Here is a passage from Mr. Bedard CLOSING ARGUMENTS before the Quebec Court of Appeal on 27 October 2008, while the latter was finally heard on his appeal of the decision Review Commission (NETE) maintain that Judge Richard Poudrier, which March 20, 2008 in Trois-Rivieres, issued an order that Mr. Bedard had to be treated under medication at Pinel up in February 2010 to make it fit to appear. Readers will judge whether Mr. Bedard was really unable to appear by reading this excerpt from the hearing. To check the exact content of the text, anyone is free to check with the firm PICHÉ, OLIVIER, BENOIT, official reporters at (418) 648-1199 who carried out the preparation of transcripts of the hearing on a special request of Mr. Bédard. Request made to the judge Chamberland beginning of the hearing.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So second point:
"Whereas CETM must therefore constitute the evidence contained in the letter ..."
In my letter, the letter the appellant's ten (10) April.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Hum hum.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
"... and allow the seizure before the proposed hearing of twelve (12) June ..."
Imagine, then, I asked for it on (12) June, when it is already over there, we're late on the duties, obligations, precisely in order not to extend my prejudice, prejudice that continues, because those duties then n have not been made.
"... and allow him, indeed, a full defense in court."
So all I ask, finally, I consider myself an honest citizen, not a madman, someone who is dangerous to himself or others, I did not hit anyone, I have not threatened anyone, I have not abused anyone. Even the big criminals are entitled to, ultimately, a trial fairer.
It's been a year, finally, that I am detained, then I am in the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Quebec, so I finally ask you to intervene in it and decide to say it does not make sense.
Then, thirdly
"Whereas CETM should also assess the evidence before the hearing of ..." I'm pretty
embarrassed to say, there, there was tampering and (inaudible)
"in ... cases parallel and concurrent. "
I tell you, I'm embarrassed to say because I dare not, finally, talk about things, finally, talk about things, finally, that could reproach me, while I criticize certain people, including judges, not doing the job properly which I expected from them at this time.
So I think the role as an appellate court is not to ignore the exceptions to the law were made in the past and close files, as Justice Robert wishes that we do with that. So I raised, inter alia, an exception to Article 672.26 (b), so I it looks that this clause.
So how is it that ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
You say what section?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
672.26 (b).
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Yes
.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Because the memory of Mr. Bouvette states 672.78, 672.33, 672.58, but it's funny, no mention, finally, on 672.26 (b) ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Are you ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... it's always in the same article, here.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Is it a trial by judge and jury?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes. So what I allege, finally, in addition to this mandamus then, is that good, to finally explain my third point, Sir, is that the very first time there has been a questioning of my ability to appear, so that's why ... I am looking back and I raise you, finally, that this ability to appear there should not even be raised in time, since the judge Bourque, c is she who presided over the trial, erred.
Then you'll have to act under section 672.78.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Um hum, yes.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Then, section 672.78, it is called an error of law ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Hum, hum.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant;
... judicial error or unreasonableness.
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Yes
.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So I think if we agree to look seriously my request for mandamus, I think the three (3), not just one point, the three (3) points will ... will be need to be highlighted because the Justice Bourque has really made a mistake law in n'assermentant no new jury to decide the question of my fitness to appear.
So if there was an error of law in time, I think the Court of Appeal should grant me the ... at least reasonable doubt to the effect that, finally, perhaps the error of law then resulted things even worse, perhaps indeed a miscarriage of justice.
So if we talk in that decision that you will have to take an error of law and judicial error, I think at this point we can not but grant me my right then this request for mandamus that would force finally performing a duty, the execution of a filing of evidence, finally.
So all I want, finally, is that I think I may have harassed people ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Ah, that's what the charge is at the root of all this?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, yes. Or threatening people, but is it necessary to accuse people, whatever, finally, people who have a bad criminal record or law-abiding citizens like me, well at least they have the decency Finally, to demonstrate, finally, the very foundation of this is accused.
So I think it eventually, even strange and unreasonable at some point have to raise this point before the highest Court of Quebec, while other courts, ultimately, have ignored this. That I find very curious, it worries me, and I think I would not even raise this point so that it is an important level of disclosure we have the evidence.
So I think there was also in the past several legal errors that were caused by the fact that ... in respect of a person, finally, we stopped and we did not disclose this evidence then, led eventually ... and the case law is full of cases and is what we must, eventually - that's what worries me - is what we must go eventually to the Supreme Court to have evidence?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
But when you went before the ATQ in June last year, the report of Dr Filion was the record?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, that's it, so ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
That was the proof.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
No, but the evidence finally ... I think that this is not proof, that.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
No?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Because, look, I do not think anyone should "s'aplatventrir" before a psychiatric assessment. That just does not come from me, it comes from Dr. Morissette, who is a specialist Pinel. Then he said that one time in a trial, well, nobody should "Himself to-knuckle. So if anyone should "Himself to-knuckle, why is it that the highest court in Quebec" Himself to flat-belly "before a single expertise, yet there does not respect the law that I raised earlier?
So, I ask simply respect the law, but allow me to have a cons-expertise that would ultimately for the Court to weigh anything other than a diagnostic one opinion or that of Dr Filion, who she himself, finally, took the same view that diagnosis Dr. Talbot, that Dr. Wolwertz.
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Yes
.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So I think that the request for mandamus is important in the sense that maybe if it is accepted, we will realize, finally, there may be was something went wrong at some point when it was raised for the first time this ability to appear here and give me reason to know that the ability should never have been raised ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Okay.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant;
... originally. So much for my petition for mandamus.
So I'll just finish the fourth point, we speak ... just the fact that we fiddle with the hacks, I think ... I think three (3) judges concerned, finally, there justice, that justice be done right when raises that, it deserves, finally, that we would search a little more, we say: Well, why we fiddle with the scroll, why we did this or that, instead of closing the records. Because closing files is to shut his eyes, finally injustices.
So I think that this is not the role of an appellate court to ignore an injustice. Instead, the appellate court is here, finally, to show that errors of law, judicial errors, are not extended to reach more of an individual who is already achieved implicitly.
So I think I showed too, just by doing this exposure there, I am a person, finally, able to face a trial.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Okay.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Huh? So, too, would continue on other issues. Another point: what would the ruling?
CHAMBERLAND JUDGE: Which
trial?
DANIEL BEDARD
calling party: The ruling
... I just ...
Note that Justice Chamberland brings no light, does not hear any comment or any ruling whatsoever on the exemption Article 672.26 (b) of the Criminal Code by Judge Sophie Bourque. Notwithstanding wisely raised, however, in the CLOSING ARGUMENTS Mr. Bédard. So much so that the latter is forced to return a little later in his CLOSING ARGUMENTS:
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So I'll finish with my points, I have a few points because it gives me the opportunity and I appreciate it very much, I would have liked it to have the opportunity before other courses because it ultimately does not give me the opportunity to speak . It's like that, finally, that inequities are created, eh?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Yes, No, I understand, but do not ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Because you give us an opportunity to tell the truth.
So, another important point, gentlemen judges, a point, finally, that bothers me, me ... that I have trouble, finally, to admit and I might be scratching the Court of Appeal but ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
No, but go ahead, there, but ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... I have to do.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... do not take ... go to the point.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, yes, but sometimes it's because ...
So the Court of Appeal even now prevents me substantiate my appeal brief, it keeps me finally to produce a memorandum of appeal, and that I raised in a letter that I I sent ... I respectfully remember the name of the judge, there, but ... the coordinating judge, then simply denying me access to the jurisprudence of my own past records. This is serious, this to.
So I respectfully request the judge Robert Chief Justice of Quebec, to examine, finally, old cases where there have been decisions made, inter alia, that the twenty-eight (28) August, there are hacks that show, finally, that there was a hearing on the twenty-eight (28) August before the Court of Appeal to take cognizance of that decision.
So I require simply that the Court of Appeal that it gives me that decision. I never will believe, finally, that decisions are taken in secret to the highest court in Quebec.
So you understand that it worries me. It worries me to know, finally, it is heard before a court, on the other hand, does not want me to try the truth of what happened previously.
