Getting Pregnant Game Online

Rouillier perseveres in its stupidity and incompetence and commits a fatal error in continuing the practice of law

Another mistake by continuing Rouillier and public prosecutors in Quebec who condemn them for good for sure in the minds of the international community as well as in the minds of thousands of Quebecers and alerts warned!

I was just hoping that my continuing frantic and happy fool the likes of ex-Attorney General makes the mistake of invoking my said invoking criminal history parallels the Evidence Act in Canada. And he did! ?

Yet it can not otherwise having been''recommended''in this sense by the Attorney General Kathleen Weil that I ask for this other reason remit to its head, PM Charest, for his resignation before incompetence that is the international community which is so monstrous it requires are lax and non-intervention. I therefore ask the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Louis Dionne, do the same for the same reasons, whereas he has not, either, the moral authority to deal effectively with such functions in respect of the accused or opposite in respect of the families of victims of murders or serious assaults.

All 4 are lawyers yet. Lawyers who are supposed to know the law and enforce it as it should ie in any democracy. First

Rouillier me if transmitted by on 23/04/2009 at 18:55 Usher''his notice of intention to produce in evidence a piece called''citing my criminal history,''I retorted with a view of intent to submit my blog to complete the analysis of the jury''to counter easily his failure to be offset in many ways anyway and easily into the bargain. Here is a first example to be submitted to the jury for serious analysis. In addition

and since the product under section 30 (7) of the Evidence Act in Canada is clearly evidence that he described as ''Destroyed''December 4, 2008 before Judge Sansfaçon resurrected''and''before Judge Rolande Matte on February 10 will most certainly do not in any way whatsoever to admit my guilt to a jury strictly awaiting the prosecutor establishes that proof''beyond a reasonable doubt''in front of him. I ask the jury can hear what happened to these two audiences together to better judge. I also ask that the jury asked to hear the conference in full force because I am forced to return with the same legal question not answered by Judge Mongeau to address some criminal history that still unjustly imputed to me 3 years later in the file 505-01-056133-057 .

Thus, it remained so-called criminal history and the latter tries his hand still in idiot before a jury that would like to believe my blog since it was built with the objectivity that such a cumbersome But that requires termination and the prosecutor has absolutely nothing to put in their mouths. Or even his main witness. Which is saying something. It will not always deal with idiots, and the two previous juries have shown me that they were insightful, honest and intelligent by discharging. Qualities that become cons increasingly difficult to find in our judges. Strange finding. Especially pathetic.

I thank God for allowing me to defend myself before a jury by promising that the rest of my life will be devoted to improving our justice system by treating it very closely if no other candidates are doing to do.

Maybe one day, would I even grants of clean government than is currently in power so that my own experience can serve other and together can find solutions to improve managing this justice if only to the well-being and physical and mental balance of our children and grandchildren.

But then the stupidity and incompetence of our pursuer reaches peaks still unsuspected by myself and it will help me even more the task of achieving my first step: that is to acknowledge my innocence throughout line and convict some judges and prosecutors who have dishonored the institution that is yet to live more honorably than many other people in our society.
Since the evidence of my ability has been amply demonstrated and that this map does petty could again be ''Replayed''.

Rouillier will be forced to learn the jury that made me shut up for 13 ¼ Pinel months in the criminal case before it because of my criminal history?

Not very strong.

For in the three cases he cites, 3 probation mentions that''the court ruled on the conditions prescribed below'm absolved the offender.''
absolve an accused person does not of course mean to confine Pinel? Since no evidence

finally passed by Rouillier no evidence that I violated probation three.

Therefore, under what law, the prosecution could he, in these circumstances, deprive me of my liberty for 32 ¼ intrinsic month with 20 months Pinel?

So here regarding the prosecution of Mr. Rouillier. Which will now face a charge of obstructing justice and public mischief. A charge more serious or even absolutely inconceivable by a prosecutor on which we should be able to count on its high integrity is that it is human beings with whom Justice consists not with animals, notwithstanding the fact that inhibited in a society like ours, animals are often treated better human beings. Unfortunately.

This accusation has been made directly to the Attorney General of Ontario Whereas I could not ask individuals forced to resign for the same reasons to pursue their own attorneys to whom they gave the order to sue me outrageous improperly. Whereas the case may be, there could be more obvious conflict of interest statement and the prosecution that might otherwise be idle.
But more importantly, I take notice where the real debate now:

Indeed, my trial would be first and foremost by Justice Mongeau. Let me explain, since you will agree that I can acknowledge it as another judge without proof''beyond a reasonable doubt''

Doing so what the law says it is OK to do and not what we learn from them when we continue.

On April 3, in conference, Judge Mongeau informs me of something I already knew having learned thoroughly the law: the questions of law as opposed to questions of fact which the jury is the sole master are the''privilege''of the judge and these must be resolved''without the presence of the jury.''

I expected firm J. Mongeau. Since I feigned surprise at the outset of the hearing but I knew very well that he was the Chief Justice François Rolland was chosen to preside over my 3ie trial by judge and jury.

So I sent her my question of law trap

"The ability to appear is it a question of fact or a question of law, Mr. Justice? "

" I will not answer this question, "I replied dryly J. Mongeau.

"But why, sir, is not a legal question that I ask you?"
was my reply.

"You see a lawyer who will answer you on that? ?

In fact, Justice Mongeau simultaneously committed two legal errors too severe for me to just let it past this stage of proceedings. A laudable initiative is that the jury requests the presence of a lawyer so that he answer my questions of law if the judge himself is unable to answer, then I could demand his recusal s' there is no answer because he has a legal obligation.

Given that if the request comes from me, for sure, I refuse it, you can be sure. They will call anything out of the water hot his sister Sophie J. Bourque who will live in conscience surely affect the inexcusable act of prevarication it has done to me immeasurable harm.

First, the judge did mention Mongeau that questions of law was the exclusive privilege. Therefore and because the trial has commenced, it could therefore return this privilege to a lawyer? Anyway? Is it paid $ 267,000 a year to miss the boat in its own backyard?

Second, the judge could Mongeau so condescending and more insinuating that since I returned'''' able to attend my question was not relevant and therefore it was not obligated under that interpretation in fact, respond.

Considering the contrary, the evidence has finally proved that I have always been a suitable person to appear that does not suffer from any kind of mental illness even if everything has been done to make me so was born a horrible having to live in a locked psychiatric institute when we know very well that we have no business there and in addition we take the bed of someone who might himself be in need to seek treatment or treatment for his mental illness.

And that means not suffering from any mental illness, evidence has shown more as stated in his Doc Mailloux-cons expertise that I am a scholarly and analytical. Well done Mr. Mailloux.

Under these considerations, my question of law could not have been more legitimate and relevant given that, in addition, Mr. Rouillier me fai tle gift waiting for him: either attempt, moreover, to convince the jury my criminal history on file 505-01-056133-057 .

This file is the trial by judge and jury chaired by Justice Sophie Bourque June 21, 2006. Since
J. Mongeau has accepted the issuance of this opinion because I was duly served by a bailiff, the judge could Mongeau now no way to pronounce a stay of proceedings as he indirectly suggested in the Crown conference it out of the closet and out of which at the same time as him smelly skeletons would certainly see it resurface.

It could do so without first allowing me now to draw my full defense under these so-called criminal history given that my honor, were again attacked by the crass pursuit who does not wish, it seems, not letting go because knowing itself is now being sued. It is therefore likely to play hard but I'm ready, I assure you.

Considering that surplus, criminal history are questions of fact which only the jury is now the master, the jury asked whether it is insightful to be seized of other things that a protocol on which appears only things that a clerk finally agreed to provide. Thus

J. Mongeau could contravene Article 23 of the Charter and now help defend me full in connection with these so-called history criminals.

That said, since Article 30 (7) d ela Act, Canada Evidence is invoked by the prosecuting attorney, the judge Mongeua could not help but to invoke Article 5 of the same legislation to counter the defense of the said alleged criminal history.
Since my background is a matter of fact, the judge can not Mongeau help the jury understand very early in my defense as to its claims of the Crown so that they n'influent unnecessarily on the remaining procedures.

robligation Pa, the jury will have before it the question I asked the judge in pre Mongeau since art. 5 of the Evidence Act also supported by the laws and judicial ethics demonstrates that the court has departed Mongeau 3 simply by not responding to my question of law which is precisely the answer, increasingly, my defense against false allegations of the prosecutor.

Thus, if the judge Mongeau not answering my question before the jury, in addition to derogate from Article 23 of the Charter. A right that I also secured by the same Charter.
J. Mongeau during his address to the jury also could not otherwise tell him that my ability to appear much as my criminal history issues of fact alone, again, is the master.

addition, and if the jury is the master, Judge Mongeau is forced to teach them some thing not yet known because the same jury must remain curious and anxious throughout the trial and may not otherwise seek to understand why I was locked up 13 ¼ months Pinel in the record before it. And that ability to appear is indeed a question of fact and that the judge Bourque made a mistake''or''voluntary committed a serious act of negligence not swearing again the jury to decide this issue on June 22, 2006 by departing voluntarily Article 672.26b Criminal Code.

Secondly, and given that I am confident of having before me a jury 3ie intelligent and anxious to do justice to the party that deserves, I am confident that the jury ultimately require compliance with Article 672.26b and therefore asked that the 11 jurors in my trial in June 2006 be summoned before him so that they settle the issue definitively, that the Court of Appeal also failed to October 27 last Quebec, so they retell a single loud and clear this time, they delivered the verdict June 21, 2006.

Thus the prison doors ajar for women Tanguay to welcome two former judges or the judge Sophie Bourque and Louise Leduc''judge''whose''career''has been well short of justice if there are still men on this earth and so that others Honest men do not suffer their abuse.

The jury will have before this article in the coming week to counter the defense''avis of intent to produce a play''the prosecutor continued ...

To be continued ... definitely

Spanish Movies Erotica

: Or when the backup immunities of bigwigs oblige! ?

sensitive and careful with people wanting to remain skeptical or because they prefer to believe, despite rumors of more invasive circulating that the Justice is still well managed by those who work there! ?

Because after reading this article, your desire to consult a lawyer so that it makes your rights could disappear forever in support of the Jean Paquet, President of the Bar Disciplinary Board Quebec, for its part, decided to hasten the death of the profession by threatening to get even the survival of Quebec's professional system which, to date, makes it live and more. In fact

Me Paquet, lives at the expense of professional members of the professional letting everything pass almost on the practice of members wormy "his" professional order; is one of the bar. The turpitude of the Disciplinary Board Bar d. ..

Imagine the scope of its indecency and that of her 2 sidekicks seated to his left and right and appears to be, in addition, very proud to practice LAW and watching, without saying a word, their mentor s carry out or should I say run them unconsciously to be believed! ?

3 lawyers who want this way to show others the way to go and get that way in unemployment and swelled the ranks of welfare recipients paid from the budget Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity! ?

So it's probably in this way that Charest and his right arm Dupuis decided to show solidarity towards their "friends" like-minded lawyers they? ?

Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:45 am. I am running as planned in the Office of 'Legal Aid Repentigny "after I submitted the day before mid-afternoon and being told by a receptionist that Mrs. Harvey, paralegals and handles such requests, would not immediately proceed to the execution of it: either the sending Subpoenas to 9 of my witnesses necessary to defend me from my full trial beginning April 27 with jury selection. I also remind him to refute the argument that she clumsily tries to make me go, I'm not too late because the Code of Civil Procedure gives me 3 full days to deliver a subpoena by bailiff to a witness before the proposed date of his appearance.

12 lawyers named in the list as my immediate area is that of CHARLEMAGNE / LEGARDEUR / REPENTIGNY / The EPHIPHANIE and handed to me by Nathalie Harvey, technician right to the use of " Help Legal Repentigny. "

Sensing my impatience that had voluntarily worked so rudely, without doubt, I get angry and take them on the sly chuckle of satisfaction of work well done, Benoit Charbonneau, Director of Legal Aid of Repentigny and Me Diane Roux office of the "Legal Aid Joliette" and his secretary named Claude (who has not wanted to reveal his last name and now I understand why) showed me another example of this "solidarity" ! ?

For it was now up to me the responsibility to find me a criminal lawyer has informed me that after Mrs Harvey receuillir me have the information needed to complete my request for "legal aid" and made me sign it, and taught me more than the "Legal Aid Repentigny" could do for itself Non-criminal lawyer at their jobs?

But it really takes me an idiot so suddenly?

Because I did sign an application for "Legal Aid" and the charges thereof once signed by the applicant is then reimbursed by taxpayers' money Quebecois shake yet the belt rounds by double these days to get to pay for everything.
Why do taxpayers pay for a service the technician told me right after she is unable to make? ? You follow me?

And why is it so important that it is absolutely a criminal lawyer who signs the bottom of a document called a "subpoena"? While the form itself is available online at several sites legal for us to understand how simple and sending a subpoena to court to summon witnesses we need to be heard and to ensure its defense in full compliance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

thing led to another, taken aback the relevance of the questions I raised with some authority and even anger subdued despite the enormity of the harm that other collusively tried to make me suffer again and make me miss this important meeting with the law expected for nearly 3 years, they lead director, Mr. Benoît Charbonneau me back to her immediate supervisor, Diane Roux office of "Legal Aid of Joliette, thus confirming to me, and by inference, he filled an obvious order by refusing at first to make me the requested service. For why have already predetermined that contact with her supervisor to complete an application as simple as that to produce " subpoenas?

