From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Luc Paquette Quebec Court of Appeal Judge wants proof   
      
   JCT: It is so incredible that Luc Paquette should be in the   
   Quebec Court of Appeal because two lower level courts failed   
   to give him a Preliminary Inquiry that the he got this   
   email:   
      
   From the helpful clerk Quentin Desrosiers with copies to   
   Crown Attorneys:   
   (in French, I'm translating)   
      
   Mr. Paquette,   
      
   This is about the Application for stay of trial pending   
   appeal to be heard April 23 2018 in Room RC.18 at 9:30a.   
      
   The judge seized of the motion has asked me to inform you   
   that the judgment refusing the prohibition of the   
   Preliminary Inquiry as well as the decision in first   
   instance refusing the Preliminary Inquiry be filed in the   
   dossier of the Court of Appeal.   
      
   Therefore, we will need the following documents   
      
   - Proces Verbal (minutes) of the hearing refusing the   
   holding of a Preliminary Inquiry.   
   - Proces Verbal of the hearing on Apr 9 refusing   
   prohibition of the holding of a Preliminary Inquiry   
   - Judgment with written reasons or, in its absence, the   
   stenographic transcriptions of the hearing where the judge   
   refused the holding of a Preliminary Inquiry;   
   - Judgment with written reasons or, in its absence, the   
   stenographic transcriptions of the April 9 2018 hearing   
   where the Honourable Carole Therrien refused the prohibition   
   of the holding of a trial without a Preliminary Inquiry;   
   - The motion for Prohibition of a Trial without Preliminary   
   Inquiry   
   - Any other pertinent document filed below.   
      
   Considering the circumstances of the dossier, you are asked   
   to file these documents without delay with the clerk of the   
   Court of Appeal in Montreal. If it is not possible to file   
   the material before, you may file them directly with the   
   judge at the hearing and give a copy to the other party.   
      
   Cc: Me. Daoust, Me. Bonanno.   
      
   JCT: So I prepared a letter Luc will fax to the court today   
   with the two Proces Verbal but not any transcripts and why:   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU                (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: GATINEAU   
   NO: 550-36-000006-187         Between   
   NO: 550-01-095970-168         Applicant/Appellant   
                                 Luc Paquette   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
   IN RESPONSE TO THE APRIL 18 2018 REQUEST OF THE HONOURABLE   
   JUDGE OF THE QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL CHAMBER)   
   HEARING THE APPLICANT'S MOTION, the Applicant states:   
      
   1. On Jun 10 2016, the Accused was charged in the Project   
   Nouages Marijuana Raids.   
      
   2. Preliminary Inquiry was set for Feb 15 for the accused.   
      
   3. On Dec 15 2017, the Accused became a self-represented and   
   filed a Superior Court motion to vary his bail to bond and   
   curfew conditions. Bail to bond was refused but a curfew   
   condition was varied.   
      
   4. On Jan 17 2018, the Accused filed a S.601 PRE-PLEA motion   
   to quash the charges for Jan 26 2018.   
      
   5. On Jan 26, Judge Millar refused to hear the Accused's   
   S.601 Motion to Quash and sent it on to be heard by the   
   Trial Judge on March 16 2018. There was no refusal to hold a   
   Preliminary Inquiry, the requirement was simply skipped.   
      
   6. On March 3, Accused filed a Superior Court Motion for:   
   1) Mandamus that Judge Millar hear the Quash Motion; and   
   2) Prohibition against Trial without a Preliminary Inquiry.   
   The motion was filed but never assigned a date for hearing   
   before the March 16 trial.   
      
   7. On March 16, before pleading, Judge Laflamme heard the   
   S.601 motion to quash but adjourned it to April 25 for   
   further documentation.   
      
   8. The Crown dropped the Production count and reduced the   
   Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking "over 3Kg" count   
   to "under 3Kg" to he tried with a remaining Possession of   
   Resin count.   
      
   9. Given the reduction in the charges, the Accused filed   
   another motion to vary his conditions.   
      
   10. On April 9 2018, before Justice Therrien, the Crown   
   raised the issue of the earlier motion for extraordinary   
   remedies. The Motion Record was ordered brought to court.   
      
   11. Given that Judge Laflamme had been seized of the motion   
   to Quash, there was no need for Mandamus to compel Judge   
   Millar to hear that motion and the motion for mandamus was   
   dismissed. The motion for Prohibition was also dismissed   
   with it!   
      
   12. And so, the Accused has appealed to the Court of Appeal   
   to stay not the Quash Motion being properly adjudicated   
   before plea by Judge Laflamme of first instance but to stay   
   the Trial until a Preliminary Inquiry is held.   
      
   13. Being faxed in advance of being filed on the date of the   
   hearing is the:   
   - Proces Verbal for Jan 26 2018;   
   - Proces Verbal for Apr 9 2018;   
   - Application for Mandamus and Prohibition dated Mar 3 2018.   
      
   14. Given Applicant has no transcript of either hearing, the   
   Audio CDs of both short hearings will also be brought to   
   court should they be deemed necessary.   
      
   Dated at Gatineau on Thursday April 19 2018.   
   __________________________   
   Luc Paquette   
   FAX COPY TO: The Registrar of the Court   
   AND TO: Ministry of Justice in Gatineau   
      
   JCT: So a judge of Quebec's highest court is incredulous   
   that a trial without Preliminary Inquiry should not have   
   been corrected below. The judge does sound incredulous!   
      
   With good reason. It was due to a comedy of errors that   
   no one got into it in depth. I'm sure even the Crown is   
   taken aback.   
      
   I'd love to be there to watch the Crown try to squirm out of   
   it since she doesn't know how it happened either, only I do.   
   Har har har. And I'm not telling. I was thinking of   
   explaining what probably happened but why make it easier on   
   the person who's going to have to decide what reduced plea   
   deal she can offer to put an end to her nightmare. So let it   
   be a nightmare.  Stay tuned.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)