So it is troubling since I arrived here before, again, the highest court in Quebec and I expect eventually to a better response, an appropriate response to stop this prejudice against me then. Then another point, invoked in vying Articles 672 - I touched upon this earlier finding - about the fitness to stand trial, 672.33 in memory of master Bouvette, 672.58, 672.78, your decision to respect to what happens here, right now, then you are required, in respect of 672.78 to make a decision. But it fails
always talking about 672.26 (b).
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
You mentioned earlier ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... for example.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes, I mentioned earlier, but I ... I think it's important to go back on that, Sir.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Well, I'm gonna have to ask you to move to another point because you mentioned earlier then ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
But do ... do you agree that we have any recourse?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
I did not respond right away ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
No?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... we listen to your arguments and then decide then ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
I agree that someone has, then, finally, because ... Is what I'm going to ask Ms. McLachlin agree?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
You do not know ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
is because ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... the idea today is to make your case ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
Yes.
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
... after that, we hear the arguments of the other party and then decide. It makes ... you know, we're not ... we will not respond to questions point blank like that, we are here to see if, in the words of 678, where a judicial error, s it is an error of law is committed in the case, then this is your chance to convince us.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
So there ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
must ...
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... I convince you, I convince you by saying that there was an exception to Article 672.26 (b).
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Do you have another point?
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
I tell you, there. So I bring you back to what you just tell me, Sir, "it is for you to convince us."
So I try to convince you, finally, there was exception ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Okay.
DANIEL BEDARD
appellant:
... Article 672.26 (b) because, actually, over time, finally, Justice Bourque had sworn the jury again and I made a request re-sworn in as jurors in the Court of Appeal dismissed by Judge Robert without trial.
There was a hearing, finally, which would have allowed me to re-hear the verdict, because me, I say, a conviction that the verdict acquitted me, the jury acquitted me, and I think I Right, finally, to the replay of the verdict there. Above all, Judge, that following my approach for mechanical recordings of the court, strangely you can not hear the verdict. This is not ... it's not very clear. And after that, I said, hey, if you do not hear the verdict, I'll drop it, finally my request asking for the verdict, we do not hear it. And, Mr. Chamberland, you approved it, you, you have endorsed a note ...
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Do you ... do you have other points to make?
DANIEL BEDARD
part Appellant:
... as abandoned. Is it you, Mr. Chamberland, which endorsed the act of abandonment?
JUDGE CHAMBERLAND:
Listen, I do not remember, then you have another point to make? ...
Here J. Chamberland book the key to the puzzle and get caught up outrageously and indirectly by announcing that there will be no response to the request yet more than legitimate to Mr. Bedard. For how can he judge Chamberland claim not to remember when he said the file on Mr. Bedard inability to him. In addition, there will be no mention of the exemption in section 672.26 (b) of the Criminal Code in the decision to be made so that as mentioned by the judge Chamberland itself, the power of the Court of Appeal granted him that section 672.78 Criminal Code of the same three judges allowed to intercept the error of law or judicial error can even be classified as voluntary on the part of Judge Sophie Bourque. This article is, moreover, corrélaire, from the same family that section 672.26 (b).
Watching the family of the judiciary and its image is more important than the ultimate responsibility of the Court of Appeal justice the appellant, Daniel Bedard, who was the recall invited to this Court for the first time since the trial presided over by Justice Bourque and the verdict of the jury June 21, 2006 ...
Following this performance for the least confusing, Mr. Bedard asked the Minister Weil, the resignations of the chief judge and that of Robert J. Chamberland . You agree that there is indeed substance to ask such resignations after this confirmation to the effect that this Court makes even the exercise of power granted to him being section 672.78 of the Criminal Code.
The following are the early performances of Jean-Francois Bouvette, attorney of the respondent. See how the judge Paul Vezina me completely out of Bouvette slippery slope on which he had ventured into replicating the scope of section 672.26b trying to convince the panel but also the public in the room that it could not apply:
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
Jean-François Bouvet
attorney respondent
Yeah, so I will not be still not very long. Mr.
stressed 672.26 (b) is an item that can not be applied for determination of fitness when someone has a trial by jury or be held by jury, which is not If the record of Three Rivers since it is an offense that is jurisdiction of a judge of the Court of Quebec alone, this is harassment, but that was taken on summary guilt.
