Pirates Of The Caribbean With Jesse Jane

Open Letter to the Disciplinary Board Bar Quebec

This open letter he addressed to Mr. Bedard as a last resort to the Disciplinary Board Bar is the result of other open letters you will find on this blog (see blog archives in the menu left) and has, despite the immeasurable injury to his place, always very politely addressed to the Minister of Justice, Kathleen Weil (no result), the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal, JJ Michel Robert (no result), the judge Sophie Bourque itself (to no avail of course!), or rather his own lawyer one who has claimed to be since February 2006 before Judge Suzanne Coupal is Me Gaetan Bourassa , Director of Legal Aid of Montreal and has once again yielded no result except the deposit fragmentary evidence 10 February 2009 before Judge Rollande Matte (after 14 months of waiting) without the latter requires cons by the Crown as it should have done to assert the rights of Mr. Bedard, the filing any exculpatory evidence available and clearly identified in a prepared statement by Mr. Bedard himself and filed December 4, 2008. Mr. Bedard has yet seized Judge Robert Sansfaçon of the Court of Quebec, but the latter has even dared to mention perhaps preferring to leave his place to get wet, the Crown Attorney, Mr. Jacques Rouiller, obviously lost, which undoubtedly nervous and poorly in his skin after a chase so abusive and senseless, curiously mentioned that Mr. Bedard's request would lead to a stay of proceedings under Stinchcombe? ? ? After Mr. Bédard Pinel incarcerated for 13 months and indirectly serve him without his mentions himself that OIQ destroyed his "evidence" because the deposit of it could definitely affect the image of this prestigious order said the public eye and in so doing, this prosecutor is in trouble oddly compelled to suggest to the accused to request a stay of proceedings. It no longer makes sense? A prosecutor suggests the defendant a stay of proceedings! But I thought I was dreaming or what? In fact, it probably reached the pinnacle of the absence of large common sense in criminal law. To add and look even more silly and go for what it is so anyway:

ROUILLIER FOR SO: Stinchcombe (Supreme Court) = OFF PROCEDURES click: Judicial hard - Preview 33 to hear him say.

the very least embarrassing for a lawyer supposed to know the law that Mr. Bedard he considered unfit and more since November 20, 2007 the day after his appearance and the hearing before Judge Sylvie Durand on which Mr. Bedard had presented no devastated and even ready to face new charges that he knew ridiculous unfounded anyway!

Furthermore, it may well be that Article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure paradoxically that counsel for Mr. Bédard, or Mr. Gaëtan Bourassa, told him to throw the garbage because it does not follow him in the criminal proceeding! Or key needed by Mr. Bedard to force recognition of exemption under art. 672.26b by J. Bourque understanding that all these important people paid LAW can still deny or ignore tirelessly without their limitations are thus imposed by the ACT .

This file is ready to follow because Mr. Bedard seems, meanwhile, very ready as you judge yourself by the acuteness of his letter that specifically address the secretary of the Disciplinary Board of the Society, Nancy Trudel.

___________________________________________________________________


Repentigny, March 20, 2009

Disciplinary Board of the Quebec Bar
/ o Ms. Nancy J. Trudel, secretary of the Disciplinary Board
445, boul. St Lawrence
Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 3T8
Phone: (514) 954-3400 or 3656
Fax: (514) 954-3423

Re: Complaint no. 06-08-02434 (Mr. Norman Sabourin)
request correction of the decision and listening to the recording original jury's verdict
before June 21, 2006 edition, and transplanting.
Implementation of Art. 85 cpc for recognition by the Council of the derogation in Article 672.26b Criminal Code by Justice Sophie Bourque
_______________________________________________________________


Madam,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 16 2009 in reply to mine of Mar. 13, 2009.

First, I would just remind the Council that the purpose of my letter of March 13 as mentioned again in column, is a " request correction of the decision and viewing the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 before editing and dubbing "and not" correct Request "only.

This bodes very poorly efficient processing of an application where the Council amends the initial response object. Furthermore, your response unnecessarily delayed announcing a dishonest intent does not allow me to appeal within the required time while a necessary immediate response forces me to get back into memory the application of a fundamental principle justice defined in the third item under amended of this.

Failing Despatis Pierre, deputy trustee of the Bar to have done, the Council will try to squirm again, it seems to please the judge and Bourque and his chief justice and provide me an explanation of how it is that only the sound clip of the jury verdict of June 21, 2006 is inaudible while all other sound clips of the same trial and stuck on my blog, "judicial persecution" in Case Bourque are clearly audible.

The Council will also explain why he agreed that Mr. Despatis concludes in his report that the verdict is inaudible, but agrees that the prosecutor in return the respondent, Michel Jolin, gave his assessment on January 5 last to the effect that it be heard?
Because you understand that I understand, for my part, that the soundtrack recording copies provided by Registration Service and transplanting of Longueuil Courthouse has necessarily been edited so that no one can clearly hear the verdict .

addition and given the disturbing fact that the Court of Appeal did not, in its decision of 31 October 2008, agreed to the exemption in art. 672.26b CC by J. Bourque and she was obliged to do under the powers conferred Art. CC 672.78;

Given another disturbing fact that in a letter dated June 19, 2008 and signed by the registrar, Anne Roland (is it a relative of the judge of the same name?) Has willfully failed to court mandamus on legitimate and well founded in law, which would have forced a first duty of the Court of Appeal. Or the right to invoke the grounds of a discretionary decision and difficult to understand the Chief Justice of Quebec, JJ Michel Robert of not even acknowledge having a hearing held August 28, 2006 in his own backyard.

remember that my request was filed as of right to appeal the decision J. Bourque of me not to allow the replay of the verdict of June 21, 2006. And this, notwithstanding that the docket of the trial record is good faith that the hearing of this appeal has taken place without my presence.

For more than two embarrassing failures in respect of a person who was said by declaring complacently and collusively incompetent, not able to recognize the intent of a procedure (more specifically, should we believe when it is clearly deficient), the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec Court of Appeal were probably concerted and likely to please the ex-minister Gil Remillard justice as well as Jacques P. Dupuis then Minister of Justice of Quebec, to allow, in return, the Disciplinary Council of the Bar of trying to deny my private complaint filed against Mr. Norman Sabourin of under other mystical considerations.

Considering that the Council agrees, moreover, to paragraph 111 of its decision that Mr. Sabourin fills a judicial office. Obligingly still, should we believe, is always according to what the Board's decision reveals that allows him to decide not to even investigate the conduct of Judge Sophie Bourque, which makes no sense.

Therefore, the provisions of Article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires you to accept as true rather my allegation contained in my letter of March 13, 2009 to the effect that Judge Sophie Bourque has breached section 672.26b of the Criminal Code and to allege in your decision on this ground which the Council relies to oppose and to intrinsically complaint accuses Mr. Sabourin failing to investigate his behavior so that is never seized by any competent authority, this Notwithstanding evidence describing the main issue obviée voluntarily by filing petitions authorized complacent inappropriate on the part of counsel for the respondent.

Your decision and must be corrected when submitted on appeal, if any, to the Professions Tribunal and the Council is required to answer on or before March 27, 2009 to allow me to formulate my appeal request before April 1, 2009, 30 days after the date of service of your decision by a bailiff as you remember, moreover, in your letter of March 16, 2009.

Please act accordingly respect of this proceeding before my appeal before the Professions Tribunal.

In the meantime, get Ms. Trudel Best wishes.


Daniel Bedard

cc: Michel Jolin, counsel for the respondent, Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins, lawyers

_____________________________________________________________

Now comes the reply from the President of the Disciplinary Board of the Quebec Bar ,
Jean Paquet, the letter of March 20, 2009 Mr. Bedard:

Montreal, March 23, 2009

MAIL XPRESSPOST

Daniel Bedard
253 Notre Dame No. .414
Repentigny Qc J6A 2R7

Subject: Application for rectification
Complaint no. 06-08-02434
Daniel Bedard v. Mr. Norman Sabourin


Sir

This is in response to your request for correction of the decision of the Disciplinary Council of 23 February 2009 concerning the above-referenced complaint.

Be advised that your application for correction of the decision and listening to the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 before editing and dubbing is denied.

Please accept our best regards.


Jean Paquet, President
Disciplinary Board Bar-Quebec

JP / sc

____________________________________________________________

This response from Mr. Paquet announced an intention by this committee to create a dialogue of the deaf in communicating with the complainant. Indeed, Article 85 obliges the cpc to explain its response, yet the letter from the Chairman of the Disciplinary Board does not learn the complainant with reasons for refusing the legitimate request of Mr. Bedard vary decision Council in paragraph 72) or refusing to hear the jury's original verdict 21 June 2006. Thus, Mr. voluntarily packet passes next to the main issue which justified the request for an investigation of the conduct of Judge Sophie Bourque.

Below appeal request to the Board's decision that Mr. Bedard table on 1 April 2009

_____________________________________________________________

CANADA COURT OF PROFESSIONS
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
NO:
DANIEL BEDARD, plaintiff / appellant
Complaint No.: 06-08-02434
c.

DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE BAR,

Jean Paquet, Chairman
implicated

Mr. Norman Sabourin, respondent



PETITION ON APPEAL OF DECISION February 23, 2009
AND APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF INTERLOCUTORY
23 MARS 2009 ON AN APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGEMENT
(Art. 475 CCQ)


IN ONE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF PROFESSIONAL SITTING IN AND FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTREAL, APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT:


1. Whereas in a letter dated March 13, 2009 (P-1), the complainant submitted to the Disciplinary Board citing a request in the subject: "Request for correction of the decision and listening to the original recording of the verdict of the jury June 21, 2006 edition and before transplanting;
2. Whereas in a letter dated March 16, 2009 (P-2), challenged me through Nancy Trudel, secretary of the Disciplinary Board, took note of the request for correction under trial provisions of art. 475 CCP and the applicant meant that it would be submitted to the Disciplinary Board for decision;
3. Whereas in the same letter of 16 March 2009, the Disciplinary Board failed to voluntarily inform the complainant of its intention to proceed or not to listen to the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 before editing and dubbing and changed the title subject to the applicant's original application in order to remove the trace, against all odds and injury of the latter;
4. Whereas, the applicant shall submit to the Tribunal that the Council could not slip away and its responsibility to review evidence that the respondent's counsel has submitted himself for examination by the Council, and this, in order to justify its customer advocate and executive director of the Canadian Council on Judicial not having undertaken an inquiry into a complainant's request because he said the verdict was heard and that the copy of the recording of the verdict confirmed his statements;
5. Whereas the Council could still less does not conduct the review given that the complainant has clearly served him during the hearing on January 5, 2009 that the investigation report of November 5, 2008 (P-5) Trustee's Assistant Pierre Despatis testified instead that the verdict was muted and there was therefore embarrassing contradiction;
6. Whereas, by simple inference, such embarrassing contradiction that can not otherwise emanate from the misconduct warranted an intent to protect the immunity of the judge Sophie Bourque who clearly and voluntarily waived section 672.26b CC ; gesture which therefore can not pass for a judicial function beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the Council;
7. Whereas the Council could not therefore ignore the main issue that justified and approach the complainant's legitimate business with the Canadian Council of Magistracy and annulled the frivolity of the investigation request as the legal aspect falsely invoked by counsel for the respondent to withdraw his client's subject matter jurisdiction the Disciplinary Board;
8. Whereas in a letter dated March 23, 2009 (P-6), the Council meant that the complainant's request for correction to paragraph 72 of the decision and listening to the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 edition and before transplanting
9. Whereas paragraph 72 of the Council's decision reads: "The complainant asks the Council to the hearing record (Exhibits R-1-3-R and 1-4) and repeated that it would be normal that the recording is inaudible including against the verdict of the jury;
10. Whereas, according to the preceding paragraphs the Tribunal can not agree otherwise the application for rectification is unavoidable since the word "inaudible" should be replaced by "audible" at first.
11. Whereas in the second stage, the Tribunal can not otherwise agree that the concept of judicial "reasonable doubt" should prevail and oblige the Council to resolve the main issue, listen to the verdict as it should, and to share the assessment of it in its ruling to halt the unlawful and deliberate against the complainant in respect of art. 49 of the Charter of Rights
12. Whereas the indication in the investigation report of the trustee Assistant to the effect that the jury verdict would have been inaudible forced the Council to acknowledge the wrongful aspect of all requests made by the respondent because it Last lied on the main issue in dispute, claiming falsely that the verdict was audible. Recovering also remember that Judge Bourque said he was not nice to lie because in this case, "she says in a recent trial, the rights of the accused are no longer protected;

FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:


1. GRANT the appeal of the interlocutory decision and order correction of Judgement at paragraph 72;

2. HOST calling the Council's decision to dismiss the complaint against the respondent by recognizing default guilty on all counts in the offense;

ordered investigation against the judge Sophie Bourque by a law firm independent of the Canadian Judicial Council in order to end the unlawful intent to place the appellant in respect of Article 49 of Bill of Rights

THE WHOLE with costs.

Repentigny, April 1, 2009 Daniel Bedard, plaintiff / appellant

Egg White Discharge Before Expected Period

Respect for the art. 672.26b Criminal Code or where questions of law are not even the lot of the Highest Court of Quebec

Here is a passage from Mr. Bedard CLOSING ARGUMENTS before the Quebec Court of Appeal on 27 October 2008, while the latter was finally heard on his appeal of the decision Review Commission (NETE) maintain that Judge Richard Poudrier, which March 20, 2008 in Trois-Rivieres, issued an order that Mr. Bedard had to be treated under medication at Pinel up in February 2010 to make it fit to appear. Readers will judge whether Mr. Bedard was really unable to appear by reading this excerpt from the hearing. To check the exact content of the text, anyone is free to check with the firm PICHÉ, OLIVIER, BENOIT, official reporters at (418) 648-1199 who carried out the preparation of transcripts of the hearing on a special request of Mr. Bédard. Request made to the judge Chamberland beginning of the hearing.



DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So second point:
"Whereas CETM must therefore constitute the evidence contained in the letter ..."
In my letter, the letter the appellant's ten (10) April.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Hum hum.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
"... and allow the seizure before the proposed hearing of twelve (12) June ..."
Imagine, then, I asked for it on (12) June, when it is already over there, we're late on the duties, obligations, precisely in order not to extend my prejudice, prejudice that continues, because those duties then n have not been made.
"... and allow him, indeed, a full defense in court."
So all I ask, finally, I consider myself an honest citizen, not a madman, someone who is dangerous to himself or others, I did not hit anyone, I have not threatened anyone, I have not abused anyone. Even the big criminals are entitled to, ultimately, a trial fairer.
It's been a year, finally, that I am detained, then I am in the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Quebec, so I finally ask you to intervene in it and decide to say it does not make sense.
Then, thirdly
"Whereas CETM should also assess the evidence before the hearing of ..." I'm pretty
embarrassed to say, there, there was tampering and (inaudible)
"in ... cases parallel and concurrent. "
I tell you, I'm embarrassed to say because I dare not, finally, talk about things, finally, talk about things, finally, that could reproach me, while I criticize certain people, including judges, not doing the job properly which I expected from them at this time.
So I think the role as an appellate court is not to ignore the exceptions to the law were made in the past and close files, as Justice Robert wishes that we do with that. So I raised, inter alia, an exception to Article 672.26 (b), so I it looks that this clause.
So how is it that ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
You say what section?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
672.26 (b).
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Yes
.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Because the memory of Mr. Bouvette states 672.78, 672.33, 672.58, but it's funny, no mention, finally, on 672.26 (b) ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Are you ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... it's always in the same article, here.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Is it a trial by judge and jury?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes. So what I allege, finally, in addition to this mandamus then, is that good, to finally explain my third point, Sir, is that the very first time there has been a questioning of my ability to appear, so that's why ... I am looking back and I raise you, finally, that this ability to appear there should not even be raised in time, since the judge Bourque, c is she who presided over the trial, erred.
Then you'll have to act under section 672.78.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Um hum, yes.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Then, section 672.78, it is called an error of law ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Hum, hum.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant;
... judicial error or unreasonableness.
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Yes
.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So I think if we agree to look seriously my request for mandamus, I think the three (3), not just one point, the three (3) points will ... will be need to be highlighted because the Justice Bourque has really made a mistake law in n'assermentant no new jury to decide the question of my fitness to appear.
So if there was an error of law in time, I think the Court of Appeal should grant me the ... at least reasonable doubt to the effect that, finally, perhaps the error of law then resulted things even worse, perhaps indeed a miscarriage of justice.
So if we talk in that decision that you will have to take an error of law and judicial error, I think at this point we can not but grant me my right then this request for mandamus that would force finally performing a duty, the execution of a filing of evidence, finally.
So all I want, finally, is that I think I may have harassed people ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Ah, that's what the charge is at the root of all this?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, yes. Or threatening people, but is it necessary to accuse people, whatever, finally, people who have a bad criminal record or law-abiding citizens like me, well at least they have the decency Finally, to demonstrate, finally, the very foundation of this is accused.
So I think it eventually, even strange and unreasonable at some point have to raise this point before the highest Court of Quebec, while other courts, ultimately, have ignored this. That I find very curious, it worries me, and I think I would not even raise this point so that it is an important level of disclosure we have the evidence.
So I think there was also in the past several legal errors that were caused by the fact that ... in respect of a person, finally, we stopped and we did not disclose this evidence then, led eventually ... and the case law is full of cases and is what we must, eventually - that's what worries me - is what we must go eventually to the Supreme Court to have evidence?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
But when you went before the ATQ in June last year, the report of Dr Filion was the record?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, that's it, so ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
That was the proof.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
No, but the evidence finally ... I think that this is not proof, that.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
No?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Because, look, I do not think anyone should "s'aplatventrir" before a psychiatric assessment. That just does not come from me, it comes from Dr. Morissette, who is a specialist Pinel. Then he said that one time in a trial, well, nobody should "Himself to-knuckle. So if anyone should "Himself to-knuckle, why is it that the highest court in Quebec" Himself to flat-belly "before a single expertise, yet there does not respect the law that I raised earlier?
So, I ask simply respect the law, but allow me to have a cons-expertise that would ultimately for the Court to weigh anything other than a diagnostic one opinion or that of Dr Filion, who she himself, finally, took the same view that diagnosis Dr. Talbot, that Dr. Wolwertz.
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Yes
.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So I think that the request for mandamus is important in the sense that maybe if it is accepted, we will realize, finally, there may be was something went wrong at some point when it was raised for the first time this ability to appear here and give me reason to know that the ability should never have been raised ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Okay.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant;
... originally. So much for my petition for mandamus.
So I'll just finish the fourth point, we speak ... just the fact that we fiddle with the hacks, I think ... I think three (3) judges concerned, finally, there justice, that justice be done right when raises that, it deserves, finally, that we would search a little more, we say: Well, why we fiddle with the scroll, why we did this or that, instead of closing the records. Because closing files is to shut his eyes, finally injustices.
So I think that this is not the role of an appellate court to ignore an injustice. Instead, the appellate court is here, finally, to show that errors of law, judicial errors, are not extended to reach more of an individual who is already achieved implicitly.
So I think I showed too, just by doing this exposure there, I am a person, finally, able to face a trial.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Okay.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Huh? So, too, would continue on other issues. Another point: what would the ruling?
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Which
trial?
DANIEL BEDARD
calling party: The ruling
... I just ...


Note that Justice Chamberland brings no light, does not hear any comment or any ruling whatsoever on the exemption Article 672.26 (b) of the Criminal Code by Judge Sophie Bourque. Notwithstanding wisely raised, however, in the CLOSING ARGUMENTS Mr. Bédard. So much so that the latter is forced to return a little later in his CLOSING ARGUMENTS:


DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So I'll finish with my points, I have a few points because it gives me the opportunity and I appreciate it very much, I would have liked it to have the opportunity before other courses because it ultimately does not give me the opportunity to speak . It's like that, finally, that inequities are created, eh?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Yes, No, I understand, but do not ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Because you give us an opportunity to tell the truth.
So, another important point, gentlemen judges, a point, finally, that bothers me, me ... that I have trouble, finally, to admit and I might be scratching the Court of Appeal but ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
No, but go ahead, there, but ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... I have to do.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... do not take ... go to the point.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, yes, but sometimes it's because ...
So the Court of Appeal even now prevents me substantiate my appeal brief, it keeps me finally to produce a memorandum of appeal, and that I raised in a letter that I I sent ... I respectfully remember the name of the judge, there, but ... the coordinating judge, then simply denying me access to the jurisprudence of my own past records. This is serious, this to.
So I respectfully request the judge Robert Chief Justice of Quebec, to examine, finally, old cases where there have been decisions made, inter alia, that the twenty-eight (28) August, there are hacks that show, finally, that there was a hearing on the twenty-eight (28) August before the Court of Appeal to take cognizance of that decision.
So I require simply that the Court of Appeal that it gives me that decision. I never will believe, finally, that decisions are taken in secret to the highest court in Quebec.
So you understand that it worries me. It worries me to know, finally, it is heard before a court, on the other hand, does not want me to try the truth of what happened previously.
So it is troubling since I arrived here before, again, the highest court in Quebec and I expect eventually to a better response, an appropriate response to stop this prejudice against me then. Then another point, invoked in vying Articles 672 - I touched upon this earlier finding - about the fitness to stand trial, 672.33 in memory of master Bouvette, 672.58, 672.78, your decision to respect to what happens here, right now, then you are required, in respect of 672.78 to make a decision. But it fails
always talking about 672.26 (b).
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
You mentioned earlier ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... for example.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, I mentioned earlier, but I ... I think it's important to go back on that, Sir.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Well, I'm gonna have to ask you to move to another point because you mentioned earlier then ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
But do ... do you agree that we have any recourse?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
I did not respond right away ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
No?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... we listen to your arguments and then decide then ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
I agree that someone has, then, finally, because ... Is what I'm going to ask Ms. McLachlin agree?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
You do not know ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
is because ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... the idea today is to make your case ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... after that, we hear the arguments of the other party and then decide. It makes ... you know, we're not ... we will not respond to questions point blank like that, we are here to see if, in the words of 678, where a judicial error, s it is an error of law is committed in the case, then this is your chance to convince us.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So there ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
must ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... I convince you, I convince you by saying that there was an exception to Article 672.26 (b).
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Do you have another point?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
I tell you, there. So I bring you back to what you just tell me, Sir, "it is for you to convince us."
So I try to convince you, finally, there was exception ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Okay.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... Article 672.26 (b) because, actually, over time, finally, Justice Bourque had sworn the jury again and I made a request re-sworn in as jurors in the Court of Appeal dismissed by Judge Robert without trial.
There was a hearing, finally, which would have allowed me to re-hear the verdict, because me, I say, a conviction that the verdict acquitted me, the jury acquitted me, and I think I Right, finally, to the replay of the verdict there. Above all, Judge, that following my approach for mechanical recordings of the court, strangely you can not hear the verdict. This is not ... it's not very clear. And after that, I said, hey, if you do not hear the verdict, I'll drop it, finally my request asking for the verdict, we do not hear it. And, Mr. Chamberland, you approved it, you, you have endorsed a note ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Do you ... do you have other points to make?
DANIEL BEDARD
part Appellant:
... as abandoned. Is it you, Mr. Chamberland, which endorsed the act of abandonment?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Listen, I do not remember, then you have another point to make? ...



Here J. Chamberland book the key to the puzzle and get caught up outrageously and indirectly by announcing that there will be no response to the request yet more than legitimate to Mr. Bedard. For how can he judge Chamberland claim not to remember when he said the file on Mr. Bedard inability to him. In addition, there will be no mention of the exemption in section 672.26 (b) of the Criminal Code in the decision to be made so that as mentioned by the judge Chamberland itself, the power of the Court of Appeal granted him that section 672.78 Criminal Code of the same three judges allowed to intercept the error of law or judicial error can even be classified as voluntary on the part of Judge Sophie Bourque. This article is, moreover, corrélaire, from the same family that section 672.26 (b).

Watching the family of the judiciary and its image is more important than the ultimate responsibility of the Court of Appeal justice the appellant, Daniel Bedard, who was the recall invited to this Court for the first time since the trial presided over by Justice Bourque and the verdict of the jury June 21, 2006 ...

Following this performance for the least confusing, Mr. Bedard asked the Minister Weil, the resignations of the chief judge and that of Robert J. Chamberland . You agree that there is indeed substance to ask such resignations after this confirmation to the effect that this Court makes even the exercise of power granted to him being section 672.78 of the Criminal Code.

The following are the early performances of Jean-Francois Bouvette, attorney of the respondent. See how the judge Paul Vezina me completely out of Bouvette slippery slope on which he had ventured into replicating the scope of section 672.26b trying to convince the panel but also the public in the room that it could not apply:

REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Jean-François Bouvet
attorney respondent

Yeah, so I will not be still not very long. Mr.
stressed 672.26 (b) is an item that can not be applied for determination of fitness when someone has a trial by jury or be held by jury, which is not If the record of Three Rivers since it is an offense that is jurisdiction of a judge of the Court of Quebec alone, this is harassment, but that was taken on summary guilt.
Many things discussed here today, sir, or raised, are elements that go into the folder of Montreal. Because Mr.
two (2) records He has a record of harassment Three Rivers is taken on summary conviction, so sir, if trial is before a judge of the Court of Quebec only, then 626 ... 672.26 (b) can not apply and all other comments made when he spoke of Mr. Justice Bourque, when he spoke of Judge Millette, and also there was the Justice Louise Villemure, if my notes are accurate, they are all judges which are connected to the file of Montreal, who are not related ...
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
is correct that Justice Louise Villemure decided he was fit to stand trial?
Me JEAN-FRANCOIS BOUVET
attorney of the respondent:
Me, I had the information I have not seen the documents but I like what information the prosecutor of Montreal which is a third person because he told my attorney advised me that head, that gentleman was also disqualified from Montreal. Me is what I like information, then I should check ...
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
(Inaudible) you should at least know what is?
Jean-François Bouvet
attorney of the respondent:
Yes, I should indeed check this point, but I was told this week that gentleman was also unfit ... not this week, last week, that gentleman was also unfit to Montreal and the Montreal attorney asked me to advise when the decision of this court will be made on ...
that Mr. attack on the decision of the ATQ.
But me, I had the information is ...
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
Can you check it and confirm it?
Jean-François Bouvet
counsel for the respondent:
Yes, that, that can be verified.
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
Because you understand it ...
Jean-François Bouvet
counsel for the respondent:
Yes.
JUDGE VÉZINA:
If a case has been deemed fit and in another case it is deemed unfit, I understand there are questions.
Jean-François Bouvet
counsel for the respondent:
Yes.
...

can stop here so the idiocy of the prosecutor has reached its limits but also that of 3 judges obviously complacent. Bouvette me who lies so embarrassing to the judge because his memory Vezina whose panel is assumed to have read says that the judge Villemure says Bedard capable Montreal December 18, 2007. Moreover, the hacks also show information for that purpose, a judge may not know this, especially a judge of the Court of Appeal. For if the judge Vezina understand it is normal that Mr. Bedard has questions is therefore appropriate that the inability would never have been raised in Trois-Rivieres and that decision was therefore unreasonable at first. Why then in their decision to request the review board to revisit the issue of incapacity? ?

Imagine, Trois-Rivieres we send an accused person until February 2010 Pinel without even checking if he was found fit to Montreal which is unlikely.
The Court of Appeal would have been welcome on the bench calling the decision of the review board and produce a fact which stops the harassment against Mr. Bedard on this issue redundant and illegitimate.

say that Justice Bourque has released the fields 5 suspected killers of the young Raymond Ellis because the Crown prosecutor lied ! ? When three judges agree, in return, that they lied in the face it necessarily leads to an unjustifiable loss of time in the judiciary and the shameful waste of public funds.

J. Chamberland did mention the name of his two other brothers not want to make a decision on the bench but listen to the arguments of the latter and then the arguments of counsel for the respondent. And this was done in regard to the scope of section 672.26 (b). But how is it that the ruling of the Court of Appeal did not subsequently settled the question of law since it avoids completely to make any mention?

Also and as you can see for yourself, the decision refers to sections 672.23 (2), 672.38, 672.54, 672.78, but nothing about art. 672.26b. The Court of Appeal therefore incorporates in his trial for the less impaired the same criticism that Mr. Bedard made against the memory of Mr. Bouvette. Even if the ruling partially upholds the appeal by Mr. Bédard, we must understand that 3 judges of the Court of Appeal voluntarily obviated their judgments and to safeguard immunity of judge and Bourque him avoid prison sentence and the end of his career for so deliberate and planned, hindered the normal course of justice, as stipulated in Article 139 (2) of the Criminal Code.

Therefore unfortunately get to the obvious injustice that moved even necessarily at all times when legal issues are not even the lot of the Highest Tribunal of Quebec.

continued ...

Washable Hair Dye For Guys.

But who is unfit to?

Dear Internet savvy,

I think reading this article written by Daniel Bedard in response to Mr. Gaetan Bourassa, director of the Legal Aid '''' Montreal, will not let you indifferent and do you will more than feed some doubt on the ability of the latter. If doubt, of course, was still persistent in your mind after consulting his blog acharnementjudiciaire''.''

On 27 February, at the hearing before the judge of the Superior Court Coordinator, the Honorable James L. Brunton, the latter was, in my opinion, a mistake but still surprising voluntary and even subtle since, up to his caliber and experience notwithstanding the fact that I respect him a lot as I also served. (Click on the links
Brunton on February 27 PART 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOkkWNJq7UM
Brunton on February 27 PART 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h625QB0SgUE to hear the 19 min. which lasted my appearance.

Since it is surprising how quickly the order is executed a judge sending an accused person to Pinel a psychiatric evaluation. Even if it is redundant and insulting outrageously recent prior judgments of his brothers and sisters of the same Court, three judges of the Court of Appeal and the decision of the Review Board of Mental Disorders, 10 December 2008. It seems that the Court of Québec, we like it or judge order not to mention taxpayers' expense. (See case Matte on this platform)

In return, I observe, taken aback since February 2006, dealt with how slow is an order complete disclosure which would result in defense same person charged, that is to say myself.

Note that a judge with honesty and integrity can not oppose the right of an accused to exercise his full defense.

Except that at this point the slow judicial process by questioning unnecessarily redundant, and non-motivated, ability to appear for an accused person begins to resemble the obstacle and becomes bound by mere inference, of the opposition. And it is this that has troubled me and troubles me still at the highest point.

Because as I told the judge Brunton, who would surely prefer to be elsewhere when I raised the question, what happened, exactly, three years later, the order of February 2, 2006 his colleague, Justice Carol Cohen? Order requiring the Crown (Me Louise Leduc) to make me full disclosure within 10 days, until February 13, 2006.

In my legitimate questions, however, the judge simply said Brunton he chaired a hearing to determine a trial date.

As pointed him in turn before the judges Sansfaçon (December 4, 2008), Matte (February 10, 2009) and Marchi (February 18, 2009) the Court of Québec. Which have only spoken on dates back in court''and''forgetting to talk about real things. Or, in other, my application for full disclosure of evidence dated 18 November 2008.

Query I finally entitled to file following the decision of November 11, 2008 J. Boyer, who ruled again on my ability to appear.

Since this motion was filed right before the Court of Quebec had the right to obtain a written decision of the judge and that it be made public to ensure transparency of the Court. But none of this was not done.

Recall that the order of Judge Cohen was never kept in mind when I presented myself at the preliminary hearing of February 21, 2006 chaired by Judge Guy Fortier JCQ in the court record 505-01 -056,133-057. Curiously enough, he turned a deaf ear to my request for a stay of proceedings invoked at the beginning of the hearing under section 312c.pc the failure of the Crown (Louise Leduc) to comply with the order of Judge Cohen. J. Fortier, thereafter, allowed the continuation of the preliminary investigation without my presence and spread without any evidence whatsoever.

I say without my presence as familiar with my rights, my anger was spontaneous before such an example of disrespect for them! J. Fortier''me''then awarded a contempt of court and two months in prison in addition to automatic me out of the Court to endorse me as his own failure and that of Louise Leduc also doing so willfully failed to allow me to attend the preliminary hearing.

Is that gesture very serious transgression initiated by J. Fortier, who subsequently led the equally severe judge Sophie Bourque. Which has not responded at the conference of June 6, 2006, to my very legitimate request to obtain, by way of relevant evidence (pace Mr. Leduc in Time and Me Rouillier in these proceedings) telephone reports of May and June 2003 Engineer Peter Sicotte.

3 years later, my pseudo-lawyer, Gaetan Bourassa, director of legal''Aide''Montreal, now wants me to believe he could obtain a stay of proceedings failure to disclose evidence or insufficient evidence. While still more recently, he repeated to me endlessly that I had to throw my code of civil procedure in the garbage because he said it serves no purpose in the criminal proceedings? ?

At the peak of his art, is it his way once again to enforce the law?

For in the Criminal Code, only 4 items are relevant to the stay of proceedings:

. Art. 606 (3), it is a question of stay of proceedings adjourn the trial to a later date.

. Art. 676 (1) (c) it is a question to the Attorney General may appeal an order of a court of first instance which stays proceedings on an indictment.

