Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    can.legal    |    Debating Canuck legal system quirks    |    10,932 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 10,479 of 10,932    |
|    John KingofthePaupers Turmel to All    |
|    TURMEL: Crown won't return Luc Paquette     |
|    17 Oct 18 08:27:09    |
      From: johnturmel@gmail.com              TURMEL: Crown won't return Luc Paquette eqpt after grow charge withdrawal              JCT: Luc Paquette was charged for Production and Possession       for the Purpose of Trafficking in the big Project Nouage       raid on over 2 dozen growers who were all selling to one       guy, making it a criminal organization, dropped lawyer       Michel Swanston who pleaded the others all guilty and filed       my self-defence kits and ended up with a discharge and no       criminal record.              When he elected a jury trial for his Production charge, the       Crown withdrew it so they could keep the trial for       Possession in lower court.              30 days after the close of his trial, he went to the police       to get his equipment back. When the Crown realised they had       not obtained a seizure order from the judge, they booked a       hearing this Friday Oct 19 to keep all the seized equipment.              I think he's going to win. The equipment was evidence for       the Production, not Possession charge. Once they withdrew       the Production charge, the equipment had nothing to do with       the Possession charge.              Let's say that he had nothing growing when he was busted so       they charged him with Possession but still seized his       equipment and his TV. Should they be allowed to keep stuff       that had nothing to with his charge?              He's going to argue that once they withdrew the Production       charge, the evidence was no longer relevant and there can be       no order to seize material unrelated to the charge. Har har       har har har har. Seems too funny.              Knowing that Luc has already appealed an earlier procedure,       do you think Judge Laflamme is going to give him a new       reason to appeal now? Bet not. Can't see him keeping the TV       that had nothing to do with the charge nor the equipment.              Seems like Luc's Crown has made a very bad bet. Can't wait       to hear their reasons for wanting to keep his TV.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca