From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Ray Turmel's 3 Quebec Court of Appeals today   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   REGISTRY OF MONTREAL            QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
      
   NO:                              (Criminal Chamber)   
   500-10-005536-139   
   500-10-005550-130   
   500-10-005559-149   
   (700-36-000999-135)   
                                Between   
                                Raymond Turmel   
                                Appellant   
      
                                -and-   
      
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
                                -and-   
      
                                Attorney General for Canada   
                                Respondent   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   1. Ray Turmel, a MMAR Marijuana Exemptee, was charged   
   with production of marijuana with too many plants while   
   possessing only 4Kg toward his 11Kg storage limit. The   
   plant limit is being challenged as an unconstitutional   
   limitation when storage amount should have been the   
   parameter.   
      
   2. A Preliminary Inquiry was scheduled for the   
   presentation of evidence. Applicant filed a challenge   
   to the counts in the indictment before wasting time on   
   evidence about counts that may not remain.   
      
   3. A S.601 Motion to Quash (to Amend to zero charges)   
   was filed. The Crown argued that deciding on what would   
   be in the indictment before presenting evidence was   
   putting the cart before the horse. In Quebec, the   
   evidence is heard first and if the indictment is later   
   amended, then that evidence the court wasted its time   
   on could then be rejected with the quashed count.   
      
   4. In Ontario, fixing the counts in the indictment   
   comes before presentation of the evidence. In R. v.   
   Turmel [1994] the motion to Quash was heard by Judge   
   Nadelle within a week, and then the trial was held on   
   the indictment a year later. So even if in Quebec, the   
   Crown presents evidence before the indictment is   
   amended, in Ontario, the indictment is amended before   
   evidence is presented.   
      
   5. The Crown called setting the indictment before   
   hearing the evidence on it "putting the cart before the   
   horse." Accused argued it worked the other way but so   
   far, all the judges have accepted that putting the   
   horse before the cart means hearing the evidence before   
   the indictment is amended. From an Ontario judge's   
   perspective, hearing evidence before fixing the   
   indictment is putting the cart-before-the-horse.   
      
   6. The Quash Motion was struck from the docket by   
   Provincial Judge #1 as being an issue for the Superior   
   Court.   
      
   7. Since the Accused was going to end up in Superior   
   Court eventually upon election, the Motion to Quash was   
   filed and was rejected by Superior Court Judge #1  for   
   no jurisdiction without a Notice of Constitutional   
   Question.   
      
   8. The Motion to Quash was filed with a properly-served   
   Notice of Constitutional Question informing all   
   provincial Attorneys General that NO constitutional   
   issue was being raised.   
      
   9. The Motion further pointed out the judge in R. v.   
   J.P. (2003) explained why S.601 Motions to Quash had no   
   constitutional issue being raised. It's not trying to   
   strike down a bad law, it's trying to establish a bad   
   law was already struck down in Parker and Krieger is   
   unknown to law, not unconstitutional!   
      
   10. Superior Court Judge #2 now rejected the motion   
   with Notice of NO Constitutional Question for no   
   jurisdiction due to a S.601 motion being reserved for   
   the trial judge alone.   
      
   11. Another Motion to Quash was filed with an extra   
   point noting that S.601 says an indictment may be   
   amended by the first judge the Accused runs into.   
   Superior Court Judge #3 then ruled he could not over-   
   rule the decision of Judge #2 even if any judge could   
   hear it. It had now been ruled that only the trial   
   judge could hear it. In Quebec, anyway.   
      
   12. All three dismissals were appealed and are subject   
   of this hearing. There had been no objection to the   
   Crown's motion to dismiss once the Accused had managed   
   to re-file a new Motion to Amend (dropped the word   
   Quash, Amend to Zero) and now, it got filed for hearing   
   on May 22 2014 before the Preliminary Inquiry on July   
   18 2014.   
      
   13. Accused expected these appeals to be mooted now   
   that the Quash Motion was going to set the indictment   
   before the presentation of any evidence (Accused might   
   hire a lawyer) at the Preliminary Inquiry.   
      
   14. Accused was going to ask if the Court could order a   
   few thousand dollars for the expenses of bringing my   
   counsel from Brantford 6 or 8 times with commensurate   
   other costs and my travel and wasted time on the   
   Crown's convincing the courts to get the Cart and Horse   
   analogy wrong.   
      
   15. But on May 22, Accused was heard by Provincial   
   Judge #2 who ruled that   
   1) the Accused had failed to file his Notice of No   
   Constitutional Question again, and   
   2) S.601 said it could only he heard by the trial   
   judge.   
      
   16. Accused pointed out that if he lost his motion to   
   Amend to Quash and the law was ruled still valid, he   
   had no defence and might want to plead guilty. Too bad.   
   The judge ruled that at this stage, "there's no   
   indictment."   
      
   16. So evidence must be presented at Preliminary   
   Inquiry on "no indictment" first. Accused may not   
   challenge a count in the indictment if there's no   
   indictment, just hear the evidence on what the Accused   
   can't be told is in the indictment until before it   
   reaches his Trial Judge.   
      
   17. So Accused thought these appeals had been mooted by   
   the scheduling of the Quash Horse before the   
   Preliminary Inquiry Cart. And now finds these appeals   
   unmooted by the Preliminary Inquiry Cart being once   
   again put before the Quash Horse.   
   18. Dismissal of a Motion to Quash may not be appealed   
   until the Appeal against the Trial decision. These   
   issues will be back before the court even if Accused   
   sits mute through the process to await the adjudication   
   on the cart and the horse which is now fortuitously   
   before this court.   
      
   19. All it would take would be a substantial Order for   
   Costs from the Crown for wasting all our time with an   
   angry glare for him to set the Quash Horse before the   
   Preliminary Inquiry Cart below.   
      
   FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT   
      
   GRANT the present plea for costs and maybe an Order for   
   the Crown to brush up on Carts and Horses.   
      
   Dated at Montreal on ___________ 2014   
      
      
      
      
                               _________________________   
                               For the Appellant:   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)