From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Luc Paquette appeals equipment seizure after grow charge withdrawn   
      
   JCT: Luc Paquette was charged with production and possession   
   for the purpose of traffiking of marijuana and when he chose   
   judge and jury, they droppped the production charge so he   
   had to go below on possession.   
      
   Since the grow equipment was not evidence of possession, he   
   should have gotten it back but Judge Laflamme ruled that it   
   should be seized.   
      
   But it is only the first chance at getting his stuff back.   
   There is also the appeal of the refusal to Quash the charge   
   as no longer known to law and refusal to stay the charge as   
   unconstitutional which get him back his stuff too. So a   
   triple shot!   
      
   CANADA   
   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 the decisions   
   of Cour du Quebec Judge Laflamme dated a) April 25 2018, b)   
   July 30 2018, c) Oct 19 2918.   
      
   APPELLANT ALSO SEEKS ANY ORDER abridging time for service or   
   filing of the appeal, amending any error or omission, so   
   that justice may be done.   
      
   PARTICULARS OF JUDGMENTS:   
      
   1. Trial was based on Admissions of the Accused.   
      
   2. Place of judgment: Gatineau.   
      
   3. Name of Judge: Cour du Quebec Judge Laflamme.   
      
   4. Charge: S.5(2) the CDSA. S.7(1) withdrawn.   
      
   5. Plea at trial: Mute. Not guilty entered.   
      
   6. Upon Admissions of the facts, the Appellant was   
   pronounced guilty and the production equipment was order   
   confiscated.   
      
   7. Appellant appeals against the decisions on:   
   a) April 25 2018 summarily dismissing the Accused's pre-plea   
   motion pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code to Quash the   
   indictment as no longer known to law;   
   b) July 30 2018 summarily dismissing the Accused's post-plea   
   Charter challenge to the CDSA S.5(2) prohibition pursuant to   
   his S.7 Charter Right to Liberty;   
   c) Oct 19 2918 confiscating the plant-producing equipment   
   for a Possession conviction after the S.7(1) Production   
   charge had been withdrawn.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL are that:   
      
   a) a S.601 motion to Quash a count in an indictment is a   
   question of law and though the arguments were not pertinent   
   to the facts in play in the present case, the arguments were   
   pertinent to the laws in the present case. If they were   
   pertinent when R. v. J.P. heard the identical successful   
   motion to Quash, they remain pertinent the same way now.   
      
   b) The Applicant's medical condition may have precluded a   
   claim on the Right to Life, it did not preclude a claim on   
   the Right to Liberty. After J.P.'s charge was quashed in   
   2003, the Crown dropped charges across Canada against 4,000   
   Canadians whose medical condition had no bearing. Parker   
   ruled Prohibition Invalid Absent Exemption! Hitzig ruled   
   Exemption Absent. J.P. ruled "Prohibition Invalid Absent   
   Exemption" and J.P. was a youth who was not even sick. The   
   accused did not have to be sick in order to profit from the   
   prohibition being invalid while the exemption was absent,   
   they only had to be in penal jeopardy, as is the accused   
   today. To say medical condition matters for the Accused when   
   it did not matter for J.P. would seem inequitable treatment   
   under the law.   
   In R v. Mernagh, his Charter motion was granted for the lack   
   of participation by doctors in the regime but found lacking   
   one fact of evidence and overturned for not providing the   
   non-medical reasons the doctors refused. Applicant herein   
   did ascertain the non-medical reasons the doctors used to   
   not participate and the Charter Motion should not have been   
   summarily disallowed.   
      
   c) The electrical equipment was evidence of production, not   
   possession. When the production count was withdrawn, the   
   evidence of production should be returned unlike requiring a   
   S.24 Order for Return of the Controlled Substance.   
      
   FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT   
      
   Should such motion be granted, accused seeks an Order:   
      
   A) overturning the conviction;   
      
   B) striking the word "marijuana" from CDSA Schedule II;   
      
   C) expunging convictions registered since Aug 1 2001;   
      
   D) returning the seized Controlled Substance to Appellant   
   pursuant to S.24 of the CDSA, and, in the alternative, if the   
   conviction for Possession is sustained,   
      
   E) returning all evidence not related to the Possession   
   offence of which Appellant was convicted.   
      
   FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT   
   GRANT the present appeal.   
   Dated at Gatineau on Oct Nov 7 2018.   
   __________________________   
   Luc Paquette   
   TO: Ministry of Justice   
   TO: The Registrar of the Court   
      
   JCT: So we have an appeal with the two big issues,   
   Interpretation Act says no revival, and Mernagh Plus Why   
   says letting doctors opt out is unconstitutional.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)