CANADA COURT OF QUEBEC

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC (CRIMINAL & PENAL DIVISION)

District: MONTREAL
Locality: MONTREAL
File #: 500-01-186621-196 ASTUDILLO, Alan
File #: 500-01-192191-192 September 25th, 1987
File #: 500-01-194401-193 2560 Henri-Bourassa Est, Apt. 3, Montréal,
File #: 500-01-195191-199 H2B 1V5
File #: 500-01-195388-191
(Applicant)

vs.
THE QUEEN, Her Majesty
Westminster, London
SW1A 1AA, United Kingdom
(Respondent)

APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA

(s.698, 699(6), 700(1) of C-46 CCC)
(s.7, 8, 10(c), 11(d), 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms)
______________________________________________________________________
A: SUBPOENAS
1. SERVICE DE POLICE DE LA VILLE DE MONTREAL

a. The Video Record from the Security Cameras located at the end of the
long hallway in the Detention Block area of the SPVM Centre Operationel
Nord from the morning of September 15th 2019 are relevant to the case.

b. They are video evidence that excessive force was used on the accused in
custody, without the accused having been violent with the detaining
officers in custody.

c. The Defense requires it to make a Full & Complete Defense and to motion
the court for Exceptional Remedies under section 24 (1) of the Charter.

d. Refusing to produce it would result in the inability of the court to question

why in the world would an officer push an accused in his back, when the
accused has his back turned to him & has not been violent with the
officers in custody.

e. The Accused faces 0 charges for assaulting a police officer in custody, 0

charges of resisting arrest, and 0 charges of obstructing a police officer.

f. The SPVM is also in current possession of Privileged Solicitor-Client

communications & documentation in digital format, relating directly to
Defense Strategy, between the Applicant and his attorneys, in all 5 of the
pending cases, rendering this trial unfair, partial, biased, tainted,
unconstitutional, illegal, and way outside your courts legal jurisdictions.
 Allowing trial to proceed would serve to aggravate the Charter Violations.

2. COURT OF QUEBEC, YOUTH DIVISION (410 BELLECHASSE)

a. The Court Order, given by one JCQ Robert Hamel, (JH5520) on February
17th 2020, where he illegally withdrew all parental attributes from the
Applicant/Accused.

b. Section 599 of the Civil Code says “The father and mother have the rights
and duties of custody, supervision and education of their children. They
shall maintain their children.”

c. Article 91 (n) of the Civil “Youth Protection Act” allows for selective
parental attribute manipulation such as: The Father is a Doctor, and the
Mother is a Teacher, they have split custody but the Father will have
Medical Authority & the Mother can Exercise her specialty with Education
Authority.

d. What Robert Hamel & Lucille Beauchemin did before him, was an illegal
Section 606 of the Civil Code of Quebec: “606. The court may, for a grave
reason and in the interest of the child, on the application of any interested
person, declare the father, the mother or either of them, or a third person
on whom parental authority may have been conferred, to be deprived of
such authority. Where such a measure is not required by the situation but
action is nevertheless necessary, the court may declare, instead, the
withdrawal of an attribute of parental authority or of its exercise. A direct
application for withdrawal may also be made to the court.”

e. According to LINE SAMOISETTE, J.C.S., in case Protection de la

jeunesse — 15156, 2015 QCCS 2952, The Civil “Court of Quebec – Youth
Division” does not have Jurisdiction to order Parental Authority
Deprivation, only Superior Court does and withdrawing the exercise of all
Parental Attributes + withdrawing contacts & supervision = Equivalence of
Parental Authority Deprivation.

f. The Applicant/Father has never abandoned the children by moving to

another country & he has never been so much as accused or convicted of
criminal acts against his children. Neither violent nor negligent. Never!

