From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown whupped at last Spottiswood pre-trial   
      
   June 13 2013 London Ontario   
      
   JCT: Mike Spottiswood's last pre-trial hearing before   
   Superior Court Justice Goodman with Kim Johnson and Myfanwy   
   Smith for the Crown.   
      
   It's official, Mike Spottiswood's (Mernagh-like but with   
   non-signing doctors) Constitutional Challenge is on starting   
   next Monday for a week! I was really afraid the Crown would   
   withdraw the charges "on compassionate grounds," so we could   
   not present a case to win. Then again, they may be under the   
   impression these are friendly doctors testifying about the   
   benefits of marijuana, as doctors always have before, and   
   not be aware that these are recalcitrant doctors   
      
   The Crown served their two facta (Latin: like one medium,   
   two media) on Mike last week and I had the weekend to parse   
   them and another 3" of documentation early this week.   
      
   Because I wasn't allowed to participate in the earlier pre-   
   trial discussions, the Crown got away with a lot of stuff so   
   I decided to embarrass them with a late motion to strike   
   their factum!   
      
   Here are their problems:   
      
   "All"   
   You've noticed no doubt in past Crown submissions that they   
   always throw up the straw man that the Applicant is   
   challenging "ALL" the marijuana offences. So that let's them   
   bring up how Turmel lost Possession for the Purpose of   
   Trafficking and other argument unrelated to Mike's real   
   motion to quash only his S.7 production on Krieger! So while   
   they kept repeating and arguing how it can't be all, I   
   decided to give them a slap.   
      
   "No Affidavit"   
   They deny receiving my Mathematics of Gambling Expert   
   Affidavit stating Mike's chances of survival are reduced by   
   all the bad legislation. We served and filed it on April 19   
   and the first thing we did was verify it was in the court   
   file. It was! So everywhere the Crown says: there is no   
   affidavit, or evidentiary basis, well, since it's in the   
   file, so they should be struck.   
      
   Though the Crown calls the Applications "non-sensical," they   
   wrote 30 pages of arguments opposing those non-sensical   
   applications most of which should be struck! Har har har.   
      
   So I'll tell you what happened at the last pre-trial and   
   then post my parsing of their whole case, since I've already   
   done one draft, later.   
      
   File No.: 10948   
                    SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO   
   Between   
                      Michael K. Spottiswood   
                                              Applicant/Accused   
      
                             - and -   
      
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
          APPLICATION TO SEVER MOTIONS AND STRIKE CROWN FACTA   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 13 2013, Applicant will apply to   
   the Court at London for an Order:   
      
   A) severing the pre-plea motion to Quash the charge under   
   S.7 of the CDSA from the post-plea constitutional motion to   
   declare S.7 of no force and effect and ordering it be heard   
   pre-plea with expedition.   
      
   B) striking the conflated "RESPONDENT'S FACTUM: APPLICATION   
   TO QUASH and NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION" with leave   
   to re-file two facta:   
   1) RESPONDENT'S FACTUM: APPLICATION TO QUASH;   
   2) "RESPONDENT'S FACTUM: NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION"   
      
   C) striking "all" arguments not related to the S.7 offence;   
      
   D) striking arguments based on the claim of "no affidavit   
   evidence" provided.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF THE MOTION ARE:   
      
   A)1) The Crown filed a post-plea "Kutynec" Application "IN   
   RESPECT OF INSUFFICIENCY OF THE NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL   
   QUESTION" but no such pre-plea application "IN RESPECT OF   
   THE MOTION TO QUASH." The Crown argued against the   
   Constitutional challenge and then asked that the pre-plea   
   Quash challenge be dismissed with the post-plea   
   Constitutional! It would be unfair for the Quash motion to   
   be dismissed without argument along with the Constitutional.   
      
   A)2) it would be illogical to attempt to dismiss a pre-plea   
   motion in a post-plea application. The Quash must be dealt   
   with pre-plea and not post-plea.   
      
   B) The Factum conflating and confounding both disparate   
   heads of relief sought has only led to the Crown pleading   
   over-complexity by their own hand. Striking the conflated   
   factum with leave to file two separate facta ends the   
   complexity and confusion.   
      
   C) Applicant has not moved to quash as no longer known to   
   law nor challenge the constitutional validity of "all"   
   marijuana offences, Applicant is not even challenging his   
   S.5(2) Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking charge,   
   Applicant is only moving to Quash and challenge the S.7(1)   
   production offence he is charged with. All Crown arguments   
   rebutting an alleged attempt to challenge the S.5   
   trafficking charge are irrelevant. No Crown arguments but   
   those relating to the S.7 production charge Applicant is   
   facing should be included and all other irrelevant arguments   
   stricken.   
      
   JCT: He's not trying to quash his S.5(2) charge because it   
   wasn't declared invalid like his S.7 charge was declared   
   invalid in Krieger. Because R. v. Turmel said S.5(2) wasn't   
   invalid, he's going to rebut the presumption of trafficking   
   at his trial since he may now possess 5 times as much as he   
   was busted with. Even the Amicus agreed that was probably   
   going to work. But can't try to quash the S.5 charge but can   
   try to rebut the presumption that so much was trafficking   
   when so much isn't that much any more.   
      
   D) On April 19, Applicant did serve Crown with an Expert   
   Affidavit providing the evidentiary basis so all paragraphs   
   arguing Applicant's lack of affidavit evidence should be   
   struck.   
      
   E) AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time for service, filing,   
   or hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to   
   form or content of the application, or for any Order deemed   
   just.   
      
   THE DOCUMENTATION USED will be the Crown's Application   
   Record and Facta and any other material this honorable court   
   may allow.   
   Dated at London on June 13 2013.   
   _________________________________   
   Michael K. Spottiswood, Applicant,   
      
   JCT: Mike handed in a copy to Crown Smith and the Court. I   
   watched as she read it and got fixed on the Grounds page   
   explaining the rock and hard place their screw-ups had   
   gotten them in. She didn't look so good.   
      
   So, trying a little offence before the hearing started, she   
   jumped up in front of the crowd and brought it to the   
   court's attention that Mr. Spottiswood had a tape-recorder   
   in the court-room! Horror! She had previously tricked a   
   several judges into ignoring the Courts of Justice Act and   
   disallowing Mike's tape but Goodman had already allowed it   
   at the last hearing!!! Har har har. So Mike just lifted the   
   shuttered videocamera and said: "Same as you okayed the last   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)