From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Luc Paquette was a small grower selling to a guy who   
   was buying from a couple of dozen small growers. So because   
   he was the wholesaler, they charged them all with being a   
   Criminal Organization and made them all come up with very   
   high bail to get out of jail.   
      
   Since the interest on his credit card was robbing his family   
   of $200 a month, last December Luc asked Superior Court   
   Justice Catherine Mandeville if she could convert his   
   $12,500 Bail to a $12,500 Bond to not break the peace. She   
   ruled that since he had agreed to it, he was stuck with it.   
   I thought that was rather unempathetic but what do people   
   with big savings know of the woes of people in debt. "Their   
   hearts have grown cold," as Jesus said in Matthew.   
      
   But once the Crown dropped all the mandatory jailable   
   offence and reduced the Life sentence charge of over 3KG to   
   a 5-year sentence for less than 3Kg on Friday, I sent him   
   back above to ask for a reduction in his bail.   
      
   I just found out, Crown even offered him house arrest in   
   exchange for a plea! He had to refuse because the criminal   
   record would cost him his good job (and I stalled James   
   Turner 9 years before his trial and I can do it for Luc too,   
   then 3 more years after trial hoping Parliament Amnesties   
   Pot People by then). As I'm the best legal counsel money   
   can't buy, he may as well fight it out.   
      
   But since he's now facing a quite dinky Possession for the   
   Purpose of Trafficking 266 grams (it should have been   
   reduced to Simple Possession because 266 grams volume in   
   no way implies Trafficking anymore when some people consume   
   more than that in one day.   
      
   And a charge over 19.5 grams of resin hash. So his Criminal   
   Organization Indictment has been reduced to 10 ounces   
   of bud and 2/3 ounce of hash. Har har har har har har. And   
   really, if he goes to trial on the Trafficking imputation,   
   that's a loser and so it's only the 20 grams of hash he   
   can't beat (if the law is still alive).   
      
   But a criminal record for even 10 grams of hash could bust   
   his job credentials. So the fight must goes on. I love   
   combat.   
      
   The only way I'll let him give up is if he comes out of it   
   with no criminal record and keeps his job. I don't care how   
   much he donates to the judge's favorite charity in exchange   
   for a discharge if he consents to plead guilty. No harm   
   in having a record for pot and hash, only harm from the   
   record.   
      
   In the meantime, today he filed a motion to get back before   
   Justice Mandeville to have his bail reduced commensurately   
   with the reduction in severity of his charges.   
      
   LOCALITE GATINEAU                  SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC   
   NO: 550-01-95970-168                  (Criminal Chamber)   
      
                                Between   
                                Luc Paquette   
                                Applicant   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
                 APPLICATION TO VARY RECOGNIZANCE   
      
   TO AN HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC   
   (CRIMINAL CHAMBER) SITTING FOR THE DISTRICT OF GATINEAU, the   
   Applicant states as follows:   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. Applicant was charged for growing 174 marijuana plants   
   under Production Section 7-1-2-b with 1-year mandatory   
   minimum, Possession Section 4-1-4-a for 19.5 grams of resin,   
   and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking over 3   
   Kilograms under Section 5-2-3-a facing a life sentence   
      
   2. On Nov 11 2016, in order to be released from jail,   
   Applicant signed a Recognizance posting Bail of $12,500 and   
   must be home between 12-5am and other conditions not sought   
   to be varied.   
      
   3. Applicant holds a job which pays about $900/week, about   
   $3,900 per month with fixed expenses for mortgage, auto,   
   Hydro, Taxes, Communications, credit card payments of about   
   $3,000.   
      
   4. With the remaining $900, Applicant must provide for 3   
   children aged 11, 14, 17 and is getting deeper into debt.   
      
   5. The curfew makes visiting family very difficult.   
      
   6. On Friday March 16 2018, before Cour du Quebec Judge   
   Laflamme, the Crown withdrew the S.7 production charge with   
   mandatory minimum, and with no plant material in evidence,   
   reduced the S.5(2) charge to Possession for the Purpose of   
   Trafficking of 266 grams.   
      
   PART II - ISSUES   
      
   7. Should the severe reduction in gravity of the charges   
   result in a commensurate severe reduction in the bail and   
   curfew.   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT FOR ORDER   
      
   8. Given a stable job, stable home situation, and much   
   reduced risk of flight, Applicant seeks to vary the   
   Recognizance by changing the $12,500 bail to a reduced bond   
   and ending the curfew.   
      
   Dated at Gatineau on March 21 2018.   
      
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that on _______ 2018 at _____m or as soon   
   hereafter as can be heard the application made to a judge of   
   the Superior Court at the Courthouse in Gatineau for an   
   Order varying the Recognizance by changing the $12,500 bail   
   to a reduced bond and ending the curfew.   
      
   JCT: Judge will set his date. So Crown reduces the severity   
   of the charges Friday and he has a perfect excuse to apply   
   again to reduce his bail. Hope Justice Mandeville sees the   
   logic.   
      
   If she says yes, then Luc is going to warn her of what I was   
   going to do. If no, he won't.   
      
   She's the one who did not rule on his motion to Mandate   
   Judge Millar do the Quash nor to Prohibit trial without   
   Preliminary Inquiry before his date of trial. Pissed me off.   
      
   But if she's nice, he's going to mention that he's ready to   
   withdraw the Mandamus against Millar because Judge Laflamme   
   started that pre-plea hearing and that's okay, we're not   
   going to be picky that it had to be corrected by Millar. A   
   typo can be corrected any judge and we don't need to carp   
   about a judge not knowing the rules. Laflamme is ready to do   
   it, in the right order, that's fine by us.   
      
   But he is going to warn her that Laflamme thinks it's moving   
   to trial right after the Quash. Not without a Preliminary   
   Inquiry and if she prohibit it, I'll appeal her decision to   
   do nothing to the Quebec Court of Appeal and ask them to   
   prohibit what should be prohibited.   
      
   It had to be embarrassing Millar with the Mandamus that   
   caused the hesitation, not the having the PI as it should   
   be. So once the Millar Mandamus is gone off her plate, it   
   becomes simple to slate the hearing and issue the   
   Prohibition!   
      
   Or I take it higher appealing HER non-action, starting to   
   complain about her over the real easy issue.   
      
   But if her heart stays cold, then I'm going to embarrass her   
   in front of the higher court before he gets back to   
   Laflamme. In weeks, not years.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)