How To Let My Eyebrawas Grow

Lie, lie to avoid disappointing the lies and cover

While the mainstream media are missing in coward, a young Quebec singer shows us what lies to say the least nationalized embarrassing to our culture. Click: YouTube - MARIE