From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Remedies!!   
      
   JCT: Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari are Extraordinary   
   remedies: The Criminal Code adds:   
       S.784(1) An appeal lies to the court of appeal from a   
       decision granting or refusing the relief sought in   
       proceedings by way of mandamus, certiorari or   
       prohibition.   
      
   I've sought them all at some point:   
   Mandamus mandates a government official or body to do its   
   duty;   
   Prohibition prohibits something wrong;   
   Certiorari removes the file from lower court for higher to   
   check on.   
      
   MANDAMUS   
      
   Many times I've sought orders of Mandamus to compel   
   government to do things they should be doing. Like compel   
   the Bank of Canada to open the interest-free loans window   
   because forcing us to deal legal loansharks is morting us.   
      
   PROHIBITION   
      
   We've used motions for Prohibition in the past on the same   
   POLCOA-BENO grounds as the Quash. Except it really slowed   
   things down because everything below stops on your way to he   
   Court of Appeal for an Extraordinary Remedy.   
      
   In the days before Jordan, I wanted my guys to take as long   
   as possible. James Turner, charged with growing 2,800   
   plants, took 9 years to get to trial. First he did the   
   motion to prohibit his charges. When it was rejected, he   
   appealed, a few years later, he lost and appealed to the   
   Supreme Court. Lost that one too and got sent below.   
      
   His motion to quash was dismissed and he was supposed to   
   have his trial in Feb 2016, 9 years after his 2006 bust   
   where he was going to argue the recent Mernagh strike down   
   of the prohibitions So they waited a few years for the Court   
   of Appeal before that fizzed out.   
      
   But then happened the Smith decision and he filed a new BENO   
   Quash because legislated "mis-use" from the start was even   
   worse than the "mis-supply" in Hitzig that got the   
   prohibitions invalidated the first time. The Crown sneakily   
   got Jim's "Smith" Quash motion adjourned and adjourned and   
   adjourned to the trial date. And then the Crown caved. A   
   month before trial, they withdrew the charges against his   
   2,800-plant grow.   
      
   So that explains how a preliminary trip to the top, the   
   Mernagh wait and the Crown ducking and ducking took 9 years.   
   The point is using extraordinary remedies is rare.   
      
   CERTIORARI   
      
   You saw a motion for Certiorari used last year in Rene   
   Ouellet's fight for a jury trial where everything was put on   
   hold while he went to the Court of Appeal who told him how   
   he had go back 2 levels below to annul his re-option if he   
   wanted to rise 1 level above. Then he went and did it and   
   now he's in Superior Court.   
      
   In Tim's case, I got the chance to file a motion requesting   
   all three extraordinary remedies, probably a first in   
   judicial history that the conditions are met!!!   
      
   My last report back on Tim back in October was titled:   
   TURMEL: Judge Millar refuses to hear Tim McConnell Quash   
      
   Motion!   
      
   1) Judge of first instance Millar refused to hear his Quash   
   motion and put it off to the Trial Judge!   
   2) Then would not annul his lawyer's election of trial by   
   provincial court judge alone without his being informed.   
   3) Slated his Preliminary Inquiry before the counts in the   
   indictment are validated.   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                 SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC   
      
      
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU                  (Criminal Chamber)   
   NO: 500-01-090487-168   
      
                                Between   
                                Tim McConnell   
                                Applicant   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
      
   APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI OR MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION   
      
   TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF   
   QUEBEC (CRIMINAL CHAMBER) SITTING IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF   
   GATINEAU, the Applicant states as follows:   
      
   PART I = FACTS   
      
   1. The Applicant was charged for producing marijuana. He   
      
   filed to amend his indictment under S.601 with a Motion to Quash   
      
   the counts as no longer known to law.   
      
   2. On Oct 27 2017, after spending the morning using the   
      
   power under S.601 to amending the indictments of other accuseds in   
   the "Nouage" prosecution, Judge Millar of first instance   
      
   ruled Applicant's S.601 Motion to amend the counts in the   
      
   indictment had to be made to the Trial Judge.   
      
   3. When Applicant asked about his election, he was informed   
   that his lawyer had earlier elected trial by Court of Quebec   
   judge alone. Having never been so apprised, Applicant moved   
      
   to annul the election. When the judge asked what he wanted his   
   election changed to, he asked to remain mute.   
      
   4. On Aug 8 2016, in Gatineau Quebec, when Nicola Fontana   
   refused to elect, Judge Desaulniers instructed the clerk to   
   enter Superior Court for trial by judge and jury.   
      
   5.On Aug 11 2016, in St-Jerome Quebec, when Adrian Stuerm   
   refused to elect, Judge Bonin instructed the clerk to enter   
   Superior Court for trial by judge and jury.   
      
   6. Judge Millar insisted the Accused had to make the   
      
   election. He refused and the motion to annul the election was   
   dismissed. Though remaining mute, Applicant does seek what   
   Judge Millar should have ordered: trial by Superior Court   
   judge and jury as had been ordered by Judges Desaulniers and   
   Bonin when the accused refused to elect.   
      
   7. A Preliminary Inquiry is slated for Jan 5 2018 before the   
   motion to amend the indictment is heard.   
      
   PART II - ISSUES   
      
   A) CERTIORARI   
      
   8. Should an Order of Certiorari be granted removing the   
   file from the Court of Quebec to Superior Court for trial by   
   judge and jury? or in the alternative,   
      
   B) MANDAMUS   
      
   9. Should an Order of Mandamus be granted that Judge Millar   
   is seized of and must rule on the S.601 Motion to Quash? or   
      
   if   
   not,   
      
   C) PROHIBITION   
      
   10. Should an Order of Prohibition be granted prohibiting   
   any Preliminary Inquiry on the indictment before the S.601   
   motion to amend the counts in the indictment is adjudicated?   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENTS   
      
   A) CERTIORARI   
      
   11. A. The learned judge erred in ruling that the Accused   
      
   had to make the election when the procedure to deal with an   
   accused who remains mute is detailed in the Code. Had Judge   
   Millar annuled the election before asking for Applicant's   
   choice, his standing mute would have required the court to   
   instruct the clerk to enter the required plea as other   
      
   judges had.   
      
   12. Asking to know his election in advance provided the   
      
   option of not having to instruct the clerk to enter it by rejecting   
   the annulment for a wrong reason and proceeding to   
      
   Preliminary Inquiry in Court of Quebec.   
      
   13. The only choice was not that he had to his election!   
      
   There was also the "mute" option of the Court instructing the   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)