3. MONSIEUR DR. PAUL-ANDRÉ LAFLEUR

a. Met the Applicant on two occasions with a few months’ time for a
consultation, in the 2nd half of 2019.

b. Did not give any Axis I psychiatric mental illness diagnostic.

c. Retained a Personality Trait, Axe II, Type B, Antisocial Personality

diagnostic, which was, medically & legally unfounded considering my
allegations that the Court of Quebec acted illegaly & outside their
jurisdiction can be proven & supported by the Court Ruling of Line
Samoisette in case Protection de la jeunesse — 15156, 2015 QCCS
2952.

d. Told me there was no diagnostic, hence no need for continued treatment

or consultations. Ended the psychiatric following & wished me good luck
with my insomnia.

e. A good conversation with my Amanda in California is a 1000x more

effective to help fight my insomnia than the drugs Mr. Lafleur prescribed
as sleeping aids.
 f. The Applicant would like the court to analyze, hence see, his reports & be
able to interrogate him concerning his diagnostic of the Applicant.

g. To question the expert witness, as to whether he professionally believes a

fake Axis II Diagnostic which was unfounded justifies an illegal deprivation
of parental authority in a Cour du Quebec, Chambre de la Jeunesse, who
doesn’t even have authority to deprive someone of parental authority
under 606 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

4. MADAME DRE. INES SENOUCI

a. Met the Applicant on one occasion for a consultation, in January of 2019,

at the Applicant’s extorted & non-consentual request, due to years of
Batshaw Youth & Family Centres inc. criminal insistence without a medical
reason warranting it.

b. Did not give any Axis I psychiatric mental illness diagnostic.

c. Retained a Personality Trait, Axe II, Type B, Antisocial Personality

diagnostic, & narcistic which was, medically & legally unfounded
considering my allegations that the Court of Quebec acted illegally &
outside their jurisdiction can be proven & supported by the Court Ruling of
Line Samoisette in case Protection de la jeunesse — 15156, 2015 QCCS
2952, and the court rulings from Robert Hamel & Lucille Beauchemin
contradict in violation of provincial law.

d. Told me there was no diagnostic, hence no need for continued treatment

or consultations. Wanted to end the psychiatric following, but ended up
giving me a reference to allow me to go back to confront Dr. Robin
Turcotte, who has divulged some legally privileged doctor-patient
information, illegally, to one Harvey Lieberman, ex-employee at Batshaw
Youth & Family Centres.

e. The Applicant would like the court to analyze, hence see, her report & be
able to interrogate her concerning her diagnostic of the Applicant.

f. To question the expert witness, as to whether she professionally believes

a fake Axis II Diagnostic which was unfounded justifies an illegal
deprivation of parental authority in a Cour du Quebec, Chambre de la
Jeunesse, who doesn’t even have authority to deprive someone of
parental authority under 606 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

5. MONSIEUR DR. ROBIN TURCOTTE

a. Met the Applicant on a few occasions for a consultation, in 2015, due to a

TAQ following a verdict of not Criminally Responsible for apparently
harassing the woman who had thrown a Kettle at me & my 1-year old son,
my ex, during our breaking up part of our years-long relationship. I used to
live with this woman. We were used to spending our nights up together
talking. Required adaptation for both of us, but I never hurt her during the
breakup. I may have been insulting & crude with her at times when bringing
up what she did to me & my son. I still don’t think it was smart to throw a
kettle at her own family today in 2020, 10 years later. But I doubt she would
do it again. I think she’s learned that you don’t do that.

b. Did not give any Axis I psychiatric mental illness diagnostic.

c. Retained a Personality Trait, Axe II, Type B, Antisocial Personality

diagnostic, & narcistic which was, medically & legally unfounded
considering my allegations that the Court of Quebec acted illegally &
outside their jurisdiction can be proven & supported by the Court Ruling of
 Line Samoisette in case Protection de la jeunesse — 15156, 2015 QCCS
2952, and the court rulings from Robert Hamel & Lucille Beauchemin
contradict in violation of provincial law.

d. Told me there was no diagnostic, hence no need for continued treatment or

consultations. Recommended that the TAQ unconditionally discharge me
from my Psychiatric Following, saying I should never be sent back to
psychiatry, which Batshaw ended up completely ignoring anyways.

e. The Applicant would like the court to analyze, hence see, his report & be
able to interrogate him concerning his diagnostic of the Applicant.

f. To question the expert witness, as to whether he professionally believes a

fake Axis II Diagnostic which was unfounded justifies an illegal deprivation
of parental authority in a Court du Quebec, Chambre de la Jeunesse, who
doesn’t even have authority to deprive someone of parental authority under
606 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

6. MADAME DRE. THANH-LAN NGO

a. Met the Applicant on one occasion for a consultation, in 2014, due to a

TAQ following a verdict of not Criminally Responsible for apparently
harassing the woman who had thrown a Kettle at me & my 1-year old son,
my ex, during our breaking up part of our years long relationship. I used to
live with this woman. We were used to spending our nights up together
talking. Required adaptation for both of us, but I never hurt her during the
breakup. I may have been insulting & crude with her at times when
bringing up what she did to me & my son. I still don’t think it was smart to
throw a kettle at her own family today in 2020, 10 years later. But I doubt
she would do it again. I think she’s learned that you don’t do that.

b. Did not give any Axis I psychiatric mental illness diagnostic.

c. Retained a Personality Trait, Axe II, Type B, Antisocial Personality

diagnostic, & narcistic which was, medically & legally unfounded
considering my allegations that the Court of Quebec acted illegally &
outside their jurisdiction can be proven & supported by the Court Ruling of
Line Samoisette in case Protection de la jeunesse — 15156, 2015 QCCS
2952, and the court rulings from Robert Hamel & Lucille Beauchemin
contradict in violation of provincial law.

d. Told me there was no diagnostic, but referred me to Dr. Robin Turcotte for
a final diagnostic before discharging me permanently from the TAQ.

e. The Applicant would like the court to analyze, hence see, her report & be
able to interrogate her concerning her diagnostic of the Applicant.

f. To question the expert witness, as to whether she professionally believes

a fake Axis II Diagnostic which was unfounded justifies an illegal
deprivation of parental authority in a Cour du Quebec, Chambre de la
Jeunesse, who doesn’t even have authority to deprive someone of
parental authority under 606 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

7. MONSIEUR DR. ERIC TEBOUL

a. Met the Applicant on multiple occasions, in 2013, due to a TAQ following

& Hospitalization of Multiple Months under High Observation at St-Jerome
Hospital, for a verdict of not Criminally Responsible for apparently
harassing the woman who had thrown a Kettle at me & my 1-year old son,
my ex, during our breaking up part of our years-long relationship. I used to
 live with this woman. We were used to spending our nights up together
talking. Required adaptation for both of us, but I never hurt her during the
breakup. I may have been insulting & crude with her at times when
bringing up what she did to me & my son. I still don’t think it was smart to
throw a kettle at her own family today in 2020, 10 years later. But I doubt
she would do it again. I think she’s learned that you don’t do that.

b. Originally sustained an old diagnostic of Bi-polar & Schizoaffective Axis 1

from Dr. Henry Boucher from 2006, when the Applicant entered into a
French Drug Dealer’s house in St-Eustache and Katana’d his ass for
threatening to rob his family. But then, before the TAQ hearing in 2013,
Dr. Teboul said, that the Applicant had never been Bipolar or
Schizoaffective and may have manipulated all the Ph. D’s and Hospital
employees in a previous encounter… for “expertise… at the same
institution, which was a ward off the main building of the Main Hospital in
the city of St-Jerome, lost in the dirtyass northern farmlands of what little
remains of French Americas, which is now referred to as “Québec” (sic).

c. Retained a Personality Trait, Axe II, Type B, Antisocial Personality

diagnostic, & narcistic which was, medically & legally unfounded
considering my allegations that the Court of Quebec acted illegally &
outside their jurisdiction can be proven & supported by the Court Ruling of
Line Samoisette in case Protection de la jeunesse — 15156, 2015 QCCS
2952, and the court rulings from Robert Hamel & Lucille Beauchemin
contradict in violation of provincial law.

d. Told me there was no diagnostic, hence no need for continued treatment

or consultations. Recommended that the TAQ conditionally discharge me
from the Hospital of St-Jerome, saying that originally sounded like
Grandiose Plans & Ideas turned out to be true.

e. The Applicant would like the court to analyze, hence see, his reports & be
able to interrogate him concerning his diagnostic of the Applicant.

f. To question the expert witness, as to whether he professionally believes a

fake Axis II Diagnostic which was unfounded justifies an illegal deprivation
of parental authority in a Cour du Quebec, Chambre de la Jeunesse, who
doesn’t even have authority to deprive someone of parental authority
under 606 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

B: AUTHORITIES
I. Protection de la jeunesse — 15156, 2015 QCCS 2952, per LINE SAMOISETTE,
J.C.S., Paragraphs [98] [99] & [101].

