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 10,162 of 10,932    |
|    John KingofthePaupers Turmel to All    |
|    TURMEL: Rene Ouellet Quebec Court hearin    |
|    03 Aug 16 14:03:41    |
      From: johnturmel@yahoo.com              JCT: Rene had an interesting ride through the courts.       After two courts refused to hear his Quash for lack of a       Notice of Constitutional Question and therefore only to the       Trial Judge hears it. If it's constitutional.              Next court agreed the Quash Motion had to go to the Trial       Judge because he saw it as constitutional too, and sent it for       a preliminary hearing. The new Quash Motion was then put off       to the Trial Judge (if) and heard the prelim.              Cops testified, no questions, enough evidence so for judge       entered "Not Guilty" and sent it for trial to Superior Court.              In Superior Court, when he tried to do the Quash, the judge       said a S.601 was heard below and constitutional was for the       trial judge. So he sent the Quash back below.              So it lands in Judge Alain Morand's courtroom for disposition.       But his day was booked by a jailed holdover from the day       before and it would have to be put off.              He said he'd read the motion, had even gone online to do more       research. He even mentioned that with the new rules since Jan       2016, they could even go online right then to get stuff.       Internet info is allowable.              He explained how he'd read the motion, that Rene wanted with       Parker-Smith the same as J.P. had gotten with Parker-Hitzig       and Ray and he were taken aback at the grasp of the       situation.              The judge also agreed Rene could not be forced to plead       without knowing the results of the Quash motion first and from       the next available judge, not the trial judge!              The Crown never tried to say another judge had ruled it needed       a notice of Constitutional Question. Crown knew it wouldn't       win, the judge had already made it clear.              And so he set the hearing for the next judge on Sep 2 2016. As       well, he had the clerk make a copy of the motion for him and       when the new judge was assigned, he'd deliver it personally so       Rene wouldn't have to try explaining it to a new guy.              Crown handed in 10 cases to argue it's been lost before.              So the Crown gave in on hearing the S.601. He'd stalled it for       6 months and we're back to where we were should have bene in       February.              So Rene ordered the transcript and CD so we can all use it any       time a judge says we need a Constitutional Notice.              Remember, it didn't matter how many cardinals had previously       ruled that the Sun went around the Earth, it only took first       to rule it didn't to prove Galileo right.              Same thing here. It doesn't matter how many fail to see, we're       looking for the first who does see.              --- 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