From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Luc Paquette files for MedPot Mandamus & Prohibition   
      
   JCT: Luc Paquette was one of the growers charged in the   
   Nouage bust in Gatineau. Charged with producing for a   
   criminal organization because two dozen all sold to the same   
   guy, he filed a motion to quash.   
      
   Judge Millar, who had already dealt with several quash   
   motions, blew this one too. So Luc has sought remedy from   
   Quebec Superior Court:   
      
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU   
   LOCALITE GATINEAU                  SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC   
   NO: 550-01-95970-168                  (Criminal Chamber)   
      
                                Between   
                                Luc Paquette   
                                Applicant   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                Respondent   
      
      
   APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION   
      
   TO AN HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC   
   (CRIMINAL CHAMBER) SITTING FOR THE DISTRICT OF GATINEAU, the   
   Applicant states as follows:   
      
   PART I = FACTS   
      
   1. The Applicant was charged for producing marijuana and   
   filed a Motion under S.601 to amend his indictment by   
   quashing the counts as no longer known to law.   
      
   2. On Jan 26 2018, 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 and sent the   
   Accused to trial on March 16 2018 without Preliminary   
   Inquiry.   
      
      
   PART II - ISSUES   
      
   A) MANDAMUS   
      
   3. 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,   
      
   B) PROHIBITION   
      
   4. Should an Order of Prohibition be granted prohibiting   
   a) any trial without Preliminary Inquiry and   
   b) any Preliminary Inquiry without the S.601 motion being   
   first adjudicated?   
      
      
   PART III - ARGUMENTS   
      
   A) MANDAMUS   
      
   5. S.601 clearly states that any judge may amend an   
   indictment. If the indictment could not be amended before   
   the trial, a typo on the address could not be changed until   
   the trial with all the Preliminary Inquiry evidence wrong.   
      
   6. The Notice of Motion clearly states:   
      
   <>   
      
   6. Judge Millar set a date for the hearing of the S.601   
   motion without remitting Ms. Turmel's motion to the trial   
   judge.   
      
   B) PROHIBITION   
      
   7. Should the Court not Order Judge Millar seized of the   
   S.601 Motion, any Trial without Preliminary Inquiry and any   
   Preliminary Inquiry without the indictment being first   
   validated should be prohibited.   
      
   8. Consider a Preliminary Inquiry hearing with evidence   
   referring to 100 Main Street when the accused lives at 102?   
   A smart Accused would shut up, get to trial, enter plea to   
   be put in jeopardy so autrefois acquit may apply, and point   
   out he doesn't live at the scene of the crime.   
      
   9. But even if the Crown discovers the error, if it cannot   
   be changed until the trial, all the Preliminary Inquiry   
   evidence would point to the wrong address. Section 601 to   
   amend the typos in an indictments can be heard by any judge   
   of first instance as can motions to quash any counts in the   
   indictment, a question of pure law.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)