From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Jct: We didn't know this was a Case Management hearing until   
   Judge Rabley said that he was the Case Management Judge   
   whose goal was to organize the trial so no time would be   
   wasted.   
      
   Again, it was a fascinating juxtaposition with this tiny   
   demurely-dressed (white blouse and black skirt) teenager   
   (small but fast, she came 6th in in the Ontario 800 meter   
   race last month) fighting to avoid a being branded a   
   criminal for life for care-giving her crippled dad by   
   carrying his bags of meds out to the car.   
      
   The judge gave her his opinion, and the trial judge may not   
   agree, and I don't agree, that:   
   1) she didn't have standing to challenge the MMAR because   
   she wasn't sick;   
   2) Mike's interests would be in conflict with hers and he   
   might not even be allowed to attend! He said she could argue   
   that it was her dad's pot and she was just there," (exactly   
   what happened, she was just charged as the usually   
   extortion) and might not want to point the finger at your   
   dad if he's in the room.   
      
   There is going to be a pre-trial and the Crown Kim Johnson   
   indicated they were going to be calling 12 witnesses! Judge   
   Rabley wondered if that wasn't going to be a little   
   duplicative. Then he asked Sarah if she was challenging the   
   evidence. She said no, she was challenging the   
   constitutionality of the law.   
      
   So he told the Crown to go prepare an Agreed Statement of   
   Facts for Sarah to sign and stood the matter down.   
      
   Well, it took the Crown a couple of hours to write up a 3   
   page Statement of Facts which we looked over and found to be   
   not objectionable.   
      
   So back in court, Sarah signed the Statement on each page   
   and then the judge asked how many witnesses the Crown would   
   be needing. Ms. Johnson now said three. Okay, less wasted   
   time though I can't imagine what the three might say now   
   that Sarah has agreed to their facts. She might be able to   
   have a little fun. Imagine the sharp kid asking the judge:   
   Do we really need to hear from this witness since I already   
   agreed to what he's going to say?" Har har har. There's   
   really no need for witnesses at all once there's an Agreed   
   Statement of Facts so the Crown has opened up an avenue of   
   humor when the time comes. What's the judge going to say? "I   
   want to hear what was admitted on paper orally?" Har har   
   har. Not a chance. So Sarah gets to have the Crown's three   
   witnesses thrown out as irrelevant! Won't that look cute.   
      
   During the break, I'd explained to Sarah that there would be   
   a conflict that could prompt her not to use the "it's not   
   mine" defence if dad was also using the "it's not mine"   
   defence, both  pushing possession away. Conflict. But this   
   isn't push-push, it's push-pull. So she raised the issue and   
   explained to the judge how, yes, she was arguing it wasn't   
   hers but that dad had filed a motion for the Return of the   
   Controlled Substance because it was his. No conflict. The   
   judge disagreed. Maybe the trial judge won't.   
      
   As for needing to be sick to challenge the MMAR in the   
   constitutional motion, not the Quash, JP, a juvenile, had   
   standing to have his Quash heard, and Sarah, charged as a   
   juvenile, has the same standing to have her Quash heard.   
      
   But he means whether she has standing to challenge her   
   charge by challenging the MMAR. Of course, she does. The   
   standing comes not from her being sick but from her being   
   charged with an offence dependent on the existence of a   
   working exemption.   
      
   Whether it's a sick person proving the MMAR flawed, as   
   Hitzig did and then JP used Bad Exemption = No Offence to   
   have his charge quashed, is irrelevant. If the exemption   
   isn't working, the prohibition is off for everyone, because   
   the Crown dropped the 4,000 charges against everyone across   
   Canada and sick of not. So prove the exemption isn't working   
   and you get off. It can't only apply to sick people.   
      
   So she has the standing to prove the MMAR is a Bad Exemption   
   so she gets her charge quashed like JP during the No   
   Offence. Since the Offence is linked to the Exemption,   
   pursuant to the JP, someone charged with the Offence has to   
   have the standing to determine if the exemption was working   
   or if they have an out when it wasn't. That didn't get   
   raised but will come up before the trial judge.   
      
   Finally, the judge complimented Sarah on being reasonable   
   and said her helpfulness would no doubt be taken into   
   account. That sounded nice. And let's face it, we're not   
   here to waste anybody's time, Sarah's got good cards and we   
   want to know if they win.   
      
   Finally, I prepared a motion to resume the presumption Sarah   
   could use the tape recorded which will be dealt with at the   
   next hearing. She shouldn't fight this historic case without   
   a neat souvenir she can listen to forever after.   
      
   File No.:   
                     ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE   
   Between   
                        Sarah Spottiswood   
                                              Applicant/Accused   
                             - and -   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
           NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO RECORD PROCEEDINGS   
        Pursuant to S.136(b) of the Courts of Justice Act   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on Feb 27 2013 or as soon as possible   
   thereafter will be heard the Application by the Accused at   
   the courthouse at London.   
      
   THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS AN ORDER   
   C) resuming the presumption in the Practice Direction of   
   approval for Applicant to tape-record the proceedings.   
   THE APPLICANT MAY BE SERVED WITH DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THIS   
   APPLICATION AT 629 Oxford St. E.,  London ON N5Y 3J2,   
   Dated at London Feb 27 2013   
   Sarah Spottiswood   
      
                  AFFIDAVIT OF SARAH SPOTTISWOOD   
      
   I, Sarah Spottiswood, residing at   
      
   1. In 1988, John Turmel, accused in a gaming house charge,   
   was permitted to tape record the proceeding pursuant to the   
   Courts of Justice Act S.136 which states:   
   "(2) Nothing in subsection (1),(b) prohibits a lawyer, a   
   party acting in person or a journalist from unobtrusively   
   making an audio recording at a court hearing, in the manner   
   that has been approved by the judge, for the sole purpose of   
   supplementing or replacing handwritten notes. R.S.O. 1990,   
   c. C.43, s. 136 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 1 (22).   
      
   2. Exhibit A is the April 10 1989 Practice Direction issued   
   by W.G.C. Howland, Chief Justice of Ontario and approved by   
   the Ontario Courts Advisory Council. It says:   
   "RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS BY A SOLICITOR, A PARTY   
   ACTING IN PERSON OR A JOURNALIST   
   Subject to any order made by the presiding judge as to non-   
   publication of court proceedings and to the right of the   
   presiding judge to give such direction from time to time as   
   he or she may see fit as to the matter in which an audio   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)