Dear Internet savvy,
I think reading this article written by Daniel Bedard in response to Mr. Gaetan Bourassa, director of the Legal Aid '''' Montreal, will not let you indifferent and do you will more than feed some doubt on the ability of the latter. If doubt, of course, was still persistent in your mind after consulting his blog acharnementjudiciaire''.''
On 27 February, at the hearing before the judge of the Superior Court Coordinator, the Honorable James L. Brunton, the latter was, in my opinion, a mistake but still surprising voluntary and even subtle since, up to his caliber and experience notwithstanding the fact that I respect him a lot as I also served. (Click on the links
Brunton on February 27 PART 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOkkWNJq7UM
Brunton on February 27 PART 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h625QB0SgUE to hear the 19 min. which lasted my appearance.
Since it is surprising how quickly the order is executed a judge sending an accused person to Pinel a psychiatric evaluation. Even if it is redundant and insulting outrageously recent prior judgments of his brothers and sisters of the same Court, three judges of the Court of Appeal and the decision of the Review Board of Mental Disorders, 10 December 2008. It seems that the Court of Québec, we like it or judge order not to mention taxpayers' expense. (See case Matte on this platform)
In return, I observe, taken aback since February 2006, dealt with how slow is an order complete disclosure which would result in defense same person charged, that is to say myself.
Note that a judge with honesty and integrity can not oppose the right of an accused to exercise his full defense.
Except that at this point the slow judicial process by questioning unnecessarily redundant, and non-motivated, ability to appear for an accused person begins to resemble the obstacle and becomes bound by mere inference, of the opposition. And it is this that has troubled me and troubles me still at the highest point.
Because as I told the judge Brunton, who would surely prefer to be elsewhere when I raised the question, what happened, exactly, three years later, the order of February 2, 2006 his colleague, Justice Carol Cohen? Order requiring the Crown (Me Louise Leduc) to make me full disclosure within 10 days, until February 13, 2006.
In my legitimate questions, however, the judge simply said Brunton he chaired a hearing to determine a trial date.
As pointed him in turn before the judges Sansfaçon (December 4, 2008), Matte (February 10, 2009) and Marchi (February 18, 2009) the Court of Québec. Which have only spoken on dates back in court''and''forgetting to talk about real things. Or, in other, my application for full disclosure of evidence dated 18 November 2008.
Query I finally entitled to file following the decision of November 11, 2008 J. Boyer, who ruled again on my ability to appear.
Since this motion was filed right before the Court of Quebec had the right to obtain a written decision of the judge and that it be made public to ensure transparency of the Court. But none of this was not done.
Recall that the order of Judge Cohen was never kept in mind when I presented myself at the preliminary hearing of February 21, 2006 chaired by Judge Guy Fortier JCQ in the court record 505-01 -056,133-057. Curiously enough, he turned a deaf ear to my request for a stay of proceedings invoked at the beginning of the hearing under section 312c.pc the failure of the Crown (Louise Leduc) to comply with the order of Judge Cohen. J. Fortier, thereafter, allowed the continuation of the preliminary investigation without my presence and spread without any evidence whatsoever.
I say without my presence as familiar with my rights, my anger was spontaneous before such an example of disrespect for them! J. Fortier''me''then awarded a contempt of court and two months in prison in addition to automatic me out of the Court to endorse me as his own failure and that of Louise Leduc also doing so willfully failed to allow me to attend the preliminary hearing.
Is that gesture very serious transgression initiated by J. Fortier, who subsequently led the equally severe judge Sophie Bourque. Which has not responded at the conference of June 6, 2006, to my very legitimate request to obtain, by way of relevant evidence (pace Mr. Leduc in Time and Me Rouillier in these proceedings) telephone reports of May and June 2003 Engineer Peter Sicotte.
3 years later, my pseudo-lawyer, Gaetan Bourassa, director of legal''Aide''Montreal, now wants me to believe he could obtain a stay of proceedings failure to disclose evidence or insufficient evidence. While still more recently, he repeated to me endlessly that I had to throw my code of civil procedure in the garbage because he said it serves no purpose in the criminal proceedings? ?
At the peak of his art, is it his way once again to enforce the law?
For in the Criminal Code, only 4 items are relevant to the stay of proceedings:
. Art. 606 (3), it is a question of stay of proceedings adjourn the trial to a later date.
. Art. 676 (1) (c) it is a question to the Attorney General may appeal an order of a court of first instance which stays proceedings on an indictment.
. Art. 813 (b) (i) there is a power issue of the informant, the Attorney General or his agent to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order stopping Lers procedures on or dismissing an information in the case of a lawsuit made by summary conviction.
. Art. 579 (1), it is a question of power of the Attorney General to stop proceedings at any time after the commencement of proceedings.
Thus, the criminal code does not agree that Attorney General the authority to either appeal an order which stays proceedings or is finalizing the procedures if his wish.
In return, the Criminal Code does not therefore in any way from the accused (or his attorney) to eventually stop the proceedings by a judge. Except to adjourn the trial to a later date for the end to prepare his defense. And it is also necessary that the magistrate sees fit! (Article 606 (3) CC)
Paradoxically, art. 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for a piece of evidence against the party refuses to produce it under an order made by a judge in that direction.
And it is this refusal to follow a judge may then grant the stay of proceedings if it determines that such evidence is necessary to defend the accused.
Thus, telling me to throw my code of civil procedure in the garbage, Mr. Bourassa and violates Art. 1 of Chapter 1 of the Rules of the Court of Québec raising provisions applicable to all divisions of the Court.
Indeed, the article does mention that "registers, indexes and files necessary to implement the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c. C-46) and the Code Criminal Procedure (RSQ, c. C-25.1) and those imposed by special laws shall be held in accordance with the guidelines of grafts CJ "
Thus, Mr. Bourassa, if he is consistent with this he claims, should go tell the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, the Honourable Guy Gagnon, throw the Code of Civil Procedure kept to transplantation for the Public in the garbage. For convenience by collusion between the "legal actors", it is no longer anything for that audience to want to apply in the criminal proceedings! ?
By way of comparison, is like if after having "worked" over 25 years in the building, I told my client to discard its building code in the garbage because it is useless.
And it says that this incompetent management of the Office of Legal Aid of Montreal?
Madam Minister Weil, where are you? Because there is big money that is spent a way not very careful ... Do not you think?
Daniel Bedard
0 comments:
Post a Comment