Please note that Mr. Bedard is forced, in respect of a right which is guaranteed by Article 4 of the Charter or in respect of its dignity, honor, and reputation, in issuing this open letter.
Considering that the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, Michel Robert, systematically blocking all calls to Mr. Bedard since August 2005. Either from the Case Rayle he denounced Responsibly: A judge of the Court of Appeal has retired from the commission of his act of negligence which initiated the voluntary unlawful at the location of Mr. Bédard. And, despite the Home partial Quebec's appeal of the decision of the Review Board (NETE) of 12 June 2008 to uphold the decision of Judge Richard absolutely crazy Poudrier Trois-Rivières to issue an order sending Mr. Bédard Pinel until February 2010. So there is absolutely no justification for such drastic action since Mr. Bedard has been found sane by a cons-expertise of Dr. Pierre Mailloux made in October 2008. An exercise that is well demonstrated to be an abuse of authority by the judge Powder; which should instead be forced himself to follow certain psychiatric examinations to verify his ability to judge. An appeal, therefore, that had no choice but to accommodate the Highest Court of Quebec for its own integrity is again put in serious doubt.
Considering also that no response or even acknowledgment was transmitted to him by Ms. Weil's predecessor, Jacques Dupuis, in 4 years under a Liberal government in power. Recall that the latter does not even deign to reply to a letter from ADQ member of his constituency, Mr Eric Laporte. Which had before it the case of Mr. Bedard in July 2007. A letter requesting repair following business yet Rayle, Coupal and Bourque.
However, a Minister's reply in time, would have lowered the existing tensions and could prevent him his last arrest and illegal detention arbitrary 13 months to Pinel to treat unnecessarily for his alleged inability to appear. So qu'inconséquemment during this same period, there did appear to beyond forty hearings before the Court of Quebec, the Superior Court and even the Court of Appeal in Quebec City October 27, 2008, alone, without even the presence of a lawyer. And without it even being survey bail, preliminary hearing, serious hearing of his application for habeas corpus or trial. An example
absolutely pathetic that unfortunately leads us to see how the judicial system has deteriorated in quality provided that the ministers who succeed each other so it seems the sound administration. Paradoxically, they do not even raise a finger when their calls to avoid the carnage. Preferring probably overlook the shameful waste of public money to persecute citizens for honest purpose to benefit in return bandits together reveling in the perjury and corruption.
This is that letter:
Repentigny, January 25, 2009
JJMichel Sir Robert, Chief Justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal
Quebec
Ernest Cormier
Building 100, rue Notre-Dame East, office 2.22
Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 4B6
Mr. Robert
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 16 January 2009 in response to my request for revocation of Amended Judgement dated November 16, 2008.
First, the rule of common decency supported also by your own rules of procedure, tell me that a judge can rule on a motion for reconsideration of ruling their own judgments. Since such a motion must necessarily be heard by three judges, excluding the one who made the original ruling.
other hand, you lie to me claiming The Court of Appeal never had to rule on the fate of my appeal as the hacks of the trial record indicates that he has been meeting on August 28, 2006 and that it lasted minute. This lie, "which can no longer protect the rights of the opposing party" as telling the judge in the case Ellis Bourque, necessarily infer that it was indeed a verdict of not guilty which was given by the juror No. . 1, 21 June 2006.
Moreover, the conditions laid down in Articles 482 and 483C.pc are more satisfied because the fraud is, among others, proved to have been committed by the Court of Appeal same. What could not be disturbing to respecting my rights notwithstanding the fact that I am not a member of the gang.
Indeed, the civil docket reversed you join on page 13 of your Judgement of 14 May 2008 indicates that it lacks the dated August 28, 2006 . Consequently, and given that this is not me who has produced the scribblers of the trial record, you will agree that I can agree otherwise (unless explanations from you) that the Court of Appeal has falsified his own docket so as to remove any trace of this hearing is held without my presence. As in the trial of the May 14 hearing held with yourself indicates a dishonest intention to pretend that I was stating on page 2 of this:
Daniel Bedard, personally
Because if you think I presented myself were "personally" understand that they still had me at the time at Pinel because of my supposed inability to appear? So how come you call me Gaetan Bourassa like to suggest to readers that he represented the interests of Ms. Louise Leduc or judge Sophie Bourque and not mine? What is not very strong in your hand, and more I confirm that way.
Finally, and after re Rayle, Justice Jacques Chamberland recurrence, probably under your command again, endorsing illegally postdates an act of abandonment that can not otherwise having been prepared by the Court of Appeal since a brand of transmission at the bottom of the document clearly indicates: Court of Appeal 01mars07 2:33 p.m.
other fraud
This tells me also that the document was forwarded to the Justice Bourque because at that precise date, this last went to the courthouse in Longueuil his sentence (?) following my acquittal of June 21, 2006. All indications are that it would probably made the request to the Court of Appeal to protect themselves and a barbaric act committed in cold blood and in collusion with other persons associated with the judicial system present at the Court.
I therefore submit this letter with a copy to the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Ms Kathleen Weil, asking him to urgently intervene in the case and to demand the resignation of Judge Chamberland and yours. Similarly, after the spreading of any wrongdoing that can not be refuted in any manner whatsoever, the repair of my criminal history seems imminent. Folder that you do can clearly fix because, being directly involved in the negligence together with Justice Sophie Bourque, doing so would, therefore, to admit your own fraud.
Indeed, and since the latter has clearly instructed his Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Louis Dionne, the decision of Judge Sophie Bourque was called in the "Case Ellis," it would be illogical that it can in parallel cast doubt on the integrity of the Court of Appeal in the "Case Bourque. And that, by ignoring completely the same way that conventional media do well by ignoring fraud J. Chamberland and yourself to cover his first act of transgression.
Since the new Minister of Justice could do more to cover themselves from disgrace, that installing the contrary a very serious doubt in the minds of the audience that the appeal of Mr. Dionne is really just pro-forma (to form). This in order to blur temporarily discontent of the public and continues to suggest the seriousness of the lawsuit against the 5 members of street gang accused of the murder of Raymond Ellis as well as on the legitimacy of this appeal in order to dispel doubts.
Daniel Bedard
cc: Kathleen Weil, Attorney General and Minister of Justice
0 comments:
Post a Comment