I leave the office of Mr. Charbonneau, who is outraged that even I do not understand, and therefore am trying to get in touch with this lady Roux question.Car I did not phone home; the severity of my arbitrary detention like me positioned in a precarious financial situation and I am not yet able to pay the bill for an account of nearly $ 600.00 Bell Canada that has accumulated during my detention absurd and non-justified and that would allow me to put my line in service. So that whenever I use a phone that costs me $ 0.50 and I must reckon with the $ 708.00/mois recently $ 120.00 plus through the intervention of Doc Mailloux was the first psychiatrist I met that concern was expressed about whether I was able to come and pay me at least 2 meals a day since I found that it costs me my rent $ 585.00 / month . Is thus to ensure peace of mind about my needs strictly essential.

Imagine Doc Mailloux, one that almost everyone he criticizes his opinions say controversial, was the first doctor so in 4 years of misery, to worry about my sanity despite my 20 months spent force at Pinel.

It is not I think his views are controversial but the state of unbridled practice of psychiatry that he, at least try to recover from his strong opinions and his courage to call into doubt the opinions of some of his brothers and sisters judge objectively when they simply have no moral sense. Not even need to have extensive knowledge of "science" of psychiatry to notice more, so all this has been easy observation.

therefore appeal to the First Lady Roux in question: The receptionist refused to accept long distance charges that Mr. Charbonneau forces me to stay. It starts well because she hangs up the nose that I had no time to explain as if she had been advised that I call and he was driven to do so may order increase my frustration and challenge me so maybe I come to say things they would like all together at this stage that I run and thus they can be noted.

I remind the receptionist and told Bell that "Legal Aid" has an obligation to accept a Initially the cost of an applicant for legal aid because theoretically we are talking here about aid even though in reality it regularly obstruction of justice that brings the government service to the poorest of our society in a cool taxpayers.

And I speak knowingly. Believe me. My experience with me almost incredible Gaetan Bourassa, director of the "Legal Aid of Montreal, and asked me to take my code of civil procedure to drain because there was no point in his opinion, is the best evidence.

Second call, the lady at the end of the line that I could identify accepts Finally the call charges and put me in touch with the secretary of Mrs. Roux, a lady named Claude. We are made in the late morning.

I thought that the Legal Aid Board in Repentigny had convened early in the morning knowing full well that my subpoenas absolutely had to be transported by a bailiff in the afternoon so they can be delivered time and I finally told myself I was dealing with people of good faith who argue the law as it should in any way to do considering that taxpayers, once again, pay them exactly why.

Moreover, I had to wait Rouillier provide me the name of the witness secret member of the OIQ which he did revealed the names during the conference of 3 April 2009 in respect of judicial principles, however, long-established as to the obligations of the prosecutor. By inference, therefore, everything that bringing in stupid Rouillier therefore had received the prior approval of the "judge" Mongeau behind the scenes that shows me to have learned nothing from his experience of the first trial that he chaired in December 2005 I taking again to a "Tarla" and the shame he has withdrawn himself complacently believing or believing certain other persons important with big checkbooks or brown envelopes passed quietly in his gallery.

For how a judge could act as pocket or unsightly to the judiciary and try to make me believe that he will accept nothing in return that? Let

-so, I'm not a bag with handles in the back, me!

Rouillier not ultimately never provided me this name so I can prepare myself properly as yet he had ordered the Justice Mongeau (one time a judge so that no one begins to seriously doubt his integrity has not choice) to do so.

Therefore, Rouillier was therefore in contempt of the order of verbal Mongeau and acting like I did or at the last minute, I acted really good prince anyway because maybe that his surprise witness in question was the engineer Pierre Sicotte is the one who initiated this circus just not taking his hole in July 2003 when I asked the trustee Louis Tremblay of the OIQ to initiate an investigation into his practice to say the least questionable. Thus, I avoided even in this way a further humiliation to Sicotte and obviating be delivered to him two subpoenas: one by the Crown and another for myself is to tell the accused ? So

and return to our "caregivers" of the "Legal Aid", Madame Claude de Joliette I finally hung up the line at nose when I told her that I could possibly acknowledge it as Roux, her boss, obstruction of justice if she continued to make me believe that she was able to do anything for me even though I reminded him that the Regional Office of Joliette had lawyers criminal lawyers to their jobs, if this is just a name with such a title at the bottom of the document that was missing to complete my application, however legitimate mailing 9 subpoenas or summons. Penalty
lost, I had only one solution is to split the cost of service of these subpoenas famous for taxpayers is to try to find me a lawyer criminal lawyer willing to simply affix his signature at the bottom of 9 subpoenas.

So I evaluated the work of filling the subpoena could easily be done by a legal secretary and even the receptionist of any law firm so this was a simple act that Mr. Paquet could qualify again intra-jurisdictional because so ridiculously beyond the control the award of the Disciplinary Board and as all have refused me the service very simple yet asked.

And I needed to evaluated a lawyer-criminologist to affix his signature to 9 5 seconds per signature for a grand total of 45 seconds of his precious time.

Here are the answers to $ 0.50 each I have received passing through the list of names 12 that Ms. Harvey had provided for me to believe and to fill the legal aid mandate that I have yet signed:

Claude Ducharme (no answer or answering machine)
Me Norman Savoie (in training by the Law Society because it is the annual conference of the Society it seems)
Me Danielle Bedard (his office is closed I- she learned)
Alain Séguin (voicemail, no secretary to serve its customers seems to be: very important to her clientele for the shadowy Mr. Seguin)
Claude Bergeron (can not too busy, I learned there: the lawyer, who had another good time also disappointed by his total lack of integrity, must do a lot of money because when even time of 40 seconds in a day is indeed one is too strong even busy)
& Ratelle Ratelle ; the largest law firm in Repentigny unless I believe (without exception, went on training by the Society, will tell me the still nice receptionist) was formed in large Ratelle Ratelle &! And to the point of disrespect towards customers we serve probably fine. But they learn so that these courses Bar? The art of "jerk" the honest citizen?
Jean-Philippe Simard (a young lawyer who promised yet because it made me appreciate one day service but also in a "follower" has decided to get trained by the Law Society? !)
Christine Goyette Me (... and his colleague who also attended ... she asked me almost one day to sell my sofa to be able to pay inflated fees ... and then I ' were already at that time without the sub)
Michel Carignan (one day ... who has tried to break into politics ... municipal, provincial, federal ... anything as long as it eventually it pays dividends in personal damn it ... because this Carignan me one day I flew plumb making me his secretary sign an insidious white discharge and subsequently being excused by a union member of the Society became a judge later ... which does not even wanted to look on my recommendation, his account fidei-commis )

For this Michel Carignan was there at his office in the Rue Notre-Dame Repentigny when I also joined the cost of $ 0.50 and said through his paralegal seems like in his job, he had not no time to devote 45 seconds that take the act of affixing his claw at the bottom of 9 subpoenas and has probably chuckled to turn pleasure to refuse service court asked the benefit of his own favorite villains when he had supposedly seen in my interests, so he said, when the trustee Louis Tremblay of OIQ came to me meet at my office in the rue Cherrier Repentigny in August 2003 with the Taking my complaint. A nice hypocrite dangerous than Carignan that has the air of nothing: so much so that we do not even wary of him.

Too late, however: one might as well try again and I return the favor since I did not persist in my complaint to his place.

All these beautiful people can do to please the Order of Engineers and Mr. Zaki Ghavitian so to hide their embezzlement collusive but then very very shameful for going straight in the direction quite contrary to their real mission: that is to protect the public! Therefore

and all these lawyers and paralegals who have been the order of the Society not to give my response to my request to produce 4 " subpoenas" and my 5 " Subpoenas duces tecum "to carry me enormous damage during my trial that begins Monday, April 27 is next, in denying me this way and diverted mean, my right to call witnesses of my choice to exercise my full and complete defense, I told them

not you ashamed to practice law in this way and think that customers will rush to your door!

backups require immunities, we must believe, when large caps are good to take the silver pants down ... and do not want to suddenly appear after falsely accusing a plaintiff of inquiry in good faith, moreover that the review committee of the OIQ was vindicated January 28, 2004?

Thus OIQ arranges with their many lawyers paid $ 250.00 / hr to jail or even petty, in Psychiatric Institute, applicants who have been investigated because have called for investigations to do? ? ? ?

It makes no sense: it's downright antisocial, for lawyers working to protect such a big mistake on the part of a professional is said prestigious and more! ?

And only if there were none of those who have the courage or the duty to complain when they perceive wisely, true professionals they are, or that the interests of public protection could be jeopardized their professional or the professional system would have more right to exist ...

I learned a lot from this painful experience we want to continue would be to make me suffer wrong for me instead of wrong. Although I know more now what the word "order" means in " order professional! ?

I only look forward now to see the shame on their faces ...

"On the other hand, we know from the Nuremberg trials as the reason to obey the orders were not an acceptable justification for those who have soiled their hands by engaging to war crimes " Hermil Lebel
Who benefits?

I therefore rightly OIQ what made me suffer as a war crime against the human being and the good faith of honest invidus wishing only that the Public be truly protected.

Certainly OIQ well as all lawyers and judges and the media who "works" to keep secret this parody of justice without a name, must ultimately take responsibility as required and pay Note very high resulting in compliance with Article 49 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it does happen again by a professional corporation or other entity whose mission is protect the public interest.

Ps: In addendum to what do you learn to just training you Bar receive if a person like me supposed to still unfit, according to Mr. David Bouchard, Trois-Rivieres, scolds you all as much as you are on a question of law ... and then sign for the dish, on a legal act as simple that produce subpoenas?

Casually the "Legal Aid Repentigny" which is supposed to help its poorest argue that even if all live in Repentigny and everyone is happy in his delight of Mayor Chantal Deschamps who in return by cons, does not want to hear about the misfortunes of others in his own little world where everyone is nice and serves it well, to me be made unnecessarily spend a little more 1% of my income monthly telephone calls only instead of going the prepaid service by taxpayers through my signature.

A world of 'crossers "that's all! a world that I can throw up without having nausea as an individual who considers himself intellectually honest ...

6 years in prison for the lawyer Louis Pasquin

continued ... and please go immediately empty your bag brown ...

What Sizes Do Sailboats Come In

Bouchard, and Bouvette Rouillier: 3 prosecutors charged with public mischief and obstruction of justice.

Rouillier - News

This serious charge of obstruction of justice is brought jointly against Mr. Jacques Rouillier Montreal and involve Mr. David Bouchard and Jean-Francois Bouvette Trois-Rivieres. All three attorneys general of the time, Jacques P. Dupuis.

is by inference to be deduced that the latter assumed that in addition to these known functions, those of Minister of "insecurity" when the public prosecution has been initiated following an illegal arrest ordered by him to the director of the SPVM which then ordered the S / D Serge Messier SPVM to its execution order. A criminal charge

joint obstruction of justice (Article 139 (2) CC) brought to the location of three prosecutors mentioned above, should eventually be submitted for processing by a Provincial Court other than the Court of Québec.

This accusation is irrefutable fact justified by some other prosecutor or judge that they were literally themselves pilloried in place of the OIQ and Council Press in their malicious prosecution, senseless and redundant enterprises, it seems, for their benefit.

In a case involving tortuous and lapidary Ghavitian Zaki, president of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, the prosecutor Jacques Rouillier adopted an attitude confirming thinly veiled desire to continue Daniel Bedard arbitrary or unfair to the Institution justice and fairness of the law.

Closing outrageously eye vis-à-vis such an attitude moribund yet for their own image and ethics, several judges of the Court of Quebec have followed since my arrest without warrant and without cause on 19 November 2007 to probably make this issue a parody with no name. A play which certainly does happen, however, the legal history as a masterpiece in the art of administering said "pillar" of an institution. An institution

sensible adopt strict rules to lead by example regarding compliance with laws. Rules of ethics have also been severely violated by judges who have lost control in all likelihood, the preservation of the image of the institution. Leaving them strangely be spread by the accused deeply disturbed to see the judge and assign its responsibilities in the hands of prosecutors and those of the defense. Which play complacently then to constantly questioning the judgments already rendered by these judges to defer to voluntary and termination procedures. And all this, ignominiously traded immeasurable harm to the accused but to their own benefit indecent common.

Remember, a guest of the Law Society of Quebec during October 2, 2008, former Minister of Justice, Gil Remillard, called this institution "pillar" to emphasize the 20-year history of the Court of Quebec since its birth in 1988.

Several serious mistakes in pursuit confirm the original intent of dishonest Me Rouillier hinder the normal course of justice.

principal noted that the status of 'unfitness to appear "continued to be supported so petty unfairly by the prosecutor despite first good decision: either that of Justice Louise Villemure of the Court of Quebec , one month after my arrest, acknowledged my aptitude November 18, 2007 and dismissed with the back of the hand, the psychiatric report prepared by Dr. John Wolwertz Pinel Institute and did the same with respect to his testimony at the Court. By

same legal principles, the trial would be held within a reasonable time following the decision of the judge Villemure.

Without even appeal the decision of the judge Villemure, Me Rouillier clearly supported in its disgraceful maneuver by Mr. David Bouchard Trois-Rivieres, sank into a parallel proceeding is not justified by any tangible evidence whatsoever and trampling turn section 672.23 (2) of the Criminal Code.

The relevance of my private criminal prosecution against 3 Crown Prosecutors is also a justified reaction J. Vezina Court of Appeal in Quebec, which was deeply shocked by the behavior of Mr. Jean-François Bouvet, who came to replace Mr. David Bouchard, who was lying to him blatantly in the face.

Indeed, he told the panel formed Chamberland, and Giroux, that the judge had recognized Villemure "unfit" in Montreal when it was false.
J. Vezina then reminded him that the accused had reason to be worried by such disorderly conduct further comprising probably the memory of Mr. Bouvette as well as hacks confirmed that the issue of fitness to appear on the contrary had already been settled December 18, 2008.

11 months of detention called "preventive" and proved to have been justified even after the trial judge's Villemure given along with the fact that under the rules established sentencing, this time "preventive" double counting.

Judgement of the Court of Appeal of 27 October 2008 also points out that a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment is foreseen in the Criminal Code when elected as prosecutor David Bouchard has done Three Rivers to continue by way of summary. So what
major procedural defect in the prosecution confirmed already caused me 20 months of detention totally unjustified. Which necessarily result in exemplary damages compliance with Article 49 of the Charter because there was so manifest, for dishonest and misleading about the part of Mr. Bouvette with intent to deceive 3 judges of the highest court in Quebec for end to increase the damage to my place and the costs incurred for travel Mtl-Trois-Rivieres in knowing me obviously unemployed and without means.

This could even lead to a stay of proceedings on the charge of harassment still curiously kept unsightly redundant in Trois-Rivieres as President of the Press Council, Mr Raymond Corriveau would likely have filed the criminal complaint in the same period as the end of support from Mr. Zaki Ghavitian.

recall that Dr. Pierre Mailloux, a psychiatrist has developed an expertise-cons to the effect that I was obviously a capable person to appear and not suffering from any mental illness whatsoever and was here in that 10 and 11 November 2008 before Judge Jean-Pierre Boyer and then on December 10 before the Review Board.

Notwithstanding the ruling in favor of the Boyer report Mailloux and the decision of the Commission to review same certification, Mr. David Bouchard probably supported in this direction by the Attorney General, was obstinate in maintaining conditions of release by which I had to respect my appointment with my doctor in charge, Dr. Mailloux and follow its recommendations.

Logically, Dr. Mailloux has been differently interpreted the deep desire of the Crown to treat me like that with respect to benefits negative psycho-social of the judicial harassment of which I was received since 1 April 2005 or the date of my first arrest and illegal abuse.

Accordingly, Dr. Mailloux has filed a form 10 March 2009 in order to require the " Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity , the retroactive payment of enhanced benefits from the observation of hard Judicial making me unable to hold any employment psychological whatsoever since that date as well as for the next twelve months because of aggressive and confirmed by prosecutors themselves.

The Department has responded to the rebate but not the retroactive payment and this has resulted in more than a legitimate challenge in these circumstances. For how that ministry shows me there be social solidarity among its victims carefully chosen and on which the government is going when necessary ...

continued ...

Car Engine Parts,label The Diagram

The turpitude of the Disciplinary Board of the Bar of Quebec signed Pâquet Oberman, St. Aubin, lawyers

The turpitude of the Bar Council in its decision of February 27, 2009 will be easily destroyed by the Professions Tribunal under the mere rule of art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See also: turpitude - Wiktionary Switch - News and Victims of their turpitude

In clause (10) of its decision, it is said that the Council considers it useful to reproduce below verbatim these two requests of the complainant.

In his " Motion to dismiss the motion for summary dismissal of a complaint filed by private respondent " the complainant (Daniel Bedard) announced in paragraph 10 that Mr. Norman Sabourin was made aware of a major departure from the criminal code by Justice Bourque is in art. 672.26b.

Because enforce the law is contrary to the denial a major departure, the Council could not afford not to understand that this issue was indeed the main issue . Jur 2515 Constitutional law - Evaluation - Methodology Moreover, he can not claim not to have been seized by the private complainant because it reproduces in full the request of the latter on page 8-9 and 10 of its decision.

Where the Disciplinary Board or other decision-making body finds it useful to reproduce a document in which, moreover, the issue is clearly defined, it may not necessarily obviate voluntarily thereafter in its decision written, which nullifies even the relevance of paragraphs 11 through 35 that followed.

The appellant (Daniel Bedard) is also supported in its claims by the provisions laid down in Art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure which states:
" A party shall respond to a pleading shall admit the allegations she knows to be true ..." By inference
trying to obviate the main issue, the Council has effectively shown and failing to comply with Article 85 cpc by denying claims he knows to be true:

Moreover, the refusal of admission has been supplemented even when the Council urged the impropriety to refuse to correct paragraph 72 of its decision reads:
" The complainant asks the Council to hearing record (Exhibits R-(i) -3 and R-(i) -4) and repeat it would be normal that the recording is inaudible in particular regarding the jury's verdict "

But it is clear here that even if the complainant (Daniel Bedard) had not even talked about that all, except, it seems, a Disciplinary Board to justify its existence yet to discipline their members agree it is quite normal that a record can be heard otherwise what the hell could use such a recording.

What is also not very strong by the Disciplinary Council of the Bar of not having acted on the request of the complainant, however legitimate (Daniel Bedard) is not having taken action to correct immediately since Since then, he travels around the world through the Internet that the Quebec Bar is normal that a verdict is inaudible. Which, since that time, also discredits a way to say the least intrusive on the national stage and internationally.

Admit like me dear readers, is not to restore confidence in the public mind for this party professional clearly evasive in tortuous trip to the prestige of its members in hybrid adrift collusive concern.

Given the fact that I judge, cons, the Professions Tribunal will want to turn from a "Baloune" as the Council was simply to clean up the mess of other judges , lawyers and prosecutors to be, either, discredited on national and international, on something as obvious as this, the Tribunal So will the wise decision of the appeal of the decision of the Disciplinary Board on May 4. And, in order not to repeat redundant and unsightly way the "error" of the Court of Appeal in its decision of 31 October 2008. He

meaning, which can be good for the ego of Provost, it may happen that a lower court is more competent than its highest court.

Because I would have in hand the decision of the Professions Tribunal on 4 May and the recognition of this exemption can not otherwise be granted to me under 85 cpc, I would ask to postpone my trial after that date in order to counter criminal history that the Crown might be tempted to teach me once again falsely to discredit me in the eyes of the jury.

Other disturbing facts in the decision of Council

Furthermore, in paragraph 27 of its decision and with strange title:

"PROOF"

It is reported on Exhibits R (i) -1, R (i) -2, R (i) -3 R (i) -4 for two letters of the respondent to the complainant as well as two mechanical recordings Hearings of June 21, 2006 (J. Bourque) and February 19, 2008 (Charbonneau J.) and paragraph 28 production by the complainant (Daniel Bedard) documents R (p) -1 and R (p) -2 for two complainant's letters sent to the respondent.

However, in paragraphs 29-135 of his decision to come, there is none, I repeat, no reference to these documents, the Council does not even making any finding that he had examined the mechanical recordings of hearings from June 21 2006 (J. Bourque) and February 19, 2008 (Charbonneau J.). Yet it was his ultimate responsibility as they support the issue litigation, which was, not provided by the complainant (Daniel Bédard) but also by the respondent (Norman Sabourin, via his attorney)! ! ! Here

this main issue:

"Two judges of the superior court had abnormal behavior and Mr. Sabourin has not investigated these abnormal behaviors"

The inadequacy of the complaint

How can the board about the lack of complaint when it does not even mention having examined the evidence? Which rejects the paragraphs 115 to 128.

Failure to disclose evidence

What purpose would it serve the Council that the complainant discloses a proof that he not only consider anyway? Furthermore, how can he speak of the failure to disclose evidence when he reported on Exhibits R (p) -1, R (p) -2 or the production of two letters from the complainant to the respondent that he does not refer in any way then in his decision. Which rejects the paragraphs 129 to 135.

The jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board

How can the Council use the lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board to hear this complaint if in paragraph (100) recalls that the respondent is a practicing lawyer, member of the Bar of Quebec and as such his conduct is under consideration by the Disciplinary Board.

That is not me saying it but the Council itself.

The Council then stuck in a less twisted explanation for the fact that some of its members beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the Council when performing duties he calls legal.

But the Oxford Dictionary tells me that judicial review is by definition on a court. And
court is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as well:

"Being able to judge, to administer justice; extent of the territory where such authority"

But what I asked Norman Sabourin is to investigate Behaviour of two judges of the superior court and at least give me the reasons why he decided not to undertake an investigation. The evidence shows that this act was not done immeasurable harm to the applicant's survey.

Mr. Sabourin has not intentionally done an act which is specifically assigned speaks Canadian Council the judiciary to think he protect the public interest. However, at the same Norman Sabourin, I do not ask him to do justice, a function that specifically attributes to himself, among others, the judges comprising the Canadian Judicial Council.

Moreover, if and as part of its functions the Council claims that the respondent takes actions such as "intra-legal" should seriously consider abolishing the position of Mr. Sabourin is just a lawyer and now assigned to a judge.

Thus a sum of nearly half a million dollars could be saved because these judges of this Council already paid by the government to exercise their judicial functions.

As if that were not enough a last argument will show how dishonest the Council's intention to dismiss my complaint for reasons to say the least strange or frivolous.

Indeed, the Council's argument is so twisted, that in the event that the Court feels the same way as him, this decision could threaten the very survival of the professional by perhaps narcissistic pleasure in deviant and Minister of something to which he seems to be alone to think with PM's preferred to let go of him and all happy, Jacques P. Dupuis (click: Other incompetence demonstrated by the former minister "responsible" for the law enforcement professional, Mr. Jacques P. Dupuis to understand) but perhaps not nearly 10.000 lawyers or more which revolve around the professional bodies and their members.

Just think that the office of Mr. Sabourin is precisely to investigate. However, if his decision not to investigate is a judicial act for a lawyer, as contended by the Council, the thousands of lawyers who advise professional trustees called to inquire about their members could remind them that to decide not to investigate is a judicial act and that such conduct could be subject to any control whatsoever on the part of that whatsoever. Thus

trustees of professional supported by case law that could lead to a decision at this point that would be twisted and try to let the court by the judge Bourque indulgence and the new judge Leduc? ? could possibly be paid to do nothing if they wish so.

Ironically, applicants survey in good faith who still believe in the professional system and public protection would be rebuffed by the trustees who would simply decide not to investigate without having the obligation to allege any grounds whatsoever for their Refusal to investigate.

And most importantly, a psychiatrist whose function is to prepare psychiatric reports would just say he does not respond to the request of the Court, for example, to demand from him what the psychiatric report and doing what would psychiatrist and an act of nature "intra-legal" an act of judicial nature which thus escape the monetary jurisdiction the Disciplinary Board of the College of Physicians.

As an engineer that could mandate to verify and approve plans, he would in turn refuse to check and approve plans for escape and the monetary jurisdiction of the Council discipline of the Order of Engineers of Quebec? ? It reminds you of something?

Want more examples ...

No, I think I will abstain because smart people and well established and not necessarily from the field of law, will have them included. How

In this context, their own arguments and those he seems much more objective and relevant as I have next to escape the membership of the Council?

The Tribunal will not have a very difficult decision to take ... but where are adding this: Our brave

Quebec lawyers practicing collective ostracism they ... ?

And they feed on just to save the career of a single judge ... and make exalts another who has just been appointed, shame absorbed in his subconscious for a long time, the minister said Justice Kathleen Weil, herself a lawyer by profession yet ...

solidarity of those who claim here in Quebec, practicing law should not go through the stupidity, I think.

For it must be really happy fool fool even triple Can we be a happy fool? - Fixed to an occupation that would unconsciously we to believe, she died.

Thus our three brave fellows who, in addition to good thinking by encouraging sprawl by another barrister (Me Michel Jolin Langlois, Kronstrom, Desjardins) and counsel for the respondent, their previous disciplinary decisions as a jurisprudence and to help to help to ensure that their decisions are strongly desired in fact even worse.

Imagine the magnitude of the absurd incongruity pulling allowed!

The art of "jerk" the honest citizen.

I believe, all things considered, it is called self-destruction.

Thus, Mr. Norman Sabourin, paid $ 217,000 a year by taxpayers and that after he refused to carry the load that the public expects him to the Canadian Judicial Council, certainly seemed nervous (I can understand), but could not be more proud, it seems, not to say a word to the hearing on 5 January.

Fier therefore be represented by a barrister, who by his rearguard representations prepared by Jacques P. Dupuis himself because I know my inferences drawn by the judge now Bourque. Since

Were not these strange performances and equally bizarre that they are appreciated by our 3 lads and set moral and intellectual bankruptcy in order to maintain their schedules.

valuable time lost and cons but paid by the Office des professions who receives $ 15 million budget of 325.000 professionals belonging to orders professionals and starting cheated because most pay this voluntary quota driven out of their annual dues because they still believe in the integrity of Quebec's professional system. For a good part of this global contribution allocated to the Office des professions is paid by the members of the Bar. So why not finally take advantage of this system all wrong and "crosser" even our own colleagues in the legal profession say they are all in the heart? At this point disillusioned by the system, the right to "jerk" by oneself is accepted and is even legitimate, should we believe in lawyers.

Fier, therefore, that Mr. Jolin and operates from ostracism to himself and to the legal profession. How far should we stoop to take a job at the Canadian Judicial Council? The price to be believed.

Not very strong.

But basically I suspect that these men, these are all very smart lawyers (except of course that everyone has already Dupuis scored as a triple fool happy life) and some of them very bright and I include Mr. Gaetan Bourassa among those, anyway, and the fact that he did not assert the right to my place, which caused me 32 months in prison for nothing.

But unfortunately this is what may happen in consultation annoying when trying to protect the immunity of a judge too severely compromised.

Langlois Kronstrom, Desjardins? The Quebec Bar?

Let go and go and redo your classes please release it!

I remind you that this is simply and humbly believe that someone unfit for convenience that you say in all objectivity and deep desire to regain his dignity that he was shamefully stolen with help to make many of your peers not yet "disciplined" by the Council? ? ? ...

The art of killing a professional system and the legal profession by Paquet, Oberman, St. Aubin, lawyers ...

2004 Honda Pilot Front License Plate

When state totalitarianism has tentacles! ?

The Attorney General and Minister of Justice said Quebec Kathleen Weil spirit is to demonstrate to everyone that a totalitarian state is indeed surreptitiously installed by the Liberal party to power under the leadership of Prime Minister, John, carp, Charest. Totalitarianism - Wikipedia

By naming last week, among others, Louise Leduc to the position of judge of the Court of Québec, Criminal and Criminal Longueuil, Ms. Weil ensure that its own integrity and ethics are strongly questioned by a population increasingly warned of the maladministration of justice in Quebec and certainly wish that it to be accountable as it continues by meanness in all likelihood, not wanting to do to Daniel Bedard.

Indeed, how can it be first to the throne coveted judge, a "friend" Crown counsel who is always curious subject of a disciplinary process which is currently unfinished before the review committee of the Bar Quebec after a complaint addressed to his place has only been investigated for the least sloppy assistant syndic Despatis Pierre Barreau du Quebec.

Recall that the main issue left voluntarily in disarray, to my immeasurable damage has still not been resolved. This issue is one of the exemption than probative art. 672.26b Criminal Code by Judge Sophie Bourque and obligingly performed in conjunction with the Prosecutor Louise Leduc and Josée Grandchamp which are all based together in the collusive carelessness. Thereby ensuring hinder the normal course of justice by me recognizing "guilty" and then "unfit to stand my trial" so that a jury of 11 people actually paid me (it could be otherwise) June 21, 2006.

The jury had to be recalled according to the provisions under this article 672.26b Criminal Code to decide the issue of fact as to such inability arises. Rather the fact that the jury was not reminded me finally confirmed in my legitimate right to demand that judicial review.

Curiously, Justice Sophie Bourque, who has yet taught law at the School of the Society for several years could not not familiar with the provisions of section 672.26b and Chamberland, and Giroux of the Court of Appeal could not let alone catch this "error of law." Especially, as authorized in this recall rather embarrassing by three judges of the highest court in Quebec them was done on October 27 by a person (Daniel Bedard) who appeared without counsel notwithstanding the fact that the alleged not psychologically able to distinguish or understand the purpose of a procedure puisqu'inapte by lower courts as well as by the review board of mental disorders. Commission maintained at a stroke several million by Charest and that only serves to pay salaries of other lawyer at his other "friends" around them and more psychologists and psychiatrists paid to do nothing except when they need to fill orders this secret Charest same. A household to do with it surely!

In these circumstances, you understand that visibly bothered to turn my trick question by giving effect to laxity of the Court of Appeal on this same issue and this time addressed to Judge Richard Mongeau, J. Bourque colleague in the superior court and tipped to be the one to preside over my trial by judge and jury which is expected early for April 21 next to the courthouse in Montreal, he could not do better than refer me to a lawyer when I asked him the question:

"The failure to appear, Judge Is it a question of fact or a question of law? "

Those who have even basic knowledge of law will recognize immediately that a judge has a moral obligation to respond accurately to a question law specifically from the defendant and even the complaining party and my question was exactly one.

Furthermore, the Minister Weil is not the end of his troubles because it is obliged to dismiss his chief judge, the "honorable" Robert JJMichel of the Court of Appeal following the irrevocable evidence of numerous fraud brought to its attention and committed by the last in judicial processes unfinished appeal decisions taken in obscure court cases that teach me my strength.

recall that Judge Sophie Bourque has again made a controversial decision last January 12 and relax five members of street gang and alleged murderers of the young Raymond Ellis. Young is said without history and that was himself a member of any gang whatsoever.

But it is rather embarrassing for a Court of Appeal allocates as much time to take up a controversial decision at this point as well here is a murder and can not be fooling around with it so long for anything, especially when we know very well that the call is easy to grant right. Obviously sensitive to the fact that Justice Bourque has missed altogether tact and Judgement by releasing the five alleged killers without even letting the jury decide their fate on a question of fact. While the question of law, otherwise poorly framed in his trial for the less confused, remains nebulous for many, precisely for this reason. While

the victim's parents, Raphael and Joyce Ellis implored God to thank him for having made it clear to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Louis Dionne, a close associate of Premier Charest, he almost asked the Appeal Decision J. Bourque, " disciple of Satan " what became visibly Justice JJ Michel Robert takes all his time attending to other occupations, are those of scheming with his "friends" shysters all of his ilk kinds of judgments to be made in advance for a fee secret. Or that of proceeding to lease its premises to its Edifice Ernest Cormier's 100 Rue Notre-Dame in other "Friends" seems to justify its large and occupation and salary of $ 330.000 per year paid by the state and taxpayers thus doubly cheated. This

vraisemblalement to overlook or forget oneself in his wrongdoing, as our national JJ seems he very much appreciated by our PM, carp, Charest because they are more "crossers" these judges, MPs, ministers or other "friends", the more they are appreciated, it seems, by Charest, the dictator in the image of the other, therefore, the Court of Appeal and finally to his own.

Click the next link for a great article developer which explains all the methods of judicial malfeasance of our Chief Justice. What an informed and concerned public should not tolerate under any circumstances since Chief Justice (of Quebec as well) should lead by example. For if it is crooked, the other judges under him will be brought to do the same; orders to that effect may even come from him. This is extremely worrying for the mental health of our judicial system: Much more than just worrying finally deal with the complacency of mine to go on and do not deal with the real problem. My sanity aside, and as confirmed in his Doc Mailloux cons-expertise of objectivity, is thriving despite the magnitude of the mismanagement that has brought me and that impunity continues to carry me. Also, for all reasons:
Can we now trust our highest court in Quebec in the "Ellis case"? Male disrespectful of human beings in general but especially separatists, is curiously not the first time that the resignation of Chief Justice is sought because the Bloc Québécois officially claimed the resignation of Justice ... Thus we must admit that our Chief Justice has lived in wealth and luxury in a time borrowed from the taxpayers for whom it spits back and thank them.

Furthermore, Mr. Chief Justice CDACI Quebec - Centre for Business Law and International Trade engaged in more workshops in his "Ernest Cormier building" of Notre Dame. Magnificent building it must be profitable since our "precious" Chief Justice decided to hear no more calls from litigants in other cases or hearings afford with himself to recreate a semblance of justice .

Long live democracy and the right to judicial affairs may be suspicious! ?

Daniel Bedard

How Many Calories Are In Meringue Cookies

practiced psychiatry at the Institut Philippe Pinel Monstrosities myths authorized or sour?

To put in context: http://www.garscontent.com/2009/Quart% 202/04-Avril/16/Pinel.wmv and then:

Judge for yourself: The first 3 extracts are those of "expertise" ordered by the Court at the Institut Philippe Pinel, and more precisely controlled to Dr. Jacques Talbot.

"I have come to the firm opinion that the criteria on the issue of fitness to appear majority, if not totally at fault, because of the existence in this patient of morbid psychiatric problems the order or paranoid personality disorder or paranoia order characterized "
forensic opinion of Dr. Jacques Talbot, psychiatrist Philippe Pinel Institute of Montreal Report
August 8, 2006 (after my acquittal by a jury of 11 people June 21, 2006)

"It now provides an array of clinical psychotic, paranoid or grandiose, while judicial proceedings are essentially included in this delusional system. Most, if not all the criteria on the issue of fitness to appear are at fault "
Opinion forensic Dr. Jacques Talbot
Report November 22, 2007

" I conclude that Mr. has a psychotic disorder of a register. The diagnosis was that of paranoid delusional disorder or paranoid. The disorder involves a disruption in the testing of reality and disorders major trial. This condition makes it unfit to appear on Mr. thereby depriving their right to be tried. The natural history of this disease without treatment is likely to persist and increase in severity. "
Opinion diagnosis of Dr. Jacques Talbot
of March 18, 2008 who served Richard J. Poudrier, JCQ Trois-Rivières to endorse so mean and brutal and cold blooded, the March 20, 2008, an order of Proposed treatment until February 2010 without it being substantiated in any way in respect of the provisions of Article 672.23 (2) the Criminal Code. In

disturbing paradox and after psychiatrist Pierre Mailloux has agreed to my ability to appear in his psychiatric report dated 14 October 2008 and have testified in my favor, 10 and 11 November 2008 before Judge Jean-Pierre Boyer and reoffend December 10, 2008 before the Review Board of Mental Disorders, J. Matte wanting to be mean-spirited to me and insult the intelligence of Dr. Pierre Mailloux much as mine, I probably without plan ahead this time, instead rendering service sent me an additional 7 days to Pinel ordering another psychiatric evaluation February 10, 2009 during my first appearance before the judge.

because the expertise of Dr. Kim Bedard-Charette, also a psychiatrist at the Pinel Institute, and produced following the order of Judge Rolande Matte (Matte Case ) Which was so petty and without justified reason, decided that the "inability I always hung nose " concludes, on the contrary, in my ability to appear. It rubs, moreover, the same evaluation unit H-3, his colleague Dr. Jacques Talbot, with whom she shares the task of " orders made by the Court's requests for psychiatric evaluations of subjects "

Amazingly, without even trying to support the expertise of his colleagues spent the psychiatrist" clashes "surely to the chagrin of 3 of his colleagues and put on the spot by itself by stating in his expert prepared, like the one Dr. Mailloux, with a great desire for objectivity is adjourning for the first time the true content of my speech without by cons and in turn not mention anything about the derogation in Article 672.26b Criminal Code by J. Bourque. Thus passing, in turn, to dodge the issue:

"It is strange that psychiatry, which wants a science which studies human behavior, can say everything and its opposite, depending on time and the person which assesses. How can it be found ill on one side and in full possession of his abilities on the other. He complains of the College of Physicians, a band of charlatans who would spend more energy to defend its members than the population "

Later she will say:

" Note that on several occasions in the prior record of the subject, he mentioned the existence in him a form of delusional disorder persecutory. Now, sir has given us access to interview any material allowing us to conclude the presence of this disorder in his delirious, if it existed, would certainly be encapsulated. "

But I think the only thing that was encapsulated in my body was the 2-25mg of Seroquel that I took on a voluntary basis every night for my 600 a few days of arbitrary detention at Pinel. And this, to help me sleep and try to accept my situation to say the least strange. In addition, Dr. Pierre Mailloux support in his testimony that a dose as low antipsychotic even taken on a regular basis could not overcome a delirium paranoid on the order of paranoia characterized as described previously Dr. Talbot in its very first "expertise-can" of August 8, 2006.

This proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" for dishonest Pinel mission ordered by the Court itself behind this act of malfeasance in the collusive purpose of making me downright obvious harm sheer pettiness .

Although it has proven different from his colleagues and 80% intellectually honest, the psychiatrist Kim Bedard-Charette guilty by the same alleged misconduct by the Dr. Mailloux Dr. Lyne Beauchemin of the Ste-Thérèse Shawinigan using " we " mentions in his end when I was alone with her during the interview.

Using this "we" inevitably infers that psychiatrists Pinel, no doubt feeling the hot soup from the judicious intervention of Dr. Pierre Mailloux, got together with Dr. Bedard-Charrette and Director of Professional Services, Dr. Jocelyn Aubut to the Pinel Institute can try and restore its image. And despite that he was already too late about the possibility of a civil order of $ 2 million by myself, for obstructing justice and making false expertise to unlawfully deprive a person for 20 months since the end of the taint reputation, honor and dignity of an honest citizen wishing only trying to protect the public as part of her current job.

Furthermore, I also suspect that the act of Judge Rolande Matte was carefully planned and in order to return the favor to the Pinel Institute in exchange for expert-controlled container in the past by Court of Quebec to preserve and immunity from the Justice Sophie Bourque.

As for the ability to appear as such, the psychiatrist Bedard-Charrette show finally understand, as Dr. Mailloux, what his colleagues have never shown by cons want to include within their " expertise "respectively: the criteria are the ability to appear enunciated in Steele v. Queen of the Supreme Court of Canada, and in that sense it affirms:

"He understands the respective roles of judge, jury, and as the prosecutor. It is able to distinguish the arguments available. It would be able to testify, if necessary, although obviously angry, it is likely that gentleman carried away by his remarks, which appear to us far more dependent on the structure of his personality as the existence in him a delusional disorder of a register. Thus, there is no cons-psychiatric indication that Mr. Bedard to appear. "

Finally, the psychiatrist completes its expertise by saying peninsula is normal for a person with a personality and respect for her himself, starts angry after 32 months of unnecessary detention, 20 months in a psychiatric institute.

Bravo Ms. Bédard-Charrette probably do you, the opposite of your colleagues is a trial and a good analytical mind. Perhaps somewhat in jest, is it not related to the fact that there are in your name Bedard compound. As I mentioned, moreover, to Mr. Gaetan Bourassa, the one who claimed to have made my duties during this time. The latter was found also very funny in all the circumstances, laughing, for cons, well the yellow out of a performance, say many ordinary share.