The reader will judge whether the following evidence corresponding to two transcripts possibly made by Ms. Letarte is incriminating evidence. I say possibly because the transcripts are signed by anyone and copies of sound recordings of messages have even been entered into evidence, which shows more and the desire of non-transparency of the complainant and the bad faith of his allegations. Since these only 2 messages left on the voicemail of the executive secretary of the Bureau of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec are, according to the complainant, messages "threatening and hateful" to the point of arrest an individual in November 2007 Pinel and lock until February 2010? So I leave it up to Mr. Bedard to speak about this:
November 13, 2007: Appeal from the voicemail of Diane Letarte and transferred by the latter.
"So Ms. Letarte Daniel Bédard.
is to fix, not an appointment, I would say, but a period in which we could discuss with Mr. Ghavitian as a result of the dialogue sometimes we rule things. So my intention is to want to talk with Mr. Ghavitian, if he himself wants it to stop this circus and finally my rights under Article 49 are saved as they are guaranteed.
And by the way maybe Mr. Sicotte after four years could make the effort to file proof of his accusations, since his attorney, Mr. Rene Brabant, has mentioned him, it was my duty to respect the ruling "Stinchcombe" of the Supreme Court in that ultimately I need to file for me, full proof and complete with respect to these offenses against Mr. Sicotte.
So that since the Charter reminds us all that we are equal in right: Mr. Sicotte had no choice and must eventually drop its case.
So do the message to Mr. Ghavitian
Thank you and good day. "(sic)
Proof that I asked via this message on the voicemail of Ms. Letarte is always the same evidence I demand that my request through full disclosure of evidence. A request that the judge completely ignored Robert Sansfaçon December 4, 2008 and Judge Robert Marchi did likewise on February 18, claiming that this was the jurisdiction of the Superior Court judge presiding over the trial by judge and jury.
15 November 2007 9:11. Call DB (message left on voicemail Luce Bastien)
"Hello, ma'am,
My name is Daniel Bedard
I wanted to speak to the President of the Order of Engineers of Quebec, Mr. Ghavitian since I've joined earlier this week to Hydro-Québec to the effect whether or not responded to the demand there would respond within 7 days. So, I wonder if Mr. Ghavitian will take action because there is still only 1 day. Please remind me at (450) 582-3815.
Thank you and good day. " (sic)
Please note that this is the strongest evidence" incriminating "that were eventually filed nearly 15 months after having arrested and kept in custody all this time.
The other "evidence" being articles from my blog "acharnementjudiciaire.blogspot.com"
emails from a certain "Gilles Courchesne" is also having some trace of threat, harassment or other inappropriate comments. I was unable to communicate with OIQ; public entity and not yet involved in the initial litigation. The impediment being goofy after the order of Judge Bourque confirmed on 1 March 2007 or at the hearing on sentencing, which was imposed on me after 7 months at the Pinel Institute to punish me for have been paid by June 21, 2006 the jury! ? Justice Bourque has protected the entity which has bribed her to reverse the jury's decision to my extreme prejudice. For the balance of probabilities that this be so, after the 10 inferences explained later in this blog is 100%.
Imagine. I served the equivalent of a federal sentence is 26 months (taking into account the time called "preventive" account usually in duplicate, and all that gives me at the end of this trip is degrading imposed this proof that I can immediately let me call exculpatory
is how money is wasted taxpayers of Quebec and the lives of honest citizens who dare to denounce the incompetence of some engineers to protect the public!?
0 comments:
Post a Comment