Many things discussed here today, sir, or raised, are elements that go into the folder of Montreal. Because Mr.
two (2) records He has a record of harassment Three Rivers is taken on summary conviction, so sir, if trial is before a judge of the Court of Quebec only, then 626 ... 672.26 (b) can not apply and all other comments made when he spoke of Mr. Justice Bourque, when he spoke of Judge Millette, and also there was the Justice Louise Villemure, if my notes are accurate, they are all judges which are connected to the file of Montreal, who are not related ...
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
is correct that Justice Louise Villemure decided he was fit to stand trial?
Me JEAN-FRANCOIS BOUVET
attorney of the respondent:
Me, I had the information I have not seen the documents but I like what information the prosecutor of Montreal which is a third person because he told my attorney advised me that head, that gentleman was also disqualified from Montreal. Me is what I like information, then I should check ...
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
(Inaudible) you should at least know what is?
Jean-François Bouvet
attorney of the respondent:
Yes, I should indeed check this point, but I was told this week that gentleman was also unfit ... not this week, last week, that gentleman was also unfit to Montreal and the Montreal attorney asked me to advise when the decision of this court will be made on ...
that Mr. attack on the decision of the ATQ.
But me, I had the information is ...
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
Can you check it and confirm it?
Jean-François Bouvet
counsel for the respondent:
Yes, that, that can be verified.
JUDGE PAUL VÉZINA:
Because you understand it ...
Jean-François Bouvet
counsel for the respondent:
Yes.
JUDGE VÉZINA:
If a case has been deemed fit and in another case it is deemed unfit, I understand there are questions.
Jean-François Bouvet
counsel for the respondent:
Yes.
...
can stop here so the idiocy of the prosecutor has reached its limits but also that of 3 judges obviously complacent. Bouvette me who lies so embarrassing to the judge because his memory Vezina whose panel is assumed to have read says that the judge Villemure says Bedard capable Montreal December 18, 2007. Moreover, the hacks also show information for that purpose, a judge may not know this, especially a judge of the Court of Appeal. For if the judge Vezina understand it is normal that Mr. Bedard has questions is therefore appropriate that the inability would never have been raised in Trois-Rivieres and that decision was therefore unreasonable at first. Why then in their decision to request the review board to revisit the issue of incapacity? ?
Imagine, Trois-Rivieres we send an accused person until February 2010 Pinel without even checking if he was found fit to Montreal which is unlikely.
The Court of Appeal would have been welcome on the bench calling the decision of the review board and produce a fact which stops the harassment against Mr. Bedard on this issue redundant and illegitimate.
say that Justice Bourque has released the fields 5 suspected killers of the young Raymond Ellis because the Crown prosecutor lied ! ? When three judges agree, in return, that they lied in the face it necessarily leads to an unjustifiable loss of time in the judiciary and the shameful waste of public funds.
J. Chamberland did mention the name of his two other brothers not want to make a decision on the bench but listen to the arguments of the latter and then the arguments of counsel for the respondent. And this was done in regard to the scope of section 672.26 (b). But how is it that the ruling of the Court of Appeal did not subsequently settled the question of law since it avoids completely to make any mention?
Also and as you can see for yourself, the decision refers to sections 672.23 (2), 672.38, 672.54, 672.78, but nothing about art. 672.26b. The Court of Appeal therefore incorporates in his trial for the less impaired the same criticism that Mr. Bedard made against the memory of Mr. Bouvette. Even if the ruling partially upholds the appeal by Mr. Bédard, we must understand that 3 judges of the Court of Appeal voluntarily obviated their judgments and to safeguard immunity of judge and Bourque him avoid prison sentence and the end of his career for so deliberate and planned, hindered the normal course of justice, as stipulated in Article 139 (2) of the Criminal Code.
Therefore unfortunately get to the obvious injustice that moved even necessarily at all times when legal issues are not even the lot of the Highest Tribunal of Quebec.
continued ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment