Today, February 4, 2009, Mr. Bedard was again presented to the office of Mr. Bourassa, Director of Legal Aid of Montreal to to obtain legitimate answers he has been waiting a long time. After an arrest without warrant 19 November 2007 and 13 months of arbitrary detention, it seems to me that Mr. Bedard has at least entitled to answers to his own lawyer.
Especially since he has learned from him that the complaining party (the Order of Engineers of Quebec) had "destroyed" evidence that Mr. Bedard asked via his request full disclosure of evidence. However, this request was necessary and Mr. Bourassa had even dared to write or drop by itself. What is very odd for a lawyer of high caliber as Mr. Bourassa and supposed to enforce the law. Which has yet seen others. Involved in many cases even more complex than Mr. Bédard. And why has he not filed any application for Mr. Bedard in 13 months in detention forced Pinel? Imagine the Court agreed to hear a prepared statement by the accused while he was supposed to be incapable of understanding the intent due process because Mr. Bedard was incompetent in her? ? Not very large as this.
Was just ran out of respect and deference to a person that Dr. Pierre Mailloux in its cons-expertise, acknowledged "asymptomatic." That is to say, devoid of any symptoms of mental illness? In its report of October 14, 2008, he described Mr. Bedard as a person with extensive scholarly and resilience to nightmarish situation that is imposed by force without being justified in any manner whatsoever. Psychiatrists have therefore failed to Pinel and not about whether to believe the expertise done very professionally by Dr. Mailloux. But why all this injury free counterpart made against Mr. Bedard?
Mr. Bourassa told Daniel that the hearing on February 10 before the Court of Quebec will not be hearing "pro forma" but ultimately a hearing on preliminary investigation (after more than 40 hearings held so far in cases pending?). It is precisely opposite to postpone it "pro forma" that Mr. Bedard has, among other insurgent December 4 last. But Judge Robert Sansfaçon not even flinch. How Devil a judge may decide a matter at a hearing attended by all parties and then decide on other things behind the scenes and only inform the lawyer of the accused but not charged himself during that hearing? Not very "legit" this, because it has the right to surprise the person charged in this manner if, for example, the accused subsequently decides to change his lawyer or to represent himself? To understand, go to:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uFU39h1sGzU
Then, Mr. Bourassa has promised Mr. Bedard to answer these questions in writing before February 10 next. Questions that he asked him via a letter dated January 27, 2009 in which reads:
Repentigny, January 27, 2009 Fax: (514) 842-1970
Me Gaetan Bourassa, Director Legal Aid
Montreal 800, boul. De Maisonneuve Est, 9ie
Floor Montreal (Quebec) H2L 4M7
Mr. Bourassa
At our meeting on 26 January 2009 in response to the January 5, 2009 it was decided that your tenure as an "amicus curiae " to the Crown and the Court would continue to obtain at least for Daniel Bedard, the following responses:
1) From Robert J. Michel, reason why it does not recognize that there has been hearing August 28, 2006 in her own even if the Court docket in the trial record in 505-01-056133-057 evidenced.
2) From Robert J. Michel, the reason in its decision of May 14, 2008 after a hearing that was obviously made with himself, why he did not invite me to be attend and why if my name on page 2 it said Daniel Bedard, personally if you, Mr. Bourassa logged on trial?
3) From Robert J. Michel, why he refuses to hear my request for reconsideration of decision despite new evidence of fraud committed by convincing the Court of Appeal itself and confirming that the requirements Articles 482 and 483C.pc are more satisfied.
4) Who do you represent 14 May 2008 and were you present at this hearing?
And if the case is it at least possible to have transcripts of the hearing as it was possible to those of the hearing on October 27, 2008 when I was at least invited to Quebec?
5) From Me Rouillier, why the provisions of Stinchcombe apply not only to Daniel Bedard on its obligation of full disclosure of the evidence notwithstanding that before the judge on 14 Marquis November 2008, you had used this much respect for Stinchcombe, confirming the same to me so reassuringly your knowledge of law.
6) A hearing date before February 10 2009 in order to modify the conditions of release in the two cases pending.
7) The changes requested in the minutes of the hearing on December 10, 2008 before the Review Board.
8) The possibility of combining the two cases pending for trial in Montreal in a trial by judge and jury considering the length of detention (26 months equiv.) No longer gives the right to further pursue summary since the time of sentence max. when guilt has been quadrupled in custody "preventive." Which moreover, was even more justified after the ruling of 31 October the Court of Appeal followed the decision of 11 November Boyer followed the decision of the CETM of December 10, 2008.
9) In the absence of a satisfactory response from Mr. Rouillier on the evidence requested, make your own arrangements with the police authorities to ask them where is their report that the evidence that was presented to confirm your request as having been established by the SPVM which nevertheless allowed the Crown to lay criminal charges against me.
In between your answers, get me Bourassa, the expression of my feelings the best.
Daniel Bedard
This open letter is in the same spirit as the open letter addressed to Justice Michel Robert copy to the Minister of Justice that Kathleen Weil you will find on the next page.
Responses to Me Gaetan Bourassa will be posted on this blog because this is absolutely abnormal forced to do so because of the fraud is shown. Fraud of rare severity but always denied by Mr. Bourassa himself, which is supposed to be recalled to defend the interests of his client and not those of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, the judge Sophie Bourque Chief Justice Robert or his family finally! ?
continued ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment