From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Luc Paquette Appeals to Prohibit Trial without Preliminary Inquiry   
      
   JCT: After Judge Millar refused to hear Luc Paquette's S.601   
   Quash Motion, she sent it off to be heard by the Trial   
   Judge on March 19. But unlike the others busted in the   
   project Nouages bust who were slated for a Preliminary   
   Inquiry, she sent him off without one. So Luc Paquette filed   
   a Motion for Mandamus that Judge Millar deal with his Quash   
   Motion first and for Prohibition of any Trial without a   
   Preliminary Inquiry.   
      
   It was filed in Superior Court and sent up to the Superior   
   Court judge for a date. Presumably that was Justice   
   Catherine Mandeville who had refused to give Luc his bail   
   money back in December. And so the motion sat there without   
   being slated for hearing. April 25 motion and trial came   
   without it being heard.   
      
   Got that. She denied his motion for a Preliminary Inquiry by   
   not giving him a date to ask for it. Luckily, Provincial   
   Court Judge Laflamme did have to deal with the pre-plea   
   Quash Motion before the opening of the trial. And he thought   
   he found problem in the motion and put it off until April 25   
   to be fixed.   
      
   Also, at that hearing before Judge Laflamme, the Crown   
   avoided his election to trial by judge and jury by reducing   
   his charges! They say that election was made the day after   
   the bust by his lawyer while he was in jail. It could be   
   annulled but by dropping the more serious charges, he now   
   has to stay below. But still gets a Preliminary Inquiry.   
      
   Section 7 Production may get a jury, and S.5(2) Possession   
   for the Purpose of Trafficking over 3KG may get a jury.   
   Remember, the Crown stopped my 2003 Parliament Hill Bust   
   with over 3Kg getting a jury trial by charging me with under   
   3Kg even though the evidence showed 3.3Kg. I appealed for a   
   jury trial to the Supreme Court but they said no.   
      
   So with Luc's S.7 Production and S.5(2) P4P over 3Kg gone,   
   there is no election to Superior Court. Fine.   
      
   So last week, Luc went back before Superior Court Justice   
   Carole Therrien asking that since they had downgraded the   
   charges, could they down-grade his $12,500 bail to a bond?   
   It was costing him $200 a month in interest on his credit   
   card. She refused seeing his trial was in a few weeks but   
   changed a condition to allow him to be out after curfew when   
   accompanied by family.   
      
   Then Crown Marie Claude Daoust mentioned the other Motion   
   for Mandamus or Prohibition on her desk and suggested they   
   deal with it. I doubt she had read it or she'd have known   
   the Mandamus was to Mandate Judge Millar do the Quash and   
   the Prohibition was to Prohibit trial without Preliminary   
   Inquiry.   
      
   The judge didn't have it so the clerk dug it up from   
   wherever Justice Mandeville had buried it, and not realizing   
   there were two heads of relief sought, Mandamus or   
   Prohibition, she thought they both related to Millar's   
   refusal do the Quash. After all, it could have been to   
   Prohibit a Trial or Preliminary Inquiry without the Quash   
   being heard first. But it was to prohibit the Trial before   
   Preliminary Inquiry!   
      
   Right from the start, Justice Therrien noted that there was   
   "something bizarre" not to find anything about the   
   Preliminary Inquiry. Not seeing it on the record, she asked   
   Luc if he had waived his Preliminary Inquiry. No.   
      
   No matter how it had gotten to trial, once it was   
   ascertained that Judge Laflamme had started Luc's pre-plea   
   S.601 Motion to Quash, there was no real need to force Judge   
   Millar to do it and so the Mandamus was properly dismissed.   
   But thinking they were related, she dismissed the   
   Prohibition too. Too bad, Crown should have read it and   
   warned her but now it has to go higher.   
      
   So remember, neither the Crown nor the judge had read that   
   the Motion for Prohibition was to prohibit Trial without   
   Preliminary Inquiry, not without the Quash being heard first   
   (since it was by Laflamme). But they found out yesterday.   
      
   Luc went in to swear his affidavit and serve the Notice of   
   Appeal and Motion Record for Prohibition on the Crown.   
      
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU                (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: GATINEAU   
   NO: 550-36-000006-187         Between   
   NO: ________________          Appellant   
                                 Luc Paquette   
                                 -and-   
                                 Attorney General for Quebec   
                                 Respondent   
      
                         NOTICE OF APPEAL   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant appeals against refusal to   
   grant the motion for Prohibition of any trial without a   
   Preliminary Inquiry.   
      
   PARTICULARS OF JUDGMENT:   
      
   1. Motion for Prohibition of Trial without Preliminary   
   Inquiry not granted on Apr 9 2018.   
      
   2. Place of judgment: Gatineau.   
      
   3. Name of Judge: Superior Court Justice Carole Therrien   
      
   4. Charges: S.4(1) 5(2).   
      
   5. Plea at trial: No plea yet.   
      
   6. The Appellant appeals against refusal to grant an order   
   prohibiting the prosecution of any trial without holding a   
   Preliminary Inquiry.   
      
   FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT   
      
   GRANT the present appeal.   
   Dated at Gatineau on April 16 2018.   
   Luc Paquette   
   TO: Ministry of Justice   
   TO: The Registrar of the Court   
      
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU                (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: GATINEAU   
   NO: 550-36-000006-187         Between   
   NO: ________________          Applicant/Appellant   
                                 Luc Paquette   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
           APPLICATION FOR STAY OF TRIAL PENDING APPEAL   
      
   TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE QUEBEC COURT OF   
   APPEAL (CRIMINAL CHAMBER) SITTING IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT   
   OF GATINEAU, the Applicant states as follows:   
      
   THE APPLICATION IS FOR A STAY of the April 25 2018 trial   
   pending appeal of the refusal to prohibit the prosecution of   
   any trial without first holding a Preliminary Inquiry.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL are that the Accused has right not   
   to be committed to trial without a Preliminary Inquiry.   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   1. The Accused is charged with Possession of marijuana resin   
   contrary to S.4(1) and with Possession for the Purpose of   
   Trafficking less than 3Kg under S.5(2) the CDSA.   
      
   2. All accused in the Project Nouage raids were slated to   
   have a Preliminary Inquiry on March 20 2018 but the Accused   
   herein chose to lay off my lawyer and continue self-   
   represented.   
      
   2. On Jan 26 2018, Judge Millar set a date for the trial of   
   the accused for March 16 2018 without any Preliminary   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)