The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "inference" as "intellectual operation whereby one passes from one truth to another truth, considered such because of its link with the former." So first truth: There was hearing my request for re-listening to the verdict on August 28, 2006 the Court of Appeal (as the hacks of the trial record in are authentic, it can not be denied because the caller has no control over this information)
But as Chief Justice Robert, as well as my own pseudo-lawyer, Gaetan Bourassa, who is supposed to exercise my rights, still denied by collusive convenience, there is a surplus, other truths:
2ie truth
The Court of Appeal was allowed to take seven months thus forcing the withdrawal of the appellant, which, anyway, after a long period of time, no longer expects that its application heard. It withdraws at 9:28 am, or 2 min. prior to his sentencing hearing on the recommendation of its pseudo-lawyer who knows that his "client" has been acquitted by a jury June 21, 2006, 7 months ago.
3ie truth
The scribblers of the trial record was falsified so as not to allow the audience to hear the verdict of June 21, 2006 passed since the hacks falsified the date of June 16, 2006 to June 22, 2006 on file 505-01-056133-057.
4ie truth
The hacks of the Court of Appeal were falsified to delete the date of August 28, 2006, the "mistake" in the embezzlement of the clerk or Matte Leveille, ordered by Judge Robert, himself, was to forget to do the hacks for the trial record.
5ie truth
The scribblers of the trial record was once again falsified the date of 1 March 2007. Because I've never been invited to the Court of Appeal at 9:00. Because I was at Courthouse Longueuil since the meeting at 9:25 before Judge Bourque started at 9:30 as scheduled in compliance with the time indicated on my promise to appear. However, it is falsely stated to the hacks that the first session began at 10:32 am presumably to give the reader believe that there was a time elapsed for moving parts of the Court of Appeal to the Courthouse Longueuil.
6ie truth
By 3 times so there is hearing dates and docket information that indicated I was not even invited in my capacity as appellant.
7ie truth
You, Ms. Bourque said after the verdict: "I ratify your verdict" without specifying the nature of the verdict contrary to the laws and judicial protocol to use .
8ie truth
not mean the verdict on the mechanical recording of the Court, another copy was commissioned with the same result confirmed by the communications director of the Palais de Justice Longueuil, a lady Cuerrier.
9ie truth:
Section 672.26b of the Criminal Code required you Ms. Bourque, as you know, moreover, to re-swear the jury if you decide to question my ability to appear after it has delivered its verdict to me. Moreover, the report of Dr. Talbot confirms that your request came from a prescription from your hand ratified June 22, 2006 the day after the jury delivered its verdict against me.
Section 672.26b reads:
"... if the judge orders that the matter be determined after the accused was entrusted to a jury for a trial on the indictment, the jury must be sworn to determine this question in addition to those it has already been sworn. "
In addition, Ms. Bourque, this article confirms that you were required to determine anew the question as to the verdict was delivered, my legitimate request to make me re-hear the verdict is also strengthened by the actual provisions of this article.
Curiously, three justices of our highest court in Quebec (Chamberland, And Giroux) have yet been arrested by myself October 27, 2008 in Quebec City on this issue such as transcripts obtained from the Registry of the Superior Court of Quebec are authentic. (These transcripts will soon be fully implemented on this blog for even more transparency on my part)
However, your mistake, Ms. Bourque, is precisely an error of law and section 672.78 (1) is the section which underpins the powers of the Court of Appeal in the case of my appeal the decision as to the ability to appear for an accused person and reads:
The Court of Appeal may welcome an appeal against a decision or placement order and cancel any order made by the court or Review Board if it believes that, as the case
a) the decision or order is unreasonable or can not be supported by the evidence;
b) there is an error law;
c) there was a miscarriage of justice.
Now, why Ms. Bourque, that the decision of the Court of Appeal notwithstanding the bargain that he welcomes partially my appeal breath word of this legal error on your part. And even if Me Bouvette or counsel representing Three Rivers crown to counter the appeal has also argued this exception in Article 672.26b even specifying that he was aware that I had been tried by jury in 2006 and that article, therefore, applied. Recall that a mistake of law can not be excused mainly by the highest authorities simply because of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant himself could not make to recognize the error of law in time . Whereas I never been asked in the Court of Appeal, despite several requests by right filed prior to that date of 27 October 2008, while the error of law committed by yourself June 22, 2006, was the more than 28 months earlier! ?
10ie truth
As if that were not enough, the fact we hear not the verdict was reconfirmed by Pierre Despatis, assistant syndic of the Barreau du Québec in his investigation report dated 5 November 2008, while this factor is certainly the responsibility of the accused person is entitled in such circumstances it is just another way to offer it to himself enjoy this verdict June 21, 2006. The Court of Appeal definitely missing the call because not hearing any appeal whatsoever Daniel Bedard files after an application for revocation of the ruling Justice Pierrette Rayle, JCA dated August 4, 2005 which was granted but has never been heard dated November 7, 2005 as originally planned.
After 10 inferences drawn from the first truth, the balance of probabilities that the verdict of guilty or a zero. This verdict is one of not guilty.
You instructed the jury, Ms. Bourque address in your pre-advisement that they understand, among other things, they had a duty to draw their own inferences from the facts spread and testimony so that they can reach a unanimous verdict. Telling them they had to make an intellectual exercise whereas what they saw or heard does not necessarily sufficient in carrying out their mandate .
But if Ms. Bourque, you felt it was the duty of the jury to draw its inferences, therefore you can not blame me take mine with respect to your performance, say very ordinary . Speaking of a serious criminal offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of ten years as defined in Art. 139 (2) CC (obstruction of justice). An offense, therefore, committed by yourself.
Thus, for a jury, it would be easy for him to draw his inferences if only by virtue of the very first truth: In fact, the that hacks the trial record indicates that there was meeting 28 August 2006 the Court of Appeal on my request for the verdict and there I was not invited in my capacity as Appellant infers necessarily, in truth, they wanted to hide that it was indeed a "no guilt". Because why do not we would have asked if this was indeed a verdict of "guilty"? ?
Now imagine how it is easy for me Ms. Bourque, to link this intellectual operation notwithstanding that you m ' have described as unfit for complacency or infamous ugly. To agree therefore your gesture of prevarication, the criminal offense committed in cold blood, by yourself, in collusion with other persons associated with the judicial system still present after you have discharged the jury.
Easy me because instead of just one inference that could even be enough, I have ten inferences on hand that can not otherwise bring the audience and myself to conclude that the verdict of jury was far from a "not guilty". And therefore, you have reached unlawfully and intentionally.
This kind of achievement is in fact as you know, immediately compensated under the provisions laid down in Art. 49 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also provision for an immediate cessation of the infringement when discovery. And this, even without recourse to civil remedies have to be done, for it is that I was talking victim of a crime on your part and that now you pay the mark your lie: Lie that you can not bear curiously from a Crown Point release on fields 5 gang members and alleged perpetrators of murder in what is now common to call the "Ellis Case."
Why this great demonstration of hypocrisy, Mrs. Bourque?
Chief Justice Robert has thus seriously compromised, in turn, to protect your immunity and a judge, your honor, your dignity and your reputation.
However, the Charter reminds us that we are all equal. My honor, my dignity and my reputation are worth so much as yours especially since it's you, Madame, who had committed the crime and not me.
Also, where are rendered the qualities of competence, integrity and intellectual honesty sought in the selection of any good judge? Have you by any chance, burned any stage with your wonderful defense of pedophile Guy Cloutier?
Our society must not disrupt the High Low risk otherwise, one day, to revolt if complacency is allowed by most others believe in the nobility, it consists only of people pathetic mentally ill.
pull its inferences: A duty, Ms. Bourque, as you recalled the jury ... but has certainly fallen into the ears of a deaf caller ...
I also remember a passage that you mentioned in your Judgement of 12 January in the case Ellis:
"but the justice system itself can not work without complete trust between the judiciary and lawyers who act before the courts" ( 1 ). "
Like your Chief Justice and many others who perform similarly ultimately, you are now widely recognized as being unfit to perform this noble profession because how could the Public he had full confidence against a judge who lies to herself and says that lie in parallel or unacceptable?
If your science poorly assimilated, Ms. Bourque has allowed me to me also draw my inferences, I ask you now, out of respect for the audience, draw your bow.
Daniel Bedard
