From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Judge Laflamme summarily dismisses Paquette Quash   
      
   JCT: Luc Paquette was back in Provincial Court of Quebec   
   before Judge Laflamme for his Quash Motion. I had prepared   
   an affidavit for him to use   
      
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                    COUR DU QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU                (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: GATINEAU   
   NO: 550-01-095970-168         Between   
                                 Applicant   
                                 Luc Paquette   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
                            AFFIDAVIT   
      
   I, Luc Paquette, make oath as follow:   
      
   1. None of the statements in the Applicant's Motion pursuant   
   to S.601 to quash any charges relating to cannabis are known   
   to be untrue. There are no personal facts relating to the   
   Accused other than that I face cannabis-related charges.   
      
   2. The non-constitutional motion relies on S. 5(3), 32(a) of   
   the Interpretation Act, as well as previous court judgments.   
      
   3. S.5(3) says that a provision that is declared of no force   
   and effect is deemed to be repealed.   
      
   4. S.32(a) states that where an enactment is repealed in   
   whole or in part, the repeal does not (a) revive an   
   enactment or thing not in force or existing immediately   
   before the time when the repeal takes effect.   
      
   5. On July 31 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in R.   
   v. Parker that the prohibition on marijuana is invalid   
   absent a viable medical exemption for the sick.   
      
   6. On July 30 2001, the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations   
   "MMAR" were enacted to provide such exemption for the sick.   
      
   7. On Oct 7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in   
   Hitzig v. HMQ that the MMAR was not a viable medical   
   exemption. The Hitzig Court further ruled that its striking   
   down the flaws in the MMAR deemed to be repealed revived the   
   prohibition in the CDSA. The Court in R. v. J.P. quashed the   
   possession charge laid while the MMAR was deficient.   
      
   8. On Dec 3, 2003, 4,000 Possession charges were stayed   
   across Canada because of absence of valid exemption.   
      
   9. Parliament has not re-enacted the S.4 Possession   
   prohibition since it was invalidated in Parker.   
      
   10. Respondent will cite many courts that have disobeyed the   
   Interpretation Act which says that striking down something   
   in one act does not revive anything not in force in another   
   act and chose to obey the Hitzig decision that the Court had   
   revived the prohibitions in the CDSA by repealing the flaws   
   in the MMAR.   
      
   11. This Court has to decide whether to also disobey the   
   Interpretation Act in order to obey the Hitzig decision.   
      
   12. On Aug 24, 2016, once again in Allard v. HMQ, the   
   Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations "MMPR" were   
   declared entirely invalid.   
      
   13. Should the court choose to disobey Parliament's   
   Interpretation Act, the declaration of MMPR invalidity   
   should have the same effect on the Possession prohibition as   
   did the declaration of MMAR invalidity pursuant to the   
   Parker reasoning.   
      
   14. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion to quash   
   the Applicant's charges relating to cannabis, both   
   Possession and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, on   
   the grounds the prohibitions are no longer known to law   
   absent a viable exemption when the Accused was charged.   
   __________________________   
   Luc Paquette   
   Sworn before me at Gatineau on April 25 2018   
   A COMMISSIONER, ETC.   
      
   JCT: So, Judge Laflamme was told he would be disobeying the   
   Interpretation Act if he accepted that the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal had revived the prohibition. But he cited Superior   
   Court Justice David who has summarily dismissed the Quash   
   Motion for Nicola Fontana.   
      
   So if his Superior Court judge would dismiss it without   
   reading it, so could he.   
      
   As we thought, he was the Trial Judge! So the trial will now   
   take place on July 31 2018 in Gatineau.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)