From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Response to Ray Turmel at Supreme Court   
      
   JCT: Ray Turmel is continuing his appeal of precedents set   
   in his case below in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Crown   
   is trying to duck out by giving up and presenting no   
   evidence for a "Not Guilty" verdict below. But the   
   precedents still threaten Ray and others so we're pushing   
   on.   
      
   Saint-Jerome, 29 Sep 2014   
      
   CANADA Supreme Court   
      
   Object Raymond Turmel vs HMTQ File 36037   
      
         RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                    (Section 27 of the Rules)   
      
   CR: In accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court,   
   counsel for the respondent would like to produce the   
   following response regarding the application for leave to   
   appeal in the case of Raymond Turmel v. HMTQ.   
      
   The applicant is trying to appeal a decision of the Quebec   
   Court of Appeal that dismissed three appeals of   
   interlocutory decisions from the Superior Court.   
      
   JCT: Only two of which are now appealed.   
      
   CR: Those decisions of the Superior Court refused to grant   
   an application to quash the indictment, regarding an   
   accusation of production of substance (S.7 CDSA).   
      
   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.   
      
   JCT: A S.601 Quash motion isn't trying to get the law   
   declared unconstitutional, it's to get the law declared   
   still invalid since it was struck down in 2001. Nice of him   
   to repeat one of the erroneous precedents we want to   
   overturn.   
      
   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.   
      
   JCT: No, only the third judge said he could not overrule an   
   peer under "stare decisis." The second motion included   
   explanation of how the J.P. judge had explained that a S.601   
   motion was not a constitutional issue. So the second judge   
   rejected it as a motion to be heard only by the Trial Judge.   
   That is our second precedent we are challenging here! And it   
   sounds like the Crown wants to conflate it with the 3rd   
   decision we are not appealing of the "stare decisis" ruling.   
   Get the difference? Judge Two set the second   
   precedent for the needed Trial Judge. Judge Three did not   
   set an objectionable precedent we have to appeal. But the   
   Crown ducked the "Trial Judge" precedent by conflating it   
   with the "Stare Decisis" non-precedent.   
      
   CR: Thus the applicant decided to appeal those three   
   decisions before the Quebec Court of Appeal.   
      
   JCT: Three separate appeals but heard together.   
      
   CR: However, counsel for the respondent presented a motion   
   to have the appeal dismissed in relation to S.685 of the   
   Criminal Code.   
      
   JCT: Which one? Actually, all three.   
      
   CR: The fact was that the applicant simply did not have a   
   right to appeal those decisions. S.674 of the Criminal Code   
   establishes:   
   674. No proceedings other than those authorized by this Part   
   and Part XXVI shall be taken by way of appeal in proceedings   
   in respect to indictable offences.   
      
   It is obvious that the decisions of the Superior Court to   
   dismiss the various applications to quash were not   
   appealable under any provision of the Criminal Code.   
      
   JCT: Only one of which was dismissed because he said it was   
   a re-apply "Stare Decisis" said he could not contradict, the   
   other for the omitted Trial Judge precedent.   
      
   CR: In fact, the Applicant had very little to say regarding   
   the actual origin of his right to appeal during the hearing   
   of the said motion.   
      
   JCT: "This ain't right" isn't enough.   
      
   CR: All of the above proceedings took place before any trial   
   date was ever set for the first instance file. 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."   
      
   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.691 regards persons who have seen their conviction   
   affirmed by a court of appeal or their acquittal set aside   
   by a court of appeal and Mr. Turmel falls under neither   
   category.   
      
   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."   
      
   JCT: Can a contradictory precedent 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." He   
   sure made my case for getting these important precedents   
   overturned.   
      
   CR: It is certainly not the case in the present file.   
      
   JCT: That's it. Ray say "Tis!" Crown says "Not!"   
      
   CR: Even more so, considering Mr. Turmel was acquitted.   
      
   JCT: He remains threatened by those precedents...   
      
   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   
      
   JCT: A contradiction in law is only of academic value?   
      
   CR: we respectfully submit that that the application for   
   leave to appeal should be dismissed by this Honourable   
   Court.   
   Yours truly   
   Maitre Maxime Lacoursiere   
   Counsel for the Respondent   
      
   JCT: So Ray has until Oct 12 to file a final Reply to why   
   it's important that the Supreme Court not let these two   
   contradictory precedents survive.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)