This open letter he addressed to Mr. Bedard as a last resort to the Disciplinary Board Bar is the result of other open letters you will find on this blog (see blog archives in the menu left) and has, despite the immeasurable injury to his place, always very politely addressed to the Minister of Justice, Kathleen Weil (no result), the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal, JJ Michel Robert (no result), the judge Sophie Bourque itself (to no avail of course!), or rather his own lawyer one who has claimed to be since February 2006 before Judge Suzanne Coupal is Me Gaetan Bourassa , Director of Legal Aid of Montreal and has once again yielded no result except the deposit fragmentary evidence 10 February 2009 before Judge Rollande Matte (after 14 months of waiting) without the latter requires cons by the Crown as it should have done to assert the rights of Mr. Bedard, the filing any exculpatory evidence available and clearly identified in a prepared statement by Mr. Bedard himself and filed December 4, 2008. Mr. Bedard has yet seized Judge Robert Sansfaçon of the Court of Quebec, but the latter has even dared to mention perhaps preferring to leave his place to get wet, the Crown Attorney, Mr. Jacques Rouiller, obviously lost, which undoubtedly nervous and poorly in his skin after a chase so abusive and senseless, curiously mentioned that Mr. Bedard's request would lead to a stay of proceedings under Stinchcombe? ? ? After Mr. Bédard Pinel incarcerated for 13 months and indirectly serve him without his mentions himself that OIQ destroyed his "evidence" because the deposit of it could definitely affect the image of this prestigious order said the public eye and in so doing, this prosecutor is in trouble oddly compelled to suggest to the accused to request a stay of proceedings. It no longer makes sense? A prosecutor suggests the defendant a stay of proceedings! But I thought I was dreaming or what? In fact, it probably reached the pinnacle of the absence of large common sense in criminal law. To add and look even more silly and go for what it is so anyway:
ROUILLIER FOR SO: Stinchcombe (Supreme Court) = OFF PROCEDURES click: Judicial hard - Preview 33 to hear him say.
the very least embarrassing for a lawyer supposed to know the law that Mr. Bedard he considered unfit and more since November 20, 2007 the day after his appearance and the hearing before Judge Sylvie Durand on which Mr. Bedard had presented no devastated and even ready to face new charges that he knew ridiculous unfounded anyway!
Furthermore, it may well be that Article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure paradoxically that counsel for Mr. Bédard, or Mr. Gaëtan Bourassa, told him to throw the garbage because it does not follow him in the criminal proceeding! Or key needed by Mr. Bedard to force recognition of exemption under art. 672.26b by J. Bourque understanding that all these important people paid LAW can still deny or ignore tirelessly without their limitations are thus imposed by the ACT .
This file is ready to follow because Mr. Bedard seems, meanwhile, very ready as you judge yourself by the acuteness of his letter that specifically address the secretary of the Disciplinary Board of the Society, Nancy Trudel.
___________________________________________________________________
Repentigny, March 20, 2009
Disciplinary Board of the Quebec Bar
/ o Ms. Nancy J. Trudel, secretary of the Disciplinary Board
445, boul. St Lawrence
Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 3T8
Phone: (514) 954-3400 or 3656
Fax: (514) 954-3423
Re: Complaint no. 06-08-02434 (Mr. Norman Sabourin)
request correction of the decision and listening to the recording original jury's verdict
before June 21, 2006 edition, and transplanting.
Implementation of Art. 85 cpc for recognition by the Council of the derogation in Article 672.26b Criminal Code by Justice Sophie Bourque
_______________________________________________________________
Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 16 2009 in reply to mine of Mar. 13, 2009.
First, I would just remind the Council that the purpose of my letter of March 13 as mentioned again in column, is a " request correction of the decision and viewing the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 before editing and dubbing "and not" correct Request "only.
This bodes very poorly efficient processing of an application where the Council amends the initial response object. Furthermore, your response unnecessarily delayed announcing a dishonest intent does not allow me to appeal within the required time while a necessary immediate response forces me to get back into memory the application of a fundamental principle justice defined in the third item under amended of this.
Failing Despatis Pierre, deputy trustee of the Bar to have done, the Council will try to squirm again, it seems to please the judge and Bourque and his chief justice and provide me an explanation of how it is that only the sound clip of the jury verdict of June 21, 2006 is inaudible while all other sound clips of the same trial and stuck on my blog, "judicial persecution" in Case Bourque are clearly audible.
The Council will also explain why he agreed that Mr. Despatis concludes in his report that the verdict is inaudible, but agrees that the prosecutor in return the respondent, Michel Jolin, gave his assessment on January 5 last to the effect that it be heard?
Because you understand that I understand, for my part, that the soundtrack recording copies provided by Registration Service and transplanting of Longueuil Courthouse has necessarily been edited so that no one can clearly hear the verdict .
addition and given the disturbing fact that the Court of Appeal did not, in its decision of 31 October 2008, agreed to the exemption in art. 672.26b CC by J. Bourque and she was obliged to do under the powers conferred Art. CC 672.78;
Given another disturbing fact that in a letter dated June 19, 2008 and signed by the registrar, Anne Roland (is it a relative of the judge of the same name?) Has willfully failed to court mandamus on legitimate and well founded in law, which would have forced a first duty of the Court of Appeal. Or the right to invoke the grounds of a discretionary decision and difficult to understand the Chief Justice of Quebec, JJ Michel Robert of not even acknowledge having a hearing held August 28, 2006 in his own backyard.
remember that my request was filed as of right to appeal the decision J. Bourque of me not to allow the replay of the verdict of June 21, 2006. And this, notwithstanding that the docket of the trial record is good faith that the hearing of this appeal has taken place without my presence.
For more than two embarrassing failures in respect of a person who was said by declaring complacently and collusively incompetent, not able to recognize the intent of a procedure (more specifically, should we believe when it is clearly deficient), the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec Court of Appeal were probably concerted and likely to please the ex-minister Gil Remillard justice as well as Jacques P. Dupuis then Minister of Justice of Quebec, to allow, in return, the Disciplinary Council of the Bar of trying to deny my private complaint filed against Mr. Norman Sabourin of under other mystical considerations.
Considering that the Council agrees, moreover, to paragraph 111 of its decision that Mr. Sabourin fills a judicial office. Obligingly still, should we believe, is always according to what the Board's decision reveals that allows him to decide not to even investigate the conduct of Judge Sophie Bourque, which makes no sense.
Therefore, the provisions of Article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires you to accept as true rather my allegation contained in my letter of March 13, 2009 to the effect that Judge Sophie Bourque has breached section 672.26b of the Criminal Code and to allege in your decision on this ground which the Council relies to oppose and to intrinsically complaint accuses Mr. Sabourin failing to investigate his behavior so that is never seized by any competent authority, this Notwithstanding evidence describing the main issue obviée voluntarily by filing petitions authorized complacent inappropriate on the part of counsel for the respondent.
Your decision and must be corrected when submitted on appeal, if any, to the Professions Tribunal and the Council is required to answer on or before March 27, 2009 to allow me to formulate my appeal request before April 1, 2009, 30 days after the date of service of your decision by a bailiff as you remember, moreover, in your letter of March 16, 2009.
Please act accordingly respect of this proceeding before my appeal before the Professions Tribunal.
In the meantime, get Ms. Trudel Best wishes.
Daniel Bedard
cc: Michel Jolin, counsel for the respondent, Langlois, Kronström, Desjardins, lawyers
_____________________________________________________________
Now comes the reply from the President of the Disciplinary Board of the Quebec Bar ,
Jean Paquet, the letter of March 20, 2009 Mr. Bedard:
Montreal, March 23, 2009
MAIL XPRESSPOST
Daniel Bedard
253 Notre Dame No. .414
Repentigny Qc J6A 2R7
Subject: Application for rectification
Complaint no. 06-08-02434
Daniel Bedard v. Mr. Norman Sabourin
Sir
This is in response to your request for correction of the decision of the Disciplinary Council of 23 February 2009 concerning the above-referenced complaint.
Be advised that your application for correction of the decision and listening to the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 before editing and dubbing is denied.
Please accept our best regards.
Jean Paquet, President
Disciplinary Board Bar-Quebec
JP / sc
____________________________________________________________
This response from Mr. Paquet announced an intention by this committee to create a dialogue of the deaf in communicating with the complainant. Indeed, Article 85 obliges the cpc to explain its response, yet the letter from the Chairman of the Disciplinary Board does not learn the complainant with reasons for refusing the legitimate request of Mr. Bedard vary decision Council in paragraph 72) or refusing to hear the jury's original verdict 21 June 2006. Thus, Mr. voluntarily packet passes next to the main issue which justified the request for an investigation of the conduct of Judge Sophie Bourque.
Below appeal request to the Board's decision that Mr. Bedard table on 1 April 2009
_____________________________________________________________
CANADA COURT OF PROFESSIONS
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
NO:
DANIEL BEDARD, plaintiff / appellant
Complaint No.: 06-08-02434
c.
DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE BAR,
Jean Paquet, Chairman
implicated
Mr. Norman Sabourin, respondent
PETITION ON APPEAL OF DECISION February 23, 2009
AND APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF INTERLOCUTORY
23 MARS 2009 ON AN APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGEMENT
(Art. 475 CCQ)
IN ONE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF PROFESSIONAL SITTING IN AND FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTREAL, APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT:
1. Whereas in a letter dated March 13, 2009 (P-1), the complainant submitted to the Disciplinary Board citing a request in the subject: "Request for correction of the decision and listening to the original recording of the verdict of the jury June 21, 2006 edition and before transplanting;
2. Whereas in a letter dated March 16, 2009 (P-2), challenged me through Nancy Trudel, secretary of the Disciplinary Board, took note of the request for correction under trial provisions of art. 475 CCP and the applicant meant that it would be submitted to the Disciplinary Board for decision;
3. Whereas in the same letter of 16 March 2009, the Disciplinary Board failed to voluntarily inform the complainant of its intention to proceed or not to listen to the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 before editing and dubbing and changed the title subject to the applicant's original application in order to remove the trace, against all odds and injury of the latter;
4. Whereas, the applicant shall submit to the Tribunal that the Council could not slip away and its responsibility to review evidence that the respondent's counsel has submitted himself for examination by the Council, and this, in order to justify its customer advocate and executive director of the Canadian Council on Judicial not having undertaken an inquiry into a complainant's request because he said the verdict was heard and that the copy of the recording of the verdict confirmed his statements;
5. Whereas the Council could still less does not conduct the review given that the complainant has clearly served him during the hearing on January 5, 2009 that the investigation report of November 5, 2008 (P-5) Trustee's Assistant Pierre Despatis testified instead that the verdict was muted and there was therefore embarrassing contradiction;
6. Whereas, by simple inference, such embarrassing contradiction that can not otherwise emanate from the misconduct warranted an intent to protect the immunity of the judge Sophie Bourque who clearly and voluntarily waived section 672.26b CC ; gesture which therefore can not pass for a judicial function beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the Council;
7. Whereas the Council could not therefore ignore the main issue that justified and approach the complainant's legitimate business with the Canadian Council of Magistracy and annulled the frivolity of the investigation request as the legal aspect falsely invoked by counsel for the respondent to withdraw his client's subject matter jurisdiction the Disciplinary Board;
8. Whereas in a letter dated March 23, 2009 (P-6), the Council meant that the complainant's request for correction to paragraph 72 of the decision and listening to the original recording of the jury's verdict of 21 June 2006 edition and before transplanting
9. Whereas paragraph 72 of the Council's decision reads: "The complainant asks the Council to the hearing record (Exhibits R-1-3-R and 1-4) and repeated that it would be normal that the recording is inaudible including against the verdict of the jury;
10. Whereas, according to the preceding paragraphs the Tribunal can not agree otherwise the application for rectification is unavoidable since the word "inaudible" should be replaced by "audible" at first.
11. Whereas in the second stage, the Tribunal can not otherwise agree that the concept of judicial "reasonable doubt" should prevail and oblige the Council to resolve the main issue, listen to the verdict as it should, and to share the assessment of it in its ruling to halt the unlawful and deliberate against the complainant in respect of art. 49 of the Charter of Rights
12. Whereas the indication in the investigation report of the trustee Assistant to the effect that the jury verdict would have been inaudible forced the Council to acknowledge the wrongful aspect of all requests made by the respondent because it Last lied on the main issue in dispute, claiming falsely that the verdict was audible. Recovering also remember that Judge Bourque said he was not nice to lie because in this case, "she says in a recent trial, the rights of the accused are no longer protected;
FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
1. GRANT the appeal of the interlocutory decision and order correction of Judgement at paragraph 72;
2. HOST calling the Council's decision to dismiss the complaint against the respondent by recognizing default guilty on all counts in the offense;
ordered investigation against the judge Sophie Bourque by a law firm independent of the Canadian Judicial Council in order to end the unlawful intent to place the appellant in respect of Article 49 of Bill of Rights
THE WHOLE with costs.
Repentigny, April 1, 2009 Daniel Bedard, plaintiff / appellant
0 comments:
Post a Comment