From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Raymond J. Turmel   
      
   Oct 11 2014   
      
   Supreme Court of Canada   
   301 Wellington St. Ottawa, K1A 0J1   
      
   Re: Ray Turmel v. HMTQ File 36037   
      
       REPLY TO RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
        (Section 28 of the Supreme Court of Canada Rules)   
      
   1. The Respondent has failed to properly distinguish the issues raise   
   in the appeals below by conflating the last two appeals:   
      
   2. CR: The first of those three applications to quash was in fact   
   rejected mostly for the reason that the applicant was trying to use   
   S.601 of the Criminal Code to have a constitutional debate over the   
   charges.   
      
   3. The Crown remains fixated on the idea that a Motion to amend an   
   indictment (to a quash) needs a Notice of No Constitutional Issue to   
   be heard.   
      
   4. CR: The other two applications of the same name were rejected by   
   the Superior Court because the applicant simply tried to re-apply the   
   exact same motion over and over again.   
      
   5. Only the third Quash Motion was dismissed for stare decisis. The   
   second Quash Motion had included explanation of how the J.P. judge had   
   explained that a S.601 motion was not a constitutional issue. So the   
   second judge dismissed it under the new precedent that only a Trial   
   Judge could amend an indictment under S.601 of the Criminal Code. Only   
   the precedents of needing a Notice of Constitutional Question for a   
   non-constitutional motion and needing the Trial Judge to amend the   
   indictment are now at issue. The stare decisis issue is not. The Crown   
   has ducked the "Trial Judge" precedent under appeal by conflating it   
   with the "Stare Decisis" non-precedent not under appeal.   
      
   6. CR: Eventually, on 18 August 2014, Mr. Turmel was acquitted by the   
   Quebec Provincial Court for his accusation under the CDSA.   
   Nonetheless, the applicant wishes to carry on with his proceedings   
   before the Supreme Court citing that: "These precedents contradict   
   normal court process and now threaten me should such litigation arise   
   again."   
      
   7. Applicant remains threatened by those precedents.   
      
   8. CR: The fact remains that neither S.691 of the CDSA or S.40 of the   
   Supreme Court Act can be used by the Applicant to justify any   
   proceedings before this Honorable Court regarding the decision of the   
   Quebec Court of Appeal... S.40 of the Supreme Court Act is to be used   
   only for a question that is "by reason of public importance or the   
   importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact   
   involved in that question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme   
   Court, or is, for any other reason, of such nature or significance as   
   to warrant decision by it." It is certainly not the case in the   
   present file.   
      
   9. It certainly is. Can a precedent that contradicts current laws in   
   the Criminal Code not be the very quintessential "reason of public   
   importance or the importance of any issue of law, one that ought to be   
   decided by the Supreme Court, or is, for any other reason, of such   
   nature or significance as to warrant decision by it."   
      
   10. CR: Considering the fact the applicant had no right to appeal an   
   interlocutory decision in the Court of Appeal, and that the question   
   submitted is merely of an academic value   
      
   11. A new contradiction in law is not only of academic value? The   
   Crown has both precedents used the "Constitutional Notice Needed"   
   precedent again in a later Quash Motion in Provincial Court.   
      
   12. Though the Crown omits mentioning its new precedent that an   
   indictment may only be amended by the Trial Judge, the admission that   
   the Crown believes that a non-constitutional motion needs a Notice of   
   Constitutional Question shows it is an issue of national importance.   
      
   ______________________________   
   Ray Turmel, Applicant   
      
   CC: Maxime Lacourciere   
   For the Respondent   
      
   JCT: So now we sit back and see if 3 judges sign off on leaving those   
   3 silly contradictory precedents or let it in for all 9 judges.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)