From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Rene has a fascinating story of constant judicial screw-   
   ups. His motion filed yesterday:   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                    COUR DU QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT OF QUEBEC                  (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: QUEBEC   
   PC NO: 200-01-180625-141        Between   
                                   Rene Ouellet   
                                   Applicant   
                                   -and-   
                                   Attorney General for Quebec   
                                   Respondent   
      
               APPLICATION TO ANNUL ELECTION RE-OPTION   
      
   TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ROY OF THE COURT OF QUEBEC (CRIMINAL   
   CHAMBER) SITTING IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF QUEBEC, the   
   Applicant states:   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. The Accused was charged with production of marijuana   
   contrary to S.7(1) of the CDSA and Possession for the purpose   
   of trafficking contrary to S.(2) of the CDSA.   
      
   2. Accused filed a pre-plea Motion under S.601 to Amend the   
   indictment by quashing the S.7 count to be dealt with by the   
   judge of first instance. The Motion cites the actual Section   
   601 that allows any judge to amend the indictment and the   
   ruling by Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin in R. v. J.P.   
   confirming there was no constitutional question in a motion to   
   amend.   
      
   3. No judge of first instance would deal with the motion to   
   amend the indictment concluding it was a constitutional issue.   
      
   4. At the April 20 2016 Preliminary Inquiry, when the Accused   
   refused to elect, the judge ordered the clerk enter an   
   election of "trial by Superior Court judge an jury."   
      
   5. On May 9 2016, Superior Court Justice Pronovost of first   
   instance also held that the motion could only heard by the   
   Trial Judge before a jury and informed the Accused he   
   should re-opt his plea to Provincial Court to deal with his   
   S.601 Motion. This advice was in error given R. v. Fontana   
   [2017] where Quebec Superior Court Justice Buffoni heard the   
   trial after the Quebec Superior Court Justice David heard the   
   S.601 motion as judge of first instance.   
      
   6. Believing he had to return below, Accused re-opted, not for   
   adjudication of the trial but of the Quash Motion. On July 29   
   2016, Judge Alain Morand ascertained that there was no   
   constitutional issue and booked the S.601 Motion to Quash for   
   adjudication 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.   
      
   7. On Sep 2 2016, Judge Johanne Roy was booked to hear the   
   trial but first dealt with the motion to Quash before taking a   
   plea.   
      
   8. On Sep 16 201, Judge Roy dismissed the Quash motion and set   
   a date for plea and trial. But the Accused wanted to orient   
   his defence into the jurisdiction of the Superior Court   
   pursuant to the previous election for judge and jury entered   
   by Judge Boulet.   
      
   9. Accused then learned his re-option to return below   
   to adjudicate the Quash Motion was taken as his re-option to   
   return below for trial. The self-represented Accused had been   
   unaware when he was ceding his jury trial to have his Quash   
   motion adjudicated first. But only after Judge Pronovost erred   
   in refusing to deal with it as judge of first instance.   
      
   10. Accused filed a motion for Certiorari to remove the trial   
   from Court of Quebec to Superior Court for trial by judge and   
   jury.   
      
   11. On Jan 11 2017, Quebec Superior Court Justice Francoeur   
   dismissed the application for Certiorari ruling that the "non-   
   constitutional" S.601 motion to amend had to heard by the   
   Trial Judge and that the Accused had been given sufficient   
   explanations of the consequences of re-opting and now that   
   Judge Roy started the trial below, no one can stop it. A judge   
   does not gain jurisdiction over the accused for trial until   
   plea. When judge Roy dealt with the S.601 motion, she was any   
   judge of first instance, not yet the trial judge. Judge Roy   
   will become the trial judge when she takes the plea of the   
   Accused.   
      
   12. On Apr 7 2017, the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed an   
   appeal on the grounds the motion for certiorari had been   
   premature: a motion to annul the re-option should have first   
   been made below.   
      
   13. The Accused herein applies to annul his re-option and get   
   his case back on the right track.   
      
   IS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL S.601 MOTION HEARD BY JUDGE OF FIRST   
   INSTANCE OR TRIAL JUDGE?   
      
   14. The Notice of Motion also cites S.601(10) directly where   
   it says "(10) In this section, "court" means a court, judge,   
   justice or provincial court judge acting in summary conviction   
   proceedings or in proceedings on indictment.   
      
   15. S.601 motions to Quash were heard by the judge of first   
   instance in:   
   - R. v. John Turmel [1993] Ottawa Judge Nadelle   
   - R. Andrew Hillman [2014] Truro Judge Zimmer   
   - R. Travis Patterson [2015] Pictou Judge Atwood   
   - R. v. Wojciech Krzyz [2016] St. Johns Nfld Judge Linehan   
   - R. v. Wojciech Krzyz [2016] Jasper Alberta Judge Haggerty   
   - R. v. Neron [2016] Timmins Ontario Superior Justice Riopelle   
   - R. v. Chris Ens [2016] Halifax Nova Scotia Judge Tax   
   - R. v. David Butler [2016] Shelburne Nova Scotia Judge   
   Burrill   
   - R. v. Marie-Eve Turmel [2016] Gatineau Quebec Judge Beaulieu   
   - R. v. Nicola Fontana [2017] Gatineau Quebec Superior Justice   
   Marc David   
      
   16. And Judge Morand herein set the hearing of the motion to   
   quash pre-plea before the Accused would then orient his plea.   
      
   17. But there are other accused whose judges of first instance   
   also refused jurisdiction:   
   - R. v. Adrien Stuerm St-Jerome   
   - R. v. Max Gauthier Montreal   
   - R. v. Martin Gendron Montreal   
   - R. v. Eric Gravel Montreal   
   - R. v. Rene Ouellet Quebec   
      
   18. The reason the Accused is so adamant that a S.601 motion   
   to Quash is heard by the judge of first instance is because   
   the author of the motion, John Turmel, had such experience. In   
   1993, after the Ontario Provincial Police "Project Robin Hood"   
   raid on Casino Turmel in Ottawa, a S.601 motion to Quash was   
   heard by Judge Nadelle within a week with the trial heard by   
   Judge Wright in 1994.   
      
   19. Further in support of both Issues, that a S.601 motion is   
   not constitutional, in R. v. Marie-Eve Turmel [2016] Gatineau   
   Judge Desaulniers of first instance adjourned the motion to   
   Quash as a constitutional question for the Trial Judge. After   
   service of a Notice of No Constitutional Question on the   
   federal and provincial Attorneys-Genera, Crown Attorney Moreau   
   informed the court that their Montreal office did not consider   
   a S.601 motion to Quash as constitutional and would not be   
   attending. And so the motion was then adjudicated by the first   
   judge of next instance, Judge Beaulieu, again showing that a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)