Always stand mute; never plead "not guilty" JCT: I don't think I've explained this enough but I have been using this technique for decades and I don't know anyone else who takes full advantage of the court rules. Section 606(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada reads: "Where an accused refuses to plead or does not answer directly, the court shall order the clerk of the court to enter a plea of not guilty." I and my guerrilla law students never plead guilty. We always stand mute and let the judge enter the pleas for us. The last time it was used, I wrote in http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/403 >But just to throw an even bigger monkey-wrench into the works, does everyone remember how we always stood "mute" at plea time? We always responded "I stand mute pursuant to Section 606.2 of the Criminal Code."... >Enclosed is the decision of R. and Wilson [1986] 26 C.C.C.(3d) Man Queen's Bench where the Defendant stood mute at plea and was later granted certain rights that those who have pleaded no longer have. I am informed that pre-plea motions to quash were permitted though not granted in R. v. John Turmel (1994) by Judge Peter Wright up until the verdict.... >Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Morse, J. January 29 1986 >Page 9: Trial - Pre-trial motions - Criminal code providing that motion to quash indictment may be taken "before the accused has pleaded" and thereafter only by leave of the court - Accused subsequently arguing that information insufficient - As accused did not plead, entitled to take objection to counts in indictment when he did - CCC S.601 >Page 10: On April 6 1981, the accused appeared in provincial court and chose to remain mute in answer to the counts in the information. A plea of "not guilty" to each count was entered at the direction of the court.... >Page 15: Counsel for the Crown relied on S. 601(1) of the Code which provides: 601(1) An objection to an indictment or to a count in an indictment for a defect apparent on the face thereof shall be taken by motion to quash the indictment or count before the accused has pleaded, and thereafter, only by leave of the court or judge before whom the trial takes place, and a court or judge before whom an objection is taken under this section may, if it is considered necessary, order the indictment or count to be amended to cure that defect.. >Crown counsel submitted that, a plea having been entered, the accused had no absolute right to object to the counts in the information and that the provincial court judge erred in failing to consider whether leave to object should be granted. >The difficulty with this submission is that the accused never actually pleaded to the counts in the information. He stood mute, and a plea of "not guilty" was entered. Section 601(1) of the Code uses the words "before the accused has pleaded," and s.534(2) uses the words "where an accused refuses to plead... the court shall order the clerk of the court to enter a plea of not guilty". While I think the intention of Parliament may well have been merely to require an objection to a count in an indictment to be made before the trial commences, nevertheless, the liberty of the subject being involved, I think I should interpret the words strictly. Accordingly, as the accused did not plead, I think he was legally entitled to take objection to the counts in the information as and when he did." JCT: So the Wilson precedent establishes that you never lose any rights you had pre-pleading not guilty if you let the judge enter your plea for you. Otherwise everything is the same. You lose nothing, you sometimes gain something. I reprinted all that because an accused changes status once he voluntarily enters a plea. It's as if he accepts the jurisdiction of the court and can't challenge it again without leave of the judge. When you stand mute, you don't necessarily accept the jurisdiction of the court and can challenge it again without leave of the judge. In my 1994 trial of the "Project Robin Hood" raid on Casino Turmel in Ottawa, I have moved pre-plea to quash the charges and the judge ruled he didn't have enough info to be able to do it. And we continued the trial. I stood mute. Once new information had come out filling the gap that the Crown had not up until them admitted, I immediately move to quash the plea due to the new info. The judge had to let me make the motion and had to then dismiss it officially. Then, after more information had come out proving the point, I once again made a pre-plea motion to quash the charges and the judge had to permit it and dismiss it. After all, Judge Wright was going to change the meaning of the word "gain" to include things that had never been illegal before. This judge creating new law was an even more blatant enacting of legislation than the Court of Appeal in Hitzig resurrecting and old dead law. Judge Wright made up a brand new law. It was so unheard of, that is a judge creating a new law, that it is now right in the Martin's Criminal Code. Search for R. v. Turmel and the meaning of "gain" and you'll read the annotation where the judge expanded the meaning of the word "gain" to convict an "exceptionally skilled professional gambler." Before the new court-enacted legislation, the winnings of an exceptionally skilled professional gambler were legal and taxable. After the Judge Wright law, the winnings of formerly legal winnings became illegal gainings and subject to penal sanction. Now, we may all think this is terrible but 3 judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal let him get away with it and dismissed my appeal and 3 judges of the Supreme Court of Canada too. And now this travesty of justice had to be recorded right in the law book: Judge Wright changed something from legal to illegal to stop Turmel from owning the casino industry in Canada. Judge Wright cost me billions that I would have spent on UNILETS. You can bet all the Fast Freddy's http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/fastfred.jpg who died who would have been saved had UNILETS been instituted in 1993 will have something to say when he tries to get through the Pearly Gates. The judge never knew slowing down the UNILETS engineer would cost millions of lives but his grandchildren will be able to explain the math of his K-slab to him, no doubt. There is no reason to ever give up your options by pleading "not guilty" and accepting the jurisdiction of the court when you can make them enter your "not guilty" for you and not necessarily give up those pre-plea options. It's really amazing how many times the rules cite "having pleaded" as one of the conditions to do something or not. Always stand mute; never plead "not guilty"  plea of "not guilty" was entered. Section 601(1) of the Code uses the words "before the accused has pleaded," and s.534(2) uses the words "where an accused refuses to plead... the court shall order the clerk of