Another mistake by continuing Rouillier and public prosecutors in Quebec who condemn them for good for sure in the minds of the international community as well as in the minds of thousands of Quebecers and alerts warned!
I was just hoping that my continuing frantic and happy fool the likes of ex-Attorney General makes the mistake of invoking my said invoking criminal history parallels the Evidence Act in Canada. And he did! ?
Yet it can not otherwise having been''recommended''in this sense by the Attorney General Kathleen Weil that I ask for this other reason remit to its head, PM Charest, for his resignation before incompetence that is the international community which is so monstrous it requires are lax and non-intervention. I therefore ask the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Louis Dionne, do the same for the same reasons, whereas he has not, either, the moral authority to deal effectively with such functions in respect of the accused or opposite in respect of the families of victims of murders or serious assaults.
All 4 are lawyers yet. Lawyers who are supposed to know the law and enforce it as it should ie in any democracy. First
Rouillier me if transmitted by on 23/04/2009 at 18:55 Usher''his notice of intention to produce in evidence a piece called''citing my criminal history,''I retorted with a view of intent to submit my blog to complete the analysis of the jury''to counter easily his failure to be offset in many ways anyway and easily into the bargain. Here is a first example to be submitted to the jury for serious analysis. In addition
and since the product under section 30 (7) of the Evidence Act in Canada is clearly evidence that he described as ''Destroyed''December 4, 2008 before Judge Sansfaçon resurrected''and''before Judge Rolande Matte on February 10 will most certainly do not in any way whatsoever to admit my guilt to a jury strictly awaiting the prosecutor establishes that proof''beyond a reasonable doubt''in front of him. I ask the jury can hear what happened to these two audiences together to better judge. I also ask that the jury asked to hear the conference in full force because I am forced to return with the same legal question not answered by Judge Mongeau to address some criminal history that still unjustly imputed to me 3 years later in the file 505-01-056133-057 .
Thus, it remained so-called criminal history and the latter tries his hand still in idiot before a jury that would like to believe my blog since it was built with the objectivity that such a cumbersome But that requires termination and the prosecutor has absolutely nothing to put in their mouths. Or even his main witness. Which is saying something. It will not always deal with idiots, and the two previous juries have shown me that they were insightful, honest and intelligent by discharging. Qualities that become cons increasingly difficult to find in our judges. Strange finding. Especially pathetic.
I thank God for allowing me to defend myself before a jury by promising that the rest of my life will be devoted to improving our justice system by treating it very closely if no other candidates are doing to do.
Maybe one day, would I even grants of clean government than is currently in power so that my own experience can serve other and together can find solutions to improve managing this justice if only to the well-being and physical and mental balance of our children and grandchildren.
But then the stupidity and incompetence of our pursuer reaches peaks still unsuspected by myself and it will help me even more the task of achieving my first step: that is to acknowledge my innocence throughout line and convict some judges and prosecutors who have dishonored the institution that is yet to live more honorably than many other people in our society.
Since the evidence of my ability has been amply demonstrated and that this map does petty could again be ''Replayed''.
Rouillier will be forced to learn the jury that made me shut up for 13 ¼ Pinel months in the criminal case before it because of my criminal history?
Not very strong.
For in the three cases he cites, 3 probation mentions that''the court ruled on the conditions prescribed below'm absolved the offender.''
absolve an accused person does not of course mean to confine Pinel? Since no evidence
finally passed by Rouillier no evidence that I violated probation three.
Therefore, under what law, the prosecution could he, in these circumstances, deprive me of my liberty for 32 ¼ intrinsic month with 20 months Pinel?
So here regarding the prosecution of Mr. Rouillier. Which will now face a charge of obstructing justice and public mischief. A charge more serious or even absolutely inconceivable by a prosecutor on which we should be able to count on its high integrity is that it is human beings with whom Justice consists not with animals, notwithstanding the fact that inhibited in a society like ours, animals are often treated better human beings. Unfortunately.
This accusation has been made directly to the Attorney General of Ontario Whereas I could not ask individuals forced to resign for the same reasons to pursue their own attorneys to whom they gave the order to sue me outrageous improperly. Whereas the case may be, there could be more obvious conflict of interest statement and the prosecution that might otherwise be idle.
But more importantly, I take notice where the real debate now:
Indeed, my trial would be first and foremost by Justice Mongeau. Let me explain, since you will agree that I can acknowledge it as another judge without proof''beyond a reasonable doubt''
Doing so what the law says it is OK to do and not what we learn from them when we continue.
On April 3, in conference, Judge Mongeau informs me of something I already knew having learned thoroughly the law: the questions of law as opposed to questions of fact which the jury is the sole master are the''privilege''of the judge and these must be resolved''without the presence of the jury.''
I expected firm J. Mongeau. Since I feigned surprise at the outset of the hearing but I knew very well that he was the Chief Justice François Rolland was chosen to preside over my 3ie trial by judge and jury.
So I sent her my question of law trap
"The ability to appear is it a question of fact or a question of law, Mr. Justice? "
" I will not answer this question, "I replied dryly J. Mongeau.
"But why, sir, is not a legal question that I ask you?"
was my reply.
"You see a lawyer who will answer you on that? ?
In fact, Justice Mongeau simultaneously committed two legal errors too severe for me to just let it past this stage of proceedings. A laudable initiative is that the jury requests the presence of a lawyer so that he answer my questions of law if the judge himself is unable to answer, then I could demand his recusal s' there is no answer because he has a legal obligation.
Given that if the request comes from me, for sure, I refuse it, you can be sure. They will call anything out of the water hot his sister Sophie J. Bourque who will live in conscience surely affect the inexcusable act of prevarication it has done to me immeasurable harm.
First, the judge did mention Mongeau that questions of law was the exclusive privilege. Therefore and because the trial has commenced, it could therefore return this privilege to a lawyer? Anyway? Is it paid $ 267,000 a year to miss the boat in its own backyard?
Second, the judge could Mongeau so condescending and more insinuating that since I returned'''' able to attend my question was not relevant and therefore it was not obligated under that interpretation in fact, respond.
Considering the contrary, the evidence has finally proved that I have always been a suitable person to appear that does not suffer from any kind of mental illness even if everything has been done to make me so was born a horrible having to live in a locked psychiatric institute when we know very well that we have no business there and in addition we take the bed of someone who might himself be in need to seek treatment or treatment for his mental illness.
And that means not suffering from any mental illness, evidence has shown more as stated in his Doc Mailloux-cons expertise that I am a scholarly and analytical. Well done Mr. Mailloux.
Under these considerations, my question of law could not have been more legitimate and relevant given that, in addition, Mr. Rouillier me fai tle gift waiting for him: either attempt, moreover, to convince the jury my criminal history on file 505-01-056133-057 .
This file is the trial by judge and jury chaired by Justice Sophie Bourque June 21, 2006. Since
J. Mongeau has accepted the issuance of this opinion because I was duly served by a bailiff, the judge could Mongeau now no way to pronounce a stay of proceedings as he indirectly suggested in the Crown conference it out of the closet and out of which at the same time as him smelly skeletons would certainly see it resurface.
It could do so without first allowing me now to draw my full defense under these so-called criminal history given that my honor, were again attacked by the crass pursuit who does not wish, it seems, not letting go because knowing itself is now being sued. It is therefore likely to play hard but I'm ready, I assure you.
Considering that surplus, criminal history are questions of fact which only the jury is now the master, the jury asked whether it is insightful to be seized of other things that a protocol on which appears only things that a clerk finally agreed to provide. Thus
J. Mongeau could contravene Article 23 of the Charter and now help defend me full in connection with these so-called history criminals.
That said, since Article 30 (7) d ela Act, Canada Evidence is invoked by the prosecuting attorney, the judge Mongeua could not help but to invoke Article 5 of the same legislation to counter the defense of the said alleged criminal history.
Since my background is a matter of fact, the judge can not Mongeau help the jury understand very early in my defense as to its claims of the Crown so that they n'influent unnecessarily on the remaining procedures.
robligation Pa, the jury will have before it the question I asked the judge in pre Mongeau since art. 5 of the Evidence Act also supported by the laws and judicial ethics demonstrates that the court has departed Mongeau 3 simply by not responding to my question of law which is precisely the answer, increasingly, my defense against false allegations of the prosecutor.
Thus, if the judge Mongeau not answering my question before the jury, in addition to derogate from Article 23 of the Charter. A right that I also secured by the same Charter.
J. Mongeau during his address to the jury also could not otherwise tell him that my ability to appear much as my criminal history issues of fact alone, again, is the master.
addition, and if the jury is the master, Judge Mongeau is forced to teach them some thing not yet known because the same jury must remain curious and anxious throughout the trial and may not otherwise seek to understand why I was locked up 13 ¼ months Pinel in the record before it. And that ability to appear is indeed a question of fact and that the judge Bourque made a mistake''or''voluntary committed a serious act of negligence not swearing again the jury to decide this issue on June 22, 2006 by departing voluntarily Article 672.26b Criminal Code.
Secondly, and given that I am confident of having before me a jury 3ie intelligent and anxious to do justice to the party that deserves, I am confident that the jury ultimately require compliance with Article 672.26b and therefore asked that the 11 jurors in my trial in June 2006 be summoned before him so that they settle the issue definitively, that the Court of Appeal also failed to October 27 last Quebec, so they retell a single loud and clear this time, they delivered the verdict June 21, 2006.
Thus the prison doors ajar for women Tanguay to welcome two former judges or the judge Sophie Bourque and Louise Leduc''judge''whose''career''has been well short of justice if there are still men on this earth and so that others Honest men do not suffer their abuse.
The jury will have before this article in the coming week to counter the defense''avis of intent to produce a play''the prosecutor continued ...
To be continued ... definitely
0 comments:
Post a Comment