The turpitude of the Bar Council in its decision of February 27, 2009 will be easily destroyed by the Professions Tribunal under the mere rule of art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See also: turpitude - Wiktionary Switch - News and Victims of their turpitude
In clause (10) of its decision, it is said that the Council considers it useful to reproduce below verbatim these two requests of the complainant.
In his " Motion to dismiss the motion for summary dismissal of a complaint filed by private respondent " the complainant (Daniel Bedard) announced in paragraph 10 that Mr. Norman Sabourin was made aware of a major departure from the criminal code by Justice Bourque is in art. 672.26b.
Because enforce the law is contrary to the denial a major departure, the Council could not afford not to understand that this issue was indeed the main issue . Jur 2515 Constitutional law - Evaluation - Methodology Moreover, he can not claim not to have been seized by the private complainant because it reproduces in full the request of the latter on page 8-9 and 10 of its decision.
Where the Disciplinary Board or other decision-making body finds it useful to reproduce a document in which, moreover, the issue is clearly defined, it may not necessarily obviate voluntarily thereafter in its decision written, which nullifies even the relevance of paragraphs 11 through 35 that followed.
The appellant (Daniel Bedard) is also supported in its claims by the provisions laid down in Art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure which states:
" A party shall respond to a pleading shall admit the allegations she knows to be true ..." By inference
trying to obviate the main issue, the Council has effectively shown and failing to comply with Article 85 cpc by denying claims he knows to be true:
Moreover, the refusal of admission has been supplemented even when the Council urged the impropriety to refuse to correct paragraph 72 of its decision reads:
" The complainant asks the Council to hearing record (Exhibits R-(i) -3 and R-(i) -4) and repeat it would be normal that the recording is inaudible in particular regarding the jury's verdict "
But it is clear here that even if the complainant (Daniel Bedard) had not even talked about that all, except, it seems, a Disciplinary Board to justify its existence yet to discipline their members agree it is quite normal that a record can be heard otherwise what the hell could use such a recording.
What is also not very strong by the Disciplinary Council of the Bar of not having acted on the request of the complainant, however legitimate (Daniel Bedard) is not having taken action to correct immediately since Since then, he travels around the world through the Internet that the Quebec Bar is normal that a verdict is inaudible. Which, since that time, also discredits a way to say the least intrusive on the national stage and internationally.
Admit like me dear readers, is not to restore confidence in the public mind for this party professional clearly evasive in tortuous trip to the prestige of its members in hybrid adrift collusive concern.
Given the fact that I judge, cons, the Professions Tribunal will want to turn from a "Baloune" as the Council was simply to clean up the mess of other judges , lawyers and prosecutors to be, either, discredited on national and international, on something as obvious as this, the Tribunal So will the wise decision of the appeal of the decision of the Disciplinary Board on May 4. And, in order not to repeat redundant and unsightly way the "error" of the Court of Appeal in its decision of 31 October 2008. He
meaning, which can be good for the ego of Provost, it may happen that a lower court is more competent than its highest court.
Because I would have in hand the decision of the Professions Tribunal on 4 May and the recognition of this exemption can not otherwise be granted to me under 85 cpc, I would ask to postpone my trial after that date in order to counter criminal history that the Crown might be tempted to teach me once again falsely to discredit me in the eyes of the jury.
Other disturbing facts in the decision of Council
Furthermore, in paragraph 27 of its decision and with strange title:
"PROOF"
It is reported on Exhibits R (i) -1, R (i) -2, R (i) -3 R (i) -4 for two letters of the respondent to the complainant as well as two mechanical recordings Hearings of June 21, 2006 (J. Bourque) and February 19, 2008 (Charbonneau J.) and paragraph 28 production by the complainant (Daniel Bedard) documents R (p) -1 and R (p) -2 for two complainant's letters sent to the respondent.
However, in paragraphs 29-135 of his decision to come, there is none, I repeat, no reference to these documents, the Council does not even making any finding that he had examined the mechanical recordings of hearings from June 21 2006 (J. Bourque) and February 19, 2008 (Charbonneau J.). Yet it was his ultimate responsibility as they support the issue litigation, which was, not provided by the complainant (Daniel Bédard) but also by the respondent (Norman Sabourin, via his attorney)! ! ! Here
this main issue:
"Two judges of the superior court had abnormal behavior and Mr. Sabourin has not investigated these abnormal behaviors"
The inadequacy of the complaint
How can the board about the lack of complaint when it does not even mention having examined the evidence? Which rejects the paragraphs 115 to 128.
Failure to disclose evidence
What purpose would it serve the Council that the complainant discloses a proof that he not only consider anyway? Furthermore, how can he speak of the failure to disclose evidence when he reported on Exhibits R (p) -1, R (p) -2 or the production of two letters from the complainant to the respondent that he does not refer in any way then in his decision. Which rejects the paragraphs 129 to 135.
The jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board
How can the Council use the lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board to hear this complaint if in paragraph (100) recalls that the respondent is a practicing lawyer, member of the Bar of Quebec and as such his conduct is under consideration by the Disciplinary Board.
That is not me saying it but the Council itself.
The Council then stuck in a less twisted explanation for the fact that some of its members beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the Council when performing duties he calls legal.
But the Oxford Dictionary tells me that judicial review is by definition on a court. And
court is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as well:
"Being able to judge, to administer justice; extent of the territory where such authority"
But what I asked Norman Sabourin is to investigate Behaviour of two judges of the superior court and at least give me the reasons why he decided not to undertake an investigation. The evidence shows that this act was not done immeasurable harm to the applicant's survey.
Mr. Sabourin has not intentionally done an act which is specifically assigned speaks Canadian Council the judiciary to think he protect the public interest. However, at the same Norman Sabourin, I do not ask him to do justice, a function that specifically attributes to himself, among others, the judges comprising the Canadian Judicial Council.
Moreover, if and as part of its functions the Council claims that the respondent takes actions such as "intra-legal" should seriously consider abolishing the position of Mr. Sabourin is just a lawyer and now assigned to a judge.
Thus a sum of nearly half a million dollars could be saved because these judges of this Council already paid by the government to exercise their judicial functions.
As if that were not enough a last argument will show how dishonest the Council's intention to dismiss my complaint for reasons to say the least strange or frivolous.
Indeed, the Council's argument is so twisted, that in the event that the Court feels the same way as him, this decision could threaten the very survival of the professional by perhaps narcissistic pleasure in deviant and Minister of something to which he seems to be alone to think with PM's preferred to let go of him and all happy, Jacques P. Dupuis (click: Other incompetence demonstrated by the former minister "responsible" for the law enforcement professional, Mr. Jacques P. Dupuis to understand) but perhaps not nearly 10.000 lawyers or more which revolve around the professional bodies and their members.
Just think that the office of Mr. Sabourin is precisely to investigate. However, if his decision not to investigate is a judicial act for a lawyer, as contended by the Council, the thousands of lawyers who advise professional trustees called to inquire about their members could remind them that to decide not to investigate is a judicial act and that such conduct could be subject to any control whatsoever on the part of that whatsoever. Thus
trustees of professional supported by case law that could lead to a decision at this point that would be twisted and try to let the court by the judge Bourque indulgence and the new judge Leduc? ? could possibly be paid to do nothing if they wish so.
Ironically, applicants survey in good faith who still believe in the professional system and public protection would be rebuffed by the trustees who would simply decide not to investigate without having the obligation to allege any grounds whatsoever for their Refusal to investigate.
And most importantly, a psychiatrist whose function is to prepare psychiatric reports would just say he does not respond to the request of the Court, for example, to demand from him what the psychiatric report and doing what would psychiatrist and an act of nature "intra-legal" an act of judicial nature which thus escape the monetary jurisdiction the Disciplinary Board of the College of Physicians.
As an engineer that could mandate to verify and approve plans, he would in turn refuse to check and approve plans for escape and the monetary jurisdiction of the Council discipline of the Order of Engineers of Quebec? ? It reminds you of something?
Want more examples ...
No, I think I will abstain because smart people and well established and not necessarily from the field of law, will have them included. How
In this context, their own arguments and those he seems much more objective and relevant as I have next to escape the membership of the Council?
The Tribunal will not have a very difficult decision to take ... but where are adding this: Our brave
Quebec lawyers practicing collective ostracism they ... ?
And they feed on just to save the career of a single judge ... and make exalts another who has just been appointed, shame absorbed in his subconscious for a long time, the minister said Justice Kathleen Weil, herself a lawyer by profession yet ...
solidarity of those who claim here in Quebec, practicing law should not go through the stupidity, I think.
For it must be really happy fool fool even triple Can we be a happy fool? - Fixed to an occupation that would unconsciously we to believe, she died.
Thus our three brave fellows who, in addition to good thinking by encouraging sprawl by another barrister (Me Michel Jolin Langlois, Kronstrom, Desjardins) and counsel for the respondent, their previous disciplinary decisions as a jurisprudence and to help to help to ensure that their decisions are strongly desired in fact even worse.
Imagine the magnitude of the absurd incongruity pulling allowed!
The art of "jerk" the honest citizen.
I believe, all things considered, it is called self-destruction.
Thus, Mr. Norman Sabourin, paid $ 217,000 a year by taxpayers and that after he refused to carry the load that the public expects him to the Canadian Judicial Council, certainly seemed nervous (I can understand), but could not be more proud, it seems, not to say a word to the hearing on 5 January.
Fier therefore be represented by a barrister, who by his rearguard representations prepared by Jacques P. Dupuis himself because I know my inferences drawn by the judge now Bourque. Since
Were not these strange performances and equally bizarre that they are appreciated by our 3 lads and set moral and intellectual bankruptcy in order to maintain their schedules.
valuable time lost and cons but paid by the Office des professions who receives $ 15 million budget of 325.000 professionals belonging to orders professionals and starting cheated because most pay this voluntary quota driven out of their annual dues because they still believe in the integrity of Quebec's professional system. For a good part of this global contribution allocated to the Office des professions is paid by the members of the Bar. So why not finally take advantage of this system all wrong and "crosser" even our own colleagues in the legal profession say they are all in the heart? At this point disillusioned by the system, the right to "jerk" by oneself is accepted and is even legitimate, should we believe in lawyers.
Fier, therefore, that Mr. Jolin and operates from ostracism to himself and to the legal profession. How far should we stoop to take a job at the Canadian Judicial Council? The price to be believed.
Not very strong.
But basically I suspect that these men, these are all very smart lawyers (except of course that everyone has already Dupuis scored as a triple fool happy life) and some of them very bright and I include Mr. Gaetan Bourassa among those, anyway, and the fact that he did not assert the right to my place, which caused me 32 months in prison for nothing.
But unfortunately this is what may happen in consultation annoying when trying to protect the immunity of a judge too severely compromised.
Langlois Kronstrom, Desjardins? The Quebec Bar?
Let go and go and redo your classes please release it!
I remind you that this is simply and humbly believe that someone unfit for convenience that you say in all objectivity and deep desire to regain his dignity that he was shamefully stolen with help to make many of your peers not yet "disciplined" by the Council? ? ? ...
The art of killing a professional system and the legal profession by Paquet, Oberman, St. Aubin, lawyers ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment