b2bdf000   
   XPost: alt.fan.john-turmel, can.politics, alt.drugs   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy   
   From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: MedPot Mike Spottiswood Pre-Trial Updates   
      
   JCT: Lots has happened in Michael Spottiswood's pre-trials.   
   The Crown has objected to so many (50 civilian witnesses!!)   
   and some of the issues raised against the MMAR which the   
   judge has indicated he'll strike from the claim, (some   
   issues where we were wrong (o) that growing exemptees   
   couldn't buy from H.C. while they were growing, they may);   
   (p) Exemptee cannot remove Designated Grower until end of   
   permit, seems there may be a way. So some issues are going   
   to be struck but many will remain! Including the   
   Sfetkopoulos and Beren "1-more is no-improvement" issues   
   that won in Hitzig!   
      
   On Tuesday Dec 11, we were slated to be Assignment Court   
   before Superior Court Justice Goodman for a quick   
   continuation of his pre-trials in preparation for his   
   upcoming jury trial. But the Crown had filed a motion to   
   adjourn Mike's trial! Kim Johnson complained about Mike   
   having called 50 "civilians witnesses!" You should have   
   heard the buzz from the courtroom of lawyers waiting for   
   their cases to be heard.   
      
   Judge Goodman says he was taken aback. After the previous   
   pre-trial, he had expected everything to have been completed   
   and for the Crown to now want to argue for an adjournment,   
   when he had 40 other cases on his docket, wasn't practical   
   so he put it off to Thursday Dec 13.   
      
   He told Mike to marshall his materials. Johnson had   
   requested that a "Case Management Judge" be appointed and   
   the Chief Justice had appointed him. So the case management   
   hearing would take place on Thursday to find out if Mike's   
   witnesses and issues were necessary given the Crown's   
   objections, and then deal with her motion to adjourn once   
   that had been figured out.   
      
   I worked the night before to prepare Respondent's Written   
   Representations (to the Crown's motion to adjourn) which   
   Mike handed in first thing. Here are the earlier documents:   
      
   Public Prosecution Service of Canada   
   465 Richmond Rd. 2nd floor   
   London N6A 5R2   
      
   Nov 22 2012   
      
   Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas A. Heeney   
   Regional Senior Justice   
   Superior Court of Justice, S.W. Region,   
   80 Dundas St. 15th floor, Unit G, London, N6A 6B3   
   Dear Sir:   
   RE: Regina v. Michael Spottiswood   
        Court File No.: 10948   
      
   I am writing to you to request that a Case Management Judge   
   be appointed pursuant to S.551.1.   
      
   Michael Spottiswood is a self-represented accused. He   
   appears before the Superior Court of Justice in London on   
   allegations under ss.5(3) 5(4) and 7(2) of the CDSA.   
      
   One week of pre-trial motions are scheduled to beginning Jan   
   21 2013. The pre-trial motions Mr. Spottiswood has brought   
   include (i) an Application for Contempt Citation; (ii) an   
   Application to Quash; (iii) an Application for Return of   
   Seized Substance; and (iv) a Constitutional challenge to the   
   Medical marihuana Access Regulations.   
      
   Two weeks of trial are scheduled, beginning with jury   
   selection on Feb 4 2013.   
      
   At a judicial pre-trial convened before Justice Goodman on   
   Nov 21, 2012, Mr. Spottiswood indicated that he has, at   
   least, 32 witnesses he intends to call. As Federal Crown,I   
   made an application for the appointment of a Case management   
   Judge and Mr. Justice Goodman recommended I write this   
   letter.   
      
   A Case Management Judge would be of assistance identifying   
   the witnesses to be heard and with taking into account their   
   needs and circumstances, establishing schedules and   
   deadlines, and assisting in the identification of issues   
   involving the identification of experts. He would also be   
   able to make decisions in respect of the admissibility of   
   proposed evidence. I believe that a Case Management Judge   
   would ensure that these matters are expeditiously and   
   efficiently dealt with.   
      
   Kimberley Johnson, Senior Counsel   
   Public Prosecution Service of Canada   
   ------------------------------   
      
   Public Prosecution Service of Canada   
   465 Richmond Rd. 2nd floor   
   London N6A 5R2   
      
   Dec 04 2012   
      
   Michael Spottiswood   
      
   Re: Next Court Date, 11 December 2012 - 2pm   
        Continuation of Pre-trial.   
      
   At the last Court appearance of Nov 20, 2012, I was asked to   
   provide you with a list of concerns with respect to your   
   materials.   
      
   Multiple Applications before the Court   
      
   On my review, there appears to be four (4) applications   
   before the Superior Court of Justice.   
      
   (1) Record of Application for Contempt Citation, dated Aug   
   17 2011;   
   (2) Notice of Return of Applications, dated Sep 20, 2011;   
   (3) Record of Application for Expedited Motions, dated Oct 7   
   2011; and   
   (4) Record of Application and Constitutional Issue, neither   
   signed nor dated.   
      
   It would appear that three (3) remain relevant: Return of   
   Controlled Substance, Citation in Contempt; Constitutional   
   Question.   
      
   As I understand it, the Application for Contempt Citation   
   cannot proceed at this time as it relies upon the decision   
   in R. v. Mernagh ( 2011 Ontario SCJ) which invalidates the   
   prohibition of producing and possessing marijuana.   
      
   Mernagh is under appeal to the Court of Appeal of Ontario.   
   Though the appeal was heard in May 2012, it is not certain   
   when the decision will be released. I would ask that you   
   consider consenting to an adjournment of this application   
   until such time as that decision is released so we do not   
   have to continue to appear in Court while awaiting the Court   
   of Appeal.   
      
   The Application for Return of Controlled Substance, dated   
   Jun 14 2011, was filed in the Ontario Court of Justice. It   
   is unclear at this time whether this Application will be   
   addressed in the Superior Court of Justice. If you intend to   
   pursue this Application,l materials must be properly filed   
   in the Superior Court of Justice.   
      
   The Record of Application and Constitutional Issue   
      
   The Application currently before the court is a boiler-plate   
   Application. It is not particularized, nor is it specific to   
   the allegations against you. For this reason, many of its   
   aspects are irrelevant.   
      
   The Application itself does not comply with the Rules: there   
   are blanks that are not filled in; it is not signed; there   
   are no facts to ground any of the issues;the law as set out   
   is unclear and improperly cited. As examples of the above,   
   I point out the following:   
      
   (i)  There is no evidence of delay in RCMP record checks   
   (h), delays due to amendments of applications. On the date   
   of the offence, you had not even applied for such a check.   
   Any attempt to call such evidence will be challenged on the   
   basis of relevancy and hearsay.   
      
   (ii)  The reference to epilepsy is irrelevant (i). You do   
   not allege that you suffer from this medical condition. Any   
   attempt to call such evidence will also be challenged on the   
   basis of relevancy. The Crown will require medical records   
   and evidence of licensing application of any witnesses who   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)