. Art. 813 (b) (i) there is a power issue of the informant, the Attorney General or his agent to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order stopping Lers procedures on or dismissing an information in the case of a lawsuit made by summary conviction.

. Art. 579 (1), it is a question of power of the Attorney General to stop proceedings at any time after the commencement of proceedings.

Thus, the criminal code does not agree that Attorney General the authority to either appeal an order which stays proceedings or is finalizing the procedures if his wish.

In return, the Criminal Code does not therefore in any way from the accused (or his attorney) to eventually stop the proceedings by a judge. Except to adjourn the trial to a later date for the end to prepare his defense. And it is also necessary that the magistrate sees fit! (Article 606 (3) CC)

Paradoxically, art. 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for a piece of evidence against the party refuses to produce it under an order made by a judge in that direction.

And it is this refusal to follow a judge may then grant the stay of proceedings if it determines that such evidence is necessary to defend the accused.

Thus, telling me to throw my code of civil procedure in the garbage, Mr. Bourassa and violates Art. 1 of Chapter 1 of the Rules of the Court of Québec raising provisions applicable to all divisions of the Court.

Indeed, the article does mention that "registers, indexes and files necessary to implement the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c. C-46) and the Code Criminal Procedure (RSQ, c. C-25.1) and those imposed by special laws shall be held in accordance with the guidelines of grafts CJ "

Thus, Mr. Bourassa, if he is consistent with this he claims, should go tell the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, the Honourable Guy Gagnon, throw the Code of Civil Procedure kept to transplantation for the Public in the garbage. For convenience by collusion between the "legal actors", it is no longer anything for that audience to want to apply in the criminal proceedings! ?

By way of comparison, is like if after having "worked" over 25 years in the building, I told my client to discard its building code in the garbage because it is useless.

And it says that this incompetent management of the Office of Legal Aid of Montreal?

Madam Minister Weil, where are you? Because there is big money that is spent a way not very careful ... Do not you think?

Daniel Bedard

Green Scooter Metal Core Wheels For Sale

first responsibility of government: Appoint judges honesty and integrity! The evidence disclosed last

Preventing violence and crime?

The Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, being himself a lawyer by profession, should begin by establishing teams of lawyers not only trained to prevent and try to stop crime increasingly mediated by the "legal actors" themselves "working" in our Palace Justice of Quebec but also in the rest of Canada.

In this sense would be wise to take a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the administration of justice before requesting to be tabled in the House of Commons bills for tougher sentencing of criminals gang-related. For what good is a bill to add to their sentence if they are releases even before there is one!

While in Ottawa, the Conservative government "takes one of his favorite themes" for tougher sentences for gang-related crime "(1), J. Bourque, she releases them even before a trial is held with a jury. The latter would certainly be more convenient decided the fate of some of them drawing inferences simply good! ?

A theory on the inferences that the judge Bourque said the jury during his address before deliberation but a theory that she herself does not seem to have assimilated so it shows deficient in its judgments or downright intentionally biased, not being able to shoot properly his. And to the point where even a secular law is able to notice it himself rather easily.

As the Court of Appeal, I formal and remains of the view that the Chief Justice JJ Michel Robert, no offense to the Weil Minister and Premier Charest will, out of respect for the audience and me yourself, resign. For his complete lack of integrity and intellectual honesty that can not otherwise prevent him from ruling on the appeal of the decision of Judge Sophie Bourque in the " Ellis case. "

Considering that he has "protected" by offering a hearing with himself on August 28, 2006 my query right to the "replay" of the jury verdict of June 21, 2006. And this while I was still being held in custody at Pinel and that I believed, wrongly, to appear incapacitated! Judge Robert recurred later in his "trial" of last May 14, 2008 closing the file and making the reader believe that I myself were personally presented then, once again, there I was even invited as illegally maintained custody at the Pinel Institute in the same way redundant! This is the dictatorship applied even to tyranny. No more democracy. And Quebec did not need an anti-democratic or a tyrant as chief justice. Better still a separatist honest federalist crooked and corrupt!

There still are limits to what a judge is entitled to but mostly limits not to do what even the civility dictates that it is inappropriate to do for the common man. Charest must act responsibly and if he does not lose itself and its credibility with Public who has re-elected in majority last election. Unless it is himself who dictated orders! The inference is even easier to shoot if nothing is done on the side of his resignation as soon as possible!

As for Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association, he says:
" It frustrates everyone when you see people street gangs kill people and get out of prison after two or three years. Give longer prison sentences for these criminals, I guess this would encourage them to think twice (before committing the crime) he has argued . " (1)

The Criminologist, Rancourt who curiously described the decision as courageous J. Bourque (How was it paid to say such enormity and misinform the public and via the Journal de Montreal edition of January 13, 2009?) and Robert CJ of the Court of Appeal did they understand the message?

Hopefully yes ... for ending the carnage that devil!



Daniel Bedard (1) Journal of Mtl., Friday, February 27, 2009, p.16