From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: MedPot Rene Ouellet files more points on Certiorari Stay   
      
   JCT: Yesterday, I posted the transcripts from the hearings of   
   the Keystone Kourts leading up to the motion for Certiorari to   
   remove the case from Provincial Court Judge Roy and have it   
   tried in Superior Court. This is the Supplementary   
   Representations he filed with the transcripts.   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC         SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT OF QUEBEC            (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: QUEBEC   
   NO: 200-01-180625-141        Between   
                                Applicant   
                                Rene Ouellet   
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
      SUPPLEMENTARY REPRESENTATIONS ON STAY PENDING CERTIORARI   
      
   AMENDED OVERVIEW   
      
   1. The Accused was charged with production of marijuana   
   contrary to S.7(1) of the CDSA.   
      
   2. Accused filed a pre-plea Motion to Amend the indictment by   
   quashing the S.7 count under S.601 to be dealt with by the   
   judge of first instance analogous to the pre-plea non-   
   constitutional motion to quash filed in R. v. J.P. relying on   
   the Constitutional decision in R. v. Parker that there was no   
   S.4 possession prohibition absent a medical exemption. Krieger   
   ruled there was no S.7 production prohibition absent an   
   exemption. And Hitzig v. HMQ ruled that the medical exemption   
   was absent from malfunction.   
      
   3. Now that the Supreme Court in Smith has ruled in 2015 that   
   the exemption had seriously malfunctioned, the Parker decision   
   ruled there was no prohibition absent the exemption again   
   dating back to 2001. If Constitutional Parker-Hitzig won a non-   
   constitutional Quash of possession charge for J.P. and 4,000   
   others across Canada, Constitutional Krieger-Smith should win a   
   non-constitutional Quash of production charge for the Accused.   
      
   4. On Feb 19 2016 Judge Johanne Roy ruled that the S.601 motion   
   was constitutional and  had to be heard by the Trial Judge   
   though no statute is being challenged under the Charter and   
   sent the Accused to Preliminary Inquiry. Notices of No   
   Constitutional Question were served on all attorneys general.   
      
   5. On April 20 2016 at the Preliminary Inquiry, Judge Christian   
   Boulet also refused to adjudicate the Quash motion and ruled   
   sufficient evidence for trial. When the Accused refused to   
   elect until the amendment of the indictment had been ruled   
   upon, the judge ordered the clerk enter an election of "trial   
   by Superior Court judge an jury."   
      
   6. On May 9 2016, Superior Court Justice Pronovost of first   
   instance also held that the motion had to be heard by the Trial   
   Judge before a jury and misinformed the Accused he should re-   
   opt his plea to Provincial Court to deal with his Motion.   
   Accused agreed to return below not for adjudication of the   
   trial but of the Quash Motion.   
      
   7. On July 29 2016, Judge Alain Morand ascertained that there   
   was no constitutional issue and that the the S.601 Motion to   
   Quash should be adjudicated before the Accused "orients his   
   plea." Due to time constraints, the motion to Quash was   
   adjourned for the first possible hearing to Sep 2 2016.   
      
   8. On Sep 2 2016, Judge Johanne Roy was under the impression   
   that she was hearing the trial and was unaware of the pre-plea   
   motion to Quash. Without plea or election, she started the   
   trial in order to hear the "post-plea" motion to Quash without   
   taking a plea.   
      
   9. On Sep 16 201, Judge Roy dismissed the Quash motion and set   
   a date to proceed with the trial. But the Accused should then   
   get to orient his defence and now wanted to be returned to the   
   jurisdiction of the Superior Court for plea pursuant to the   
   previous election for judge and jury entered by Judge Boulet.   
      
   10. Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to try the Accused   
   without plea when the election was entered as "Judge and Jury."   
      
   11. Though a motion to Amend by Quash is rare, the Accused   
   right to a jury trial has been denied due to all but one of the   
   courts believing a S.601 Amend motion had to be heard by the   
   Trial Judge. The Accused bears no responsibility for the mis-   
   administration of justice deriving from such mis-understanding   
   of the non-constitutional nature of a S.601 Motion to Amend (by   
   quashing a count in the indictment).   
      
   12. The Accused always intended to elect trial by judge and   
   jury and being misinformed that going below was the only avenue   
   to have the Quash heard should not impede the original election   
   of the Accused.   
      
   FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT   
      
   GRANT the present Application for Stay of Process while the   
   motion for Certiorari ordering the removal of the Accused's   
   file from the Provincial Court to the Superior Court for plea   
   and trial by judge and jury is adjudicated.   
                                 Quebec ____________________   
                                 Court place, Date   
      
                                 ________________________________   
                                 Applicant Signature   
                                 Rene Ouellet   
   TO: Ministry of Justice   
   TO: The Registrar of the Court   
      
   JCT: Rene is back on Jan 11 for hearing of his motion to get   
   his case back on proper track. Remember, Certiorari is   
   something extremely rare, I've only ever had occasion to try it   
   once before. So it should be shaking up the judges' lunch room   
   as we try to pull Judge Roy's jurisdiction for the comedy of   
   errors she started! Har har har. She was the first one who   
   ruled it had to be heard by the Trial Judge. Error ab initio!   
   From the start. She did it and now she's caught on the prong of   
   her own original sin.   
      
   Of course, Crown Belanger urged her to make the mistake because   
   he'd read the motion explaining it wasn't constitutional but   
   she had not. Har har har. So he didn't tell her about the J.P.   
   precedent by Justice Rogin and let her err. To win.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)