II. R. v. Bruce Power Inc., 2009 ONCA 573, Para. [67] “Finally, I return to the two
questions raised by this appeal. In respect of the first question, I would conclude
that when the Crown has come into possession of a defence document that is
protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege, prejudice will be presumed.
The presumption is rebuttable by the Crown. In respect of the second question, I
would conclude that in such circumstances, it does not necessarily follow that the
charges should be stayed where a lesser remedy can solve the problem. Costs”

FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT TO:

RECEIVE the present Application;
 ORDER that all 3rd Parties with Information relevant to the Accused making a Full
Defense & Answer as his Constitutional Right to do is so respected, be produced
and/or summoned for the court. This includes the security video from the security
cameras from the SPVM Centre Operationel Nord, Detention Area, from the morning
of September 15th, 2019.
TAKE NOTICE that the present Application has been shared with the Crown &
multiple foreign states including the Gobierno de la República de Chile & La Casa
Real de España, as well as the SPQR (Il Vaticano);
TAKE NOTICE the private prosecution will be asking for $5,000,000,000.00 (5
Billion Canadian Dollars) in extraordinary punitive damages for the victim: Leon
Feehan-Astudillo, born July 29th 2009, for the assaults he suffered & for being
kidnapped without valid legal reason justifying him being removed from his father’s
custody, and for being a victim of physical & psychological torture, for a period of 9
years;
TAKE NOTICE the private prosecution will be asking for $5,000,000,000.00 (5
Billion Canadian Dollars) in extraordinary punitive damages for the victim: Phoenix
Feehan-Astudillo, born April 3rd 2011, for the assaults he suffered & for being
kidnapped without valid legal reason justifying him being removed from his father’s
custody, and for being a victim of physical & psychological torture, for a period of 9
years;
TAKE NOTICE the private prosecution will be asking for $5,000,000,000.00 (5
Billion Canadian Dollars) in extraordinary punitive damages for the victim: Alan
Astudillo, born September 25th 1987, for having his children unlawfully kidnapped
without valid legal reason justifying it, and for being a victim of physical &
psychological torture, forced to watch his children being assaulted, over & over
again between 2011 & 2020;
TAKE NOTICE considering that the accused are public officers that betrayed their
office & committed kidnapping through fraudulent psychiatric means, the victims
demand the Maximum Sentence be imposed for each Indictable Offenses, with no
opposition that they be served concurrently;
TAKE NOTICE considering that the accused are public officers that betrayed public
trust, the Victims will be demanding they be perpetually barred from serving in public
office;
TAKE NOTICE that considering these crimes primarily harmed children under the
age of 12, the Private Prosecution will demand that the defendants be barred from
having contacts with any minors in Canada, for a period that the court finds
appropriate.

In Montréal, Québec, on ___________, 2020

(Applicant) _____________________________ In _____________, on _____________
______________________________ ___________________________________
Judge / Justice of the Peace Judge / Justice of the Peace (in block letters)
SWORN STATEMENT
I, Alan Astudillo, Hidalgo Notorio de Sangre, Hidalgo de Solar Conocido, Hijo de los
Conquistadores Españoles de las Americás, Father of Leon Feehan-Astudillo &
Phoenix Feehan-Astudillo who was victim of Aggravated Assault on May 7th 2014,
residing at 2560 Henri-Bourassa Est, #3, Montréal, Québec, H2B 1V5,
Declare under Oath the following:
- I am the Applicant.
- I attest that the facts given in the application are true.

And I have signed

________________________________
(Applicant)

☐ Sworn before me

☐ Solemnly affirmed before me

In _______________________________________, on
_________________________________

__________________________________________________
Person authorized to take oaths or solemn affirmations

PRIOR NOTICE

TAKE NOTICE that this Information will be presented at the courthouse of

COUT OF QUEBEC (MONTREAL), in room ______, on _________________,
at _________ a.m./p.m.

________________________________
(Applicant)