From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Also on Friday April 7 2017, Rene Ouellet was in the   
   Quebec Court of Appeal arguing his Superior Court Judge erred:   
   a) in telling him he had no jurisdiction to hear the Quash   
   Motion until there was a jury; and he had to go below to get   
   it adjudicated right now;   
   b) not telling him that if he went below for the motion, he   
   had to stay there for his trial without jury.   
      
   Here is the Reply to the Crown's Response he filed:   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC            QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF QUEBEC              (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: QUEBEC   
   C.Q. : 200-01-180625-141 Between   
   C.S. : 200-36-002452-167 Rene Ouellet   
   C.A. : 200-10-003325-177 Appellant-Accused   
                            -and   
                            Attorney General for Quebec   
                            Respondent-Prosecutor   
         (On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court,   
     District of Quebec, rendered on the 11th of January, 2017,   
             by the honourable Serge Francoeur, j.s.c.)   
      
                         APPELLANT'S REPLY   
      
   1. CR: [6] On May 9, 2016, before the honourable Raymond   
   Pronovost, j.c.s., the appellant re-elected to be tried before   
   the Quebec Provincial court. A trial date was set the same   
   day.   
      
   2. The Accused did not re-elect to be tried, that was never   
   discussed, the accused re-elected to have the Quash Motion   
   tried.   
      
   3. CR: [7] The appellant's trial opened on September 2nd,   
   2016, before the honourable Johanne Roy, j.c.q. The appellant   
   filed a motion entitled "Application for Allard-Smith Beno   
   Quash motion to quash".   
      
   4. The Appellant could not have filed a Quash motion after the   
   trial opened without leave of the judge. A S.601 motion to   
   amend a count in an indictment must be made "before the   
   Accused has pleaded" and "with leave of the court" after plea.   
   Besides, the Quash motion was filed a year before with   
   subsequent courts improperly refusing to adjudicate what any   
   judge could do: amend a typo or quash a count in an   
   indictment.   
      
   5. CR: ISSUE 1 : Does the alleged violation in the re-election   
   process amount to a jurisdictional error or an error of law on   
   the face of the record?2   
   The alleged violation in the re-election process, if   
   established, would not amount to a jurisdictional error or an   
   error of law on the face of the record. It could provide   
   grounds for an appeal, in case of a conviction.   
      
   6. At no point does the Respondent define the "alleged   
   violation in the re-election process." The alleged violation"   
   is that the Court:   
   a) misinformed the self-represented Applicant that only a   
   Judge with Jury could hear the PRE-PLEA motion to amend the   
   indictment pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code to quash the   
   S.7(1) count and only by re-electing to go below could the   
   pre-plea motion be heard before trial so as to orient his   
   plea;   
   b) failed to inform the self-represented Applicant that reelecting   
   to go below to have the Quash motion heard meant he   
   could not return for his desired trial by Judge and Jury if   
   the Quash was rejected.   
      
   7. CR: ISSUE 2 : Was the re-election done in a valid manner?   
   The transcripts of May 9, 2016, attest to the validity of the   
   re-election process. The Superior court judge was diligent in   
   allowing the appellant to elect in an informed manner.   
      
   8. 1) Misinforming Accused a procedural motion could not be   
   heard without a jury and Accused had to go below to have it   
   heard when he, as judge of first instance, should have amended   
   the indictment right then and there, and 2) not informing the   
   Accused he could not come back above for jury trial if he went   
   below for his motion trial meant his re-election was not done   
   in an informed manner.   
      
   9. CR: The request for a certiorari order, under the   
   circumstances, is nothing but an attempt to elect for a third   
   time, following the rejection of his legal arguments by a   
   provincial court judge.   
      
   10. The Accused had finally received adjudication of his   
   motion to quash the charge at the court where he'd been told   
   it should be moved and does not seek to re-elect but seeks to   
   return to where he originally elected to be tried. He never   
   returned below to be tried, only to have the motion heard.3   
      
   11. CR: [12] It is a long-established principle that a   
   certiorari order should be granted only in the case  of a   
   jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the   
   record.   
      
   12. The Court improperly refused jurisdiction over a   
   procedural motion judges in other jurisdictions have ruled   
   upon without a jury. In R. v. Fontana [2017] Justice Marc   
   David dismissed the Quash motion while Justice Buffoni heard   
   the trial.   
      
   13. CR: The appeal process will provide for the possibility to   
   challenge other aspects of a case, if needed.2   
      
   14. This is not a challenge on minor procedure but on the very   
   process itself. Respondent suggests going through the trial   
   below first and then get the appeal court to find out it was   
   in the wrong court! Accused would rather find out if it's in   
   the right court before wasting all the time. Finding out later   
   whether a faulty process has been pursued rather than now that   
   a faulty process is being pursued would seem an incompetent   
   waste of resources. Same reason a S.601 motion is heard by any   
   judge so amending the indictment can be done before there's a   
   jury in the room.   
      
   15. CR: This judicial restraint serves in avoiding to fragment   
   criminal trials with interlocutory debates.   
      
   16. A trial that isn't even supposed to be started can hardly   
   be fragmented. Only the pre-plea Quash Motion has been   
   settled. It's only because the trial was improperly started   
   that Respondent can now say it should not be fragmented.   
      
   17. The Crown then lays out the many reasons courts have found   
   that properly-constituted proceedings should not be fragmented   
   by appeals of "interlocutory" motions. Here, the jurisdiction   
   of the Court is being challenged with an "ExtraOrdinary"   
   remedy! It's no "interlocutory" motion within the trial below,   
   it's an extraordinary motion to end the trial below.   
   Fragmenting an improperly-constituted trial is not the same as   
   fragmenting a properly-constituted one.4   
      
   18. CR: According to a well-established principle, the   
   only appeals permitted in criminal matters are   
   foreseen by the law and there should not be   
   interlocutory appeals in criminal matters. This   
   principle is reinforced by the Criminal Code S.602   
   (now S.674) that prohibits appeal procedures that are   
   not authorized in the Criminal Code.   
      
   19. Mandamus to force an officer with the duty to do something   
   to do it, prohibition to stop someone with the duty to stop   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)