Daniel Bedard, political prisoner, jailed without warrant
Arbitrarily , Mr. Bédard has again was arrested at his home in Repentigny without a warrant, on the evening of Monday, November 19, 2007.
Daniel Bedard, author of the blog " judicial persecution", is a technologist architecture of the building that has already spent 18 months in 2005-2007 under the shadow of false reasons as we learn by browsing its space.
When the police threatened to smash his door, I was in telephone conversation with him. The police say while Daniel had issued "Death threats" against the president of the Order of Engineers of Quebec, Mr. Zaki Ghavitian. The similarities with the case Camille are disturbing ... Warrantless arrest, arbitrary detention, violations of human rights known, plus the failure to disclose here. Everything but the appearance of justice .
Daniel is being held illegally since then. His situation has nothing to envy to the Guantanamo prisoners in terms of deprivation in a totally arbitrary and illegal fundamental rights, except that it is possible, though difficult, to communicate with the outside.
To add insult to injury, the crown refused to disclose the "evidence" that she would have accumulated against him, going against the disclosure obligation imposed by the most since 1991 high court, Stinchcombe . To further conceal the maneuver, the crown is bent on questioning his fitness to appear.
The situation turns farcical. Would it be deprived of his liberty for having dared to reveal to the public with tangible evidence of judicial corruption, involving including J. Sophie Bourque and his sidekick longstanding Josée Grandchamp? The last time a reign of terror was sending dissidents to mental institutions, Stalin was in charge.
The verdict, the most critical time of the trial not be heard! According to expert opinion, the original recording was edited.
Subsequently, Justice Bourque fails to repeat the verdict before releasing the jury, thus violating the legal obligation imposed by the laws of justice.
See Head Case, R. c., [1986] SCR 684 about this
Excerpts:
After deliberating, the jury returned to the courtroom and said he had arrived a verdict, the jury foreman announced that they had found no - guilt. I think it is worth reproducing the relevant parts of the part of the record dealing with what has spent in the courtroom.
[sic]
PRESIDENT OF THE JURY: Yes.
CLERK OF THE COURT: What is your verdict, the accused is - he guilty or not guilty?
PRESIDENT OF THE JURY: The accused is not guilty.
CLERK OF THE COURT: hear your verdict as recorded by the Court, you declare the accused not guilty .
PRESIDENT OF THE JURY: Yes.
CLERK OF THE COURT: And that's your opinion unanimous?
JURORS: Yes.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I thank you for all the attention you gave to this case and the care you took to arrive at your decision ... You are free to leave, but you must return Monday, Oct. 17 at 10 am Thank you again. You can if you want, stay in the courtroom, but please leave the jury box.
here have confirmed that an act of maladministration, serious and intentional breach of an official duty of his office, has meticulously planned and coldly executed.
The public must be alerted about these practices worthy of the darkest dictatorships.
Otherwise, there will be no one to protest when the hounds are present on your doorstep.
