From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: This is really the weirdest case I've ever seen. Here's   
   Ray's Application for Leave to Appeal the Quebec Court of   
   Appeals decision not to stop his Preliminary Inquiry from   
   taking place before his "pre-plea" Motion to Amend/Quash!!   
      
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                          Raymond Turmel   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                               and   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS   
                    RAYMOND TURMEL, APPLICANT   
      
   1. Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal..........1   
      
   2. Applicant's Certificate............................?   
      
   3. Oct 1 2013 Order of Bellehumeur J..................?   
      
   4. Nov 8 2013 Order of Vauclair J.C.A.................?   
      
   5. Dec 13 2013 Order of Bourque J.C.S.................?   
      
   6. Feb 7 2014 Order of Bellehumeur J..................2   
      
   7. May 22 2014 Order of Sirois J......................2   
      
   8. May 22 2014 Reasons of Sirois J. .................4   
      
   9. Jun 9 2014 Order of Hesler, Leger, Savard J.A.....3   
      
   10 Applicant's Memorandum............................   
      
      
            NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                    RAYMOND TURMEL, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant seeks an Order overturning the   
   June 9 decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal and striking   
   down the precedent rulings of the Quebec Superior Court that   
   a S.601 Motion to Amend/Quash:   
   A) needs a "Notice of No Constitutional Question;"   
   B) needs to be heard by the Trial Judge Only with leave.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are that the Criminal Code clearly   
   states that   
   A) a Notice of Constitutional Question is unnecessary for   
   non-constitutional S.601 motion;   
   B) a S.601 Motion may be sought without leave before the   
   Accused has pleaded before a Trial Judge.   
   Dated at St-Jerome on Aug 8 2014.   
   For the Applicant:   
   Raymond J. Turmel   
      
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                    RAYMOND TURMEL, APPLICANT   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   1. Ray Turmel, a MMAR Marijuana Exemptee, was charged under   
   a) S.7(1) b) (2)(b) of the CDSA with production too many   
   marijuana plants while possessing 4 pounds toward an 11   
   pound storage limit. The plant limit will be challenged as   
   an unconstitutional limitation when logic would dictate that   
   storage amount be the limiting parameter.   
      
   2. Before the Accused has been offered the chance to plead,   
   a Preliminary Inquiry was scheduled for the presentation of   
   evidence.   
      
   3. Accused filed a motion under S.601 of the Criminal Code   
   (Amending the Indictment) to quash the counts therein. In   
   Ontario, the Motion to Quash before the accused has pleaded   
   is heard before the evidence is presented and before the   
   Accused has pleaded. In R. v. John Turmel [1994] the motion   
   to Quash was heard by Ontario Provincial Court Judge Nadelle   
   within a week of the charge, the trial was held on the   
   indictment a year later. In R. v. James Turner [2007], the   
   motion to Quash was dismissed by Justice Ray and the trial   
   is now about to commence in 2014.   
      
   4. At the Oct 1 2013 hearing, the Crown argued that deciding   
   whether the counts survive before presenting evidence at a   
   Preliminary Inquiry was "putting the cart before the horse,"   
   the Court struck the Quash Motion from the docket ruling it   
   was an issue for the Superior Court of Quebec.   
      
   5. On Nov 8 2013, a Motion to Quash was dismissed by   
   Superior Court Justice Vauclair J.C.A for no jurisdiction   
   without a Notice of Constitutional Question. The new   
   precedent of needing a Notice of No Constitutional Question   
   for a non-constitutional motion was appealed.   
      
   6. On Dec 13 2013, a second motion to Quash with a Notice of   
   Constitutional Question informing provincial Attorneys   
   General that NO constitutional issue was being raised was   
   dismissed by Justice Sophie Bourque J.C.S. for "No   
   jurisdiction" due to amendments to indictments being   
   reserved to the trial judge alone. This precedent was   
   appealed.   
      
   7. On Feb 7 2014, Judge Bellehumeur slated the Motion to   
   Amend/Quash to be heard before the Aug 18 2014 Preliminary   
   Inquiry.   
      
   8. On May 22 2014, Judge Sirois followed the new precedents   
   in dismissing the Motion to Amend/Quash ruling he had no   
   jurisdiction because:   
   1) the Accused had failed to file a Notice of No   
   Constitutional Question, and   
   2) only a Trial Judge could hear a S.601 Motion to Amend.   
      
   9. On Jun 9 2014, Quebec Court of Appeal Justices Hesler,   
   Leger and Savard (700-36-000999-135) dismissed the appeals   
   against the precedents ruling they lacked any jurisdiction   
   since the process was legitimately going on below.   
      
   PART II - ISSUES   
      
   10. Should the precedents stand that a S.601 Motion to   
   Amend/Quash:   
   A) needs a "Notice of No Constitutional Question;"   
   B) needs to be heard by the Trial Judge Only.   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT   
      
   A) "NOTICE OF NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION"   
      
   11. 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.   
      
   12. Ontario Provincial Court Judge Phillips 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 [2001] and Krieger [2003] as   
   unknown to law, not unconstitutional while including:   
       "A Notice of Constitutional Question is not required for   
       an Application pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code to   
       quash the charges.   
      
   13. 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."   
      
   B) TRIAL JUDGE ONLY WITH LEAVE   
      
   14. Section 601. of the Criminal Code says:   
       Amending defective indictment or count   
       601. (1) An objection to an indictment preferred under   
       this Part or to a count in an indictment, for a defect   
       apparent on its face, shall be taken by motion to quash   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)