge has allowed us to make the same motion   
   that Mernagh got to make but with the gap filled of why they   
   said no.   
      
   It's only 7 pages so I'm going to post the whole thing here   
   though it has much from the older motions that have been up   
   for years.   
      
   These arguments were presented to Judge Laflamme with the   
   new arguments against the bad reasons at paragraphs:   
      
   3) Judge wanted evidence of how the threat of jail would   
   affect the applicant, the personal circumstances.   
      
   28-29) Judge said McCrady panel not following Parker negated   
   Parker panel. I pointed it took 5 judges to negate another   
   panel and McCrady panel of 3 were not enough even if they   
   didn't follow Parker like they should have!!   
      
   30-31) Even McCrady repeats the Parker ruling that they did   
   not follow.   
       there must be a constitutionally viable medical   
       exemption to the prohibition against the possession and   
       cultivation of marihuana.   
      
                          Tim McConnell   
                              -and-   
                   Attorney General for Quebec   
      
                    CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION   
              Pursuant to Charter S.52(1) & S.24(1)   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   1. Applicant seeks an Order:   
   A) declaring the provisions in the Controlled Drugs and   
   Substances Act (CDSA) prohibiting the possession, production   
   and distribution of cannabis-related substances (and its   
   preparations, derivatives, and similar synthetic   
   preparations as set out in Schedule II of the CDSA) to be of   
   no force and effect pursuant to S.52(1) of the Charter on   
   the grounds that those provisions are inconsistent with the   
   fundamental and overriding rights guaranteed by S.7 of the   
   Charter not in accordance with the principles of fundamental   
   justice.   
   B) staying the charge pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter;   
      
   2. The grounds of the Application are that:   
   1) for any Canadians for whom marihuana is life-saving or   
   medicinal treatment, allowing any recalcitrant physician to   
   deny the patient such treatment for non-medical reasons   
   makes the protection of exemption illusory.   
   2) the combined effect of the cannabis-related offences set   
   out in the CDSA and the illusory defence set out in the   
   MMAR-MMPR-ACMPR regimes contravene S.7 of the Charter;   
   3) the legislation cannot be saved by S.1 of the Charter;   
   4) the only available remedy involves declaring the   
   offending legislation unconstitutional and staying the   
   charge.   
      
   3. The accused is charged with an offence that will no   
   longer exist if it is found unconstitutional. Applicant has   
   a job and is personally affected by possible punishments of   
   fine or incarceration upon conviction. His interest is in   
   the Right to Liberty.   
      
   4. In 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker   
   struck the prohibition on possession of cannabis when   
   epileptic Terrance Parker proved his case. Epilepsy Canada   
   published that 4 of the 10 Canadians who died of seizures   
   every day were from Canada's 400,000 known epileptic   
   population. After Parker proved the efficacy of marijuana at   
   preventing seizures, not exempting the whole epileptic   
   population has resulted in 1,500 fatal seizures a year for   
   the past 18 years. While Courts ruled the exemption regimes   
   functional, 27,000 unnecessary epileptics died due to their   
   failure to be exempted from the prohibition on cannabis. Now   
   add in the unnecessary deaths from Cancer, MS, AIDS, and   
   other fatal diseases to the 1,500 epileptics a year from the   
   proven still-unprotected group.   
      
   5. Exhibit 1 of the Applicant's Affidavit is the Notice of   
   Motion and Constitutional Question from R. v. Mernagh, 2011   
   ONSC asking the Court to strike the marijuana prohibitions   
   because the medical exemption was illusory.   
      
   5. In his April 11 2011 judgment, Justice Taliano declared   
   that the 4% trickle of physician participation in the   
   marijuana exemption regime made its protection against the   
   penal sanctions in the CDSA illusory; and declared the   
   prohibitions on production and possession of marijuana   
   invalid absent a viable medical exemption pursuant to R. v.   
   Parker 2000 ONCA. (Book of Authorities #1)   
      
   6. Exhibit 2 of the Applicant's Affidavit is the judgment of   
   the Ontario Court of Appeal which disagreed with his   
   findings of fact and overturned it:   
   (Book of Authorities #2)   
       [12] In concluding that the MMAR violated s. 7 of the   
       Charter, the trial judge made four crucial findings of   
       fact that the Crown challenges on appeal:   
       (A) Mr. Mernagh and all of the other "patient witnesses"   
       who provided evidence on the application were entitled   
       to medical exemptions under the MMAR;   
       (B) many of the physicians who dealt with the patient   
       witnesses had acted in an "arbitrary and biased" manner   
       in rejecting their requests for medical declarations;   
       (C) Canadian physicians have "massively boycotted the   
       MMAR, "completely undermin[ing]" the effectiveness of   
       the program.   
       (D) the "vast majority" of people entitled to exemptions   
       under the MMAR have been unable to obtain them.   
      
   7. This application will re-submit all the arguments in   
   Mernagh but will submit new evidence   
   A) from patients who are entitled after having received   
   permits to testify that;   
   B) doctors had earlier denied treatment for non-medical   
   reasons;   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)