From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Kutynec motion to dismiss Spottiswood without hearing   
      
   JCT: Here's the parsing of the Crown's Factum in their   
   "Kutynec" motion in respect of insufficienty of the   
   Constitutional Motion and have both Quash and Constitutional   
   dismissed without hearing.   
      
   Applicant should ask that the plural "s" be struck from the   
   Insufficiency of Constitutional Challenge" request to   
   dismiss both "the applications."   
      
   We'll first look at her motion to dismiss both applications   
   without a hearing, the "Kutynec" motion:   
      
                    SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE   
          (Southwest Region, sitting at London, Ontario)   
   Between:   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
                               and   
                    Michael Kevin Spottiswood   
                                                      Applicant   
      
                       RESPONDENT'S FACTUM:   
                IN RESPECT OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF   
              THE NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION   
      
   JCT: Notice it is in respect only of the insufficiency of   
   the Constitutional MMAR Challenge, not the S.601 Quash CDSA   
   Challenge, but has asked that they both be dismissed. Guess   
   not asking for it will mean they can't have it so the plural   
   "s" should be stricken.   
      
   CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF THE CASE   
      
   Michael Spottiswood found himself charged with production   
   and possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of   
   trafficking... growing 377 plants and 544 grams of bud and   
   12 grams of resin. At the time, he was not authorized.   
      
   In a generic pre-printed Application found on the Internet,   
   he challenges the constitutionality of the MMAR and argues   
   that S.4 and S.7 of the CDSA are of no force or effect THAT   
   S.4 AND S.7 OF THE CDSA ARE OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT because   
   Parker found flaws in the medical marijuana provisions.   
      
   JCT:   
   JCT: In two generic pre-printed Applications... And because   
   Parker found there were no medical marijuana provisions.   
   Parker did not find flaws in the "no medical provisions   
   yet." Hitzig found flaws in the medical provisions.   
      
   CR: The Application before the Court is not particularized   
   and provides no evidentiary support for the more than 23   
   complaints he makes; moreover he has not established the   
   public interest necessary to proceed.   
      
   JCT: Mernagh didn't have to either. And they deny receiving   
   my Expert Affidavit and we checked it's in the court file.   
      
   CR: The Respondent is unable to fully prepare and properly   
   respond to the Application and seeks an Order dismissing the   
   same.   
      
   JCT: The Respondent would be unable to fully prepare and   
   properly respond if there was no Affidavit, yes. With   
   Affidavit, it is really that they are unable to prepare or   
   respond at all! They'll never find a Math Prof to contradict   
   me. I'm Canada's most court-accredited expert witnesses in   
   my field!   
      
   CR: SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   
      
   2. The Applicant has filed a "Notice of Application for   
   Constitutional Issues Pursuant to S.8(2) of the   
   Constitutional Question Act" in the Ontario Court of Justice   
   on June 14 2011.   
      
   3. The Notice was not particularized; it was a precedent   
   with blanks that needed to be filled in. The precedent   
   itself, from "Turmel's Anti-Marijuana kit recommend the   
   following:   
   "While you are waiting, find a doctor and apply for a Health   
   Canada exemption for anything that ails you. Now that you're   
   in the fight, your doctor is your ticket not only out of   
   your court predicament but also into your life of no-hassle   
   access to your medication."   
      
   JCT: They left out the rest of the paragraph:   
   "Derek Francisco's grow was busted and after he had proven   
   he had a legitimate medical need by getting a Health Canada   
   exemption, his charges were withdrawn, equipment and   
   medicine all returned. Just prove you were sick at the time   
   of the bust by getting medically qualified and your problems   
   are over."   
      
   CR: 5. A further amended Notice was filed on Dec 20 2012.   
   The blanks were filled in, the level of the court was   
   identified, the accused's name was set out along with his   
   contact particulars, and the Respondent and her contact   
   particulars were added.   
      
   JCT: Okay, so particulars now provided.   
      
   CR: No evidentiary basis for the Application was set out,   
   nor did the Applicant address his standing to bring public   
   interest litigation.   
      
   JCT: STRIKE "No evidentiary basis.." and it's the same   
   standing as Parker, Krieger, Mernagh, that of facing jail.   
      
   CR: 6. The Constitutional Questions Act is not legislation   
   from Ontario but legislation from British Columbia. The   
   Courts of Justice Act is the relevant legislation dealing   
   with constitutional issues.   
      
   JCT: We agree. If it's been mislabeled, let's label it   
   right. Now, so what?   
      
   CR: 7. The Respondent submits that the Application filed by   
   the Applicant is deficient.   
      
   JCT: Particulars added, what deficiency?   
      
   CR: The Respondent brought this to the Applicant's attention   
   verbally, by letter, and in submissions on the record,   
      
   JCT: What's exactly was "this?" brought to our attention?   
      
   CR: to no avail.   
      
   JCT: Yes, she argued deficiency before Justice Goodman to no   
   avail and he did not grant their motions to strike any of   
   the heads of relief claimed. Nor did the Amicus Curiae   
   suggest any heads of relief that were inappropriate.   
      
   CR: Neither a Case Management Judge, nor Amicus Curiae,   
   appointed to assist the court by reviewing the materials   
   filed and offering legal advice to the Applicant, were able   
   to convince the Applicant of the insufficiency of his   
   materials.   
      
   JCT: Mike wasn't the judge of the insufficiency of the   
   materials, the Case Management Judge was. The Amicus   
   presented no arguments on any insufficiency and the Crown's   
   arguments were unable to convince the judge of any   
   insufficiency!   
      
   CR: Transcript Dec 13 2012 P13 L17-26 P14 L14-17 and L29-31   
      
   JCT: So what are these deficiencies from Page 13 L17-26?   
      
   P13L17-26: Johnson: I would request the medical records of   
   all the witnesses... There's no supporting affidavit.. I'd   
   like to know the application history in respect of their   
   medical licenses.   
      
   JCT: No, what illness they have is none of her business.   
   They are testifying on their experiences with the MMAR once   
   they have qualified for an exemption. There is a supporting   
   affidavit! And the exemption information is being provided   
   by her own Health Canada witness. So the deficiencies are no   
   medical files she's not entitled to, no Expert Affidavit   
   that happens to be sitting in the court file, and no files   
   that Health Canada has to provide. Har har har har har har.   
      
   P14L14-17: It's not particularized or explained, I don't   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)