This letter is in the same vein as the other two addressed to Mr. Gaetan Bourassa Director of Legal Aid of Montreal and the Chief Justice of Quebec, JJ Michel Robert, that you find on the following pages. See also: Kathleen Weil - News and
http://www.montrealfrancais.info/node/1004
Repentigny, February 6, 2009
Ms. Weil
In a letter dated March 31, 2008 addressed to Mr. Gaetan Bourassa 's "Legal Aid of Montreal" and sent a copy to the Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, I remember the following legal principle :
"A inaction when, contrary action is necessary amounts to an admission or evidence deemed cons."
I was then referred to the inaction of the Chief Justice Michel Robert on his duty to give me his reasons for denying that there was meeting 28 August 2006 in the Court of Appeal. Sitting on my right to re-listen to the verdict of the jury because the criminal dockets and criminal record 505-01-056133-057 to read as follows:
9:00 Call to Montreal
Session (s): 09:00 @ 09:01
Details: 500-10-003630-066
Note that Mr. Bourassa, supposed to exercise my rights, according to Ms. Juli Drolet, acolytes of Mr. Dionne in the conduct of criminal prosecutions, has never answered my letter. Probably did he not make his recommendation as to enable it to continue to give the order to sue me for no reason or simply by pettiness.
respect for this principle of law that I am forced to assert myself, you Mrs. Weil agree that you are the last not to have admitted that the verdict 21 June 2006 which resulted in the "Case Bourque" was indeed a "not guilty". By their inaction, therefore, your predecessor, Mr. Dupuis, CJ, Michel Robert, Rob Nicholson and Mr Gaetan Bourassa therefore have all admitted before you.
In addition, Mr. Bourassa, a new service makes me and repeated his admission does not meet the 9 questions I have asked him in an open letter dated 27 January 2009 and disseminated via the website: prevarication101.blogspot.com.
Yet it is his credibility was at stake as well as the reputation its Office of Legal Aid of Montreal. Underlying entity to yours, that your Department maintains still operating at great expense to taxpayers and litigants and wrong.
Important as the Director of such an office does not pass for a liar now knowing that lying is unacceptable to the Crown or friends thereof, by J. Bourque.
Understand though that you have responsibilities far greater than even Mr. Bourassa and you absolutely should have set the "Case Bourque " before you even ask your Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Louis Dionne, to appeal the ruling Justice Bourque in the "Case Ellis. And I just hope you do not have to explain why?
Because admit it would be embarrassing to ask a justiciable treaty 20 months at Pinel for his alleged unfitness to explain the purpose of such proceedings become obliged, thanks among other things, 4 years inaction of your predecessor. Which, during all this time has still got it to receive weekly salary even the pockets of taxpayers.
Your non-response that is in any way to predict whether the same way you listen to your prime minister, who said in return to open democracy, finally give me my answer. Because I know, in this way than not, you admitted that the verdict was far from a "not guilty".
But to paraphrase Dr. Pierre Mailloux, met on February 3 at Three Rivers, as a consultant and not as a physician would like the Public Ministry in order not to lose completely in the face this senseless and malicious prosecution: "It would be chic from you at least give me an answer for a change. Of so that the audience believes in the sincerity of the appeal request from Mr. Dionne and because I realize that you do and all that crap was nauseating yet generated under a liberal regime, disproportionate spending taxpayers' expense.
In the meantime, please accept, Ms. Weil, my most respectful greetings.
Daniel Bedard
0 comments:
Post a Comment