From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Ray Turmel opposes Crown Motion to Stay OverGrow Charges   
      
   JCT: I mis-translated what the Crown was doing Monday. They   
   are asking the judge to stay the charge. They wouldn't need   
   to ask the judge to withdraw the charge but asking the judge   
   for the stay lets them hold bringing back the charges over   
   his head for another year.   
   I've been wanting to fight this one every time the Crown   
   stayed charges against a Turmel Kit user for years. I wanted   
   the charge withdrawn.   
   So now I'm going to get the chance to fight this one. But I   
   have to oppose the Crown's motion to stay the charge and   
   insist on going through with the Quash Motion!! It's having   
   the Quash Motion that allows us to beat the Stay Motion!!!   
   Great surprise for the Crown tomorrow morning:   
      
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT DE TERREBONNE   
   LOCALITE ST-JEROME                         COURT OF QUEBEC   
   NO: 700-01-118202-137                    (Criminal Chamber)   
   CASE: 174-121109-004   
      
                                Between   
                                Raymond Turmel   
                                Applicant   
      
                                -and-   
      
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
      
   TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF QUEBEC   
   (CRIMINAL CHAMBER) SITTING IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF   
   TERREBONNE LOCALITE ST-JEROME, the Accused states:   
      
   1. I have attempted to have a Motion to Amend/Quash the   
   Information on grounds that the court in R. v. J.P. ruled   
   that the prohibitions were of no force and effect since 2001   
   when the MMAR Exemption was ruled to have constitutionally   
   failed in Hitzig v. HMQ and that Parliament has not enacted   
   any new prohibitions on marijuana since they were struck   
   down.   
      
   2. Just as the Motion to declare the statute a nullity is   
   about to be heard, the Crown now moves to have the charges   
   stayed.   
      
   3. My right not to have a nullity hang over my head for   
   another year was best expressed by Judge Kenkel on May 30   
   2003 in [R. v. Peddle, [2003] O.J. No. 2096 Ont.Prov.Ct.].   
   Reproducing the short decision:   
       "Where an information on its face does not disclose an   
       offence known to law, can the Crown pre-empt a motion to   
       quash the information by staying the charge?   
       In R. v. J.P., a decision binding on this court, Mr.   
       Justice Rogin held that simple possession of marihuana   
       is no longer "an offence known to law".   
       The accused/applicant has applied to this court to quash   
       the information alleging simple possession of marihuana.   
       At the same time, the Federal Crown has asked that the   
       charge be stayed...   
       The Federal Crown submits that their motion to stay the   
       proceedings deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear   
       the motion to quash...   
       Proceedings stayed under s.579 may be recommenced   
       without laying a new information within one year. Thus,   
       the accused person remains in jeopardy of prosecution on   
       the original information until that period expires.   
       The discretion of the Crown under s.579 to intervene by   
       directing a stay of proceedings should not normally be   
       interfered with by the court. However, where the charge   
       before the court is itself a nullity, then in my view   
       there is nothing to stay. It would be wrong to keep a   
       citizen in jeopardy of prosecution for a period of one   
       year on an information that does not disclose an   
       offence.   
       Conclusion: The information before the court will be   
       quashed as not disclosing an offence as required by   
       s.581(1) c.c.   
      
   4. Only after the Motion to Quash is dismissed may the Crown   
   move for a stay.   
      
   5. The only recourse that leaves no jeopardy hanging over my   
   head is for the Crown to withdraw the charges.   
   ____________________________   
   For the Accused:   
   Raymond J. Turmel   
      
   JCT: The hearing is at 9:30, the Crown gets served at 8:30.   
   They know their only out is to preprare to withdraw.   
   And if they don't, and the judge stays it, Ray will alert   
   them it's an issue I want to appeal. And while the charge   
   is hanging over his head, I can. The only to stop me is to   
   get that charge from over his head. Har har har har har har.   
   Wonder what they're going to do?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)