While the mainstream media are missing in coward, a young Quebec singer shows us what lies to say the least nationalized embarrassing to our culture. Click: YouTube - MARIE-MAI - LIE (video) to put you in context.
In a controversial decision of 12 January 2009 which caused much ink in Quebec last week, the judge Sophie Bourque jcs declare the arrest and release procedures on the field, 5 gang members charged with brutally beating to death the young Raymond Ellis, Aria Bar in October 2005.
course, even if they were detained''preventive''for more than 24 months, these individuals were also entitled to the presumption of innocence as well as a fair trial as guaranteed to Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But in a trial by judge and jury, questions of fact which alone is the master jury should they take precedence over questions of law? This on will have to decide what our highest court in Quebec. Since it seems clear that if Mr. Louis Dionne, Director of Public Prosecutions, no not appeal this decision, the new Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Ms. Katleen Weil could act according to Article 676 (1) (c) of the Criminal Code and lodge itself appeal to the Court of Appeal .
In an excerpt from its decision justifying it, the judge stated Bourque:
''Getting a judicial decision on the basis of false representations is likely to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice ''
(Journal de Mtl. edition of January 13 p.3)
A renowned criminal lawyer from Quebec, Jean-Pierre Rancourt, said he agreed with Justice Sophie Bourque. He argues that even ''The Court of Appeal is usually reluctant to change the decision of a trial judge'' (Journal de Mtl. Edition of January 13 p.2).
Just to reassure us and properly inform the public as requested by his colleague and another known criminal lawyer, Robert Hague, Rancourt might have interest in order to explain the existence of an appellate court if Such is the case?
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of Quebec and chief justice of the Court of Appeal,''JJ Michel''Honorable Robert continues to lie to himself, after all, perhaps in order to endorse the statements of Mr. Rancourt and discredit in advance the Court of Appeal rendered as usual. What did he, to say about that possibility that the Court of Appeal never changes the decisions of a trial judge? Was it instead to Judge Robert who was responsible to answer this question? Rancourt and not to interfere in this way in the appeals process?
Also suggests he no advance and a response to Judge Robert displayed openly as he is dangerous?
Supporting documents this section will help you understand what drives Mr. Bedard requested that the trial judge retracted Robert followed a hearing held May 14, 2008. A hearing to which was even invited Mr. Bedard and considering he was still more arbitrarily detained since November 19, 2007.
At ground 2 of his ruling, Judge Robert states:'' Considering that there was no hearing in the Court of Appeals 28 August 2006 as shown on the Court docket appeal to this decision.''
However, the docket of the trial record or the docket file 505-01-056133-057, so that the trial judge and jury that the presiding judge Sophie Bourque, indicates the contrary that there was indeed August 28, 2006 hearing on his motion requesting a replay Bedard of delivery the verdict. But without the presence of Mr. Bédard.
So with proof''beyond a reasonable doubt''in support, there is evidence that Judge Robert ment to himself a second time on page 2 as the trial called Mr. Bedard as if it 's was presented at the hearing''personally.'' Robert was therefore''invented''a meeting with himself because it was never called Mr. Bedard at this meeting. Very beautiful, is not it by the Chief Justice of Quebec? "
J. Robert lied a third time to himself to protect the lie to the judge to have Bourque protect those prosecutors Louise Leduc and Josée Grandchamp about the guilt of Mr. Bedard and prevent it by subterfuge judicial dishonest to rehear the verdict of not guilty was that on the contrary given by the juror No. 1. A juror named Nicole Lebrun.
Judgements "bought" in advance and therefore can not be changed and our chief justice can not but be the supervisor of this whole charade because he has control over all lower court judges underlying. Imagine the example he gives all those other judges who themselves have interest now to be bribed into account that their chief justice could not otherwise have that excuse is bribed?
So it is that all this wealth does not have confidence in the administration of justice when so much hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and lack of integrity are revealed to him?
Paradoxically, in its Judgement of 12 javier 2009 Judge Sophie Bourque said he could not tolerate no reservations under the Crown prosecutor who is lying to him because she says:
"Tricking the party is unacceptable. Our justice system is based on respect and trust that its actors are doing "
(Journal de Mtl. Edition of January 13, 2009, p.3)
Asserting something like a hypocrite he deserves that it retains its position as judge of the superior court? And Chief Justice Robert he deserves to keep his own after all this?
Can we now responsible citizens and taxpayers, require the Federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Rob Nicholson, the urgent removal This judge obviously corrupt, but also that of Chief Justice Robert, who approves and signs this demonstration of a barbaric justice in full control?
To convince you, dear Internet that the Court of Appeal (Justice Michel Robert) makes the public increasingly spreading its own fraud in the case of Mr. Bedard click:
Judgement
Further explanation will follow shortly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment