From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Ray Turmel's 3rd Quash Motion after 2 appeals   
      
   JCT: Ray Turmel was busted for over-plant limit. He has   
   license to grow 10 pounds, was busted on Nov 9 2012 in   
   possession of 4 pounds and charged with over-producing to   
   get to the 10 pounds with too many plants, thus   
   demonstrating that plants are not right parameter for the   
   prohibition to be based on, right?   
      
   Earlier this year, he filed his S.601 non-   
   constitutional Application to Quash on POLCOA and BENO   
   grounds, like everyone else. The complaint about the plant   
   limit was only raisable in the Constitutional challenge   
   coming after the Quash.   
      
   The first Provincial Court judge dismissed it lack of   
   jurisdiction, wrong since J.P. got to have his Quash motion   
   heard by Ontario Provincial Court Justice Phillip. But what   
   can we do when the judge doesn't know the law?   
      
   So Ray filed the motion in Superior Court where he was going   
   to end up for his jury trial anyway.   
      
   On Nov 8 2013, this judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction   
   because Ray had not filed a S.95 Notice of Constitutional   
   Question, despite the motion stating it's not a   
   constitutional motion!   
      
   So Ray filed a Notice of Appeal of that decision in Montreal   
   at the Quebec Court of Appeal .   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE TERREBONNE             QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   LOCALITE ST-JEROME   
   NO: 700-01-118-202-137              (Criminal Chamber)   
      
                                Between   
                                Raymond Turmel   
                                Appellant   
      
                                -and-   
      
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
                                -and-   
      
                                Attorney General for Canada   
                                Respondent   
      
                              NOTICE OF APPEAL   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant appeals against the dismissal   
   of his S.606 application to quash.   
      
   PARTICULARS OF JUDGMENT:   
      
   1. Dismissal of S.601 Application to Quash charges.   
      
   2. Place of judgment: St-Jerome.   
      
   3. Name of Judge: Superior Court Justice Michel Bellehumeur.   
      
   4. Charges: a) S.7(1) b) (2)(b) of the CDSA.   
      
   5. Plea at trial: Mute pursuant to S.606.2 of the Criminal   
   Code.   
      
   6. The Appellant appeals against the dismissal of his Non-   
   Constitutional S.601 Application to Quash for failure to   
   file a Notice of Constitutional Question pursuant to S.95 of   
   the Quebec Civil Code.   
      
   GROUNDS OF APPEAL:   
      
   7. A Notice of Constitutional Question is net required for   
   an Application pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code to   
   quash the charges.   
      
   8. In a S.601 Application to Quash the charges, Justice   
   Rogin R. v. J.P. (2003), noted:   
   "[5] The Crown appeals to this court from this ruling. The   
   Crown complains that notwithstanding that J.P.'s original   
   application was not a Canadian Charter of Rights and   
   Freedoms application... the factum specifically states that   
   J.P. did not challenge the constitutionality of the   
   regulations which Phillips J. found not to contain an   
   offence."   
      
   9. Challenging the constitutional validity of the possession   
   and production prohibitions was successful in R. v. Parker   
   which took effect after July  31 2001 and the same   
   constitutional relief did not have to be applied for again.   
      
   FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT   
      
   GRANT the present appeal to overturn the dismissal of the   
   Applicant's Application to Quash for failure to file a   
   Notice of Constitutional Question.   
      
   DOCUMENTATION:   
      
   R. v. J.P. Ontario Superior Court Rogin (2003)   
   canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10765.html   
   Dated at St-Jerome on ___________ 2013   
      
   JCT: At the same time, he filed a second Quash Motion but   
   also filing a Notice of Constitutional Question stating   
   there was no Constitutional Question to be argued. Har har   
   har.   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                   SUPERIOR COURT OF   
   QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE TERREBONNE               (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE ST-JEROME   
   NO: 700-01-118-202-137   
                                 Between   
                                 Raymond Turmel   
                                 Applicant   
      
                                 -and-   
      
                                 Attorney General for Quebec   
                                 Respondent   
      
                NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION   
       (Pursuant to Section 95 of the Civil Code of Quebec)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that on Dec 13 2013 at 2pm or as soon thereafter   
   can be heard the application made in Courtroom #_______at   
   the St-Jerome Courthouse pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal   
   Code to Quash the charges of the Accused which will raise no   
   constitutional issue.   
   For the Applicant:   
   Raymond J. Turmel   
      
   JCT: At least the next judge couldn't say we hadn't filed a   
   Notice of Question even though there was no Question to be   
   argued. Also, I upgraded the Quash kits to include the   
   statement from J.P. where the Crown complains that it is NOT   
   a constitutional motion!   
      
                      APPLICATION FOR QUASH   
          (Pursuant to Section 601 of the Criminal Code)   
      
   TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF   
   QUEBEC (CRIMINAL CHAMBER), the Applicant states as follows:   
      
   This Non-Constitutional Application is well-founded in fact   
   and law needing no Notice of Constitutional Question. In R.   
   v. J.P. (2003), Justice Rogin noted for S.601 Quash Motion:   
      
   "[5] The Crown appeals to this court from this ruling. The   
   Crown complains that notwithstanding that J.P.'s original   
   application was not a Canadian Charter of Rights and   
   Freedoms application... the factum specifically states that   
   J.P. did not challenge the constitutionality of the   
   regulations which Phillips J. found not to contain an   
   offence."   
      
   Challenging the constitutional validity of the possession   
   and production prohibitions was successful in R. v. Parker   
   which took effect after July  31 2001.   
      
   JCT: So with this in the Quash motion, Ray went back on his   
   second Superior Court Quash and the judge again ruled she   
   had no jurisdiction because only the trial judge does.   
      
   So Ray filed a second Notice of Appeal in Montreal at the   
   Quebec Court of Appeal of her decision:   
      
                              NOTICE OF APPEAL   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant appeals against the dismissal   
   of his S.601 application to quash.   
      
   PARTICULARS OF JUDGMENT:   
      
   1. Dismissal of the   
      
   A) S.601 Application to Quash charges.   
      
   B) motion for pre-plea adjudication.   
      
   2. Place of judgment: St-Jerome.   
      
   3. Name of Judge: Superior Court Justice Sophie Bourque.   
      
   4. Charges: a) S.7(1) b) (2)(b) of the CDSA.   
      
   5. Plea at trial: No plea yet.   
      
   6. The Appellant appeals against the dismissal of his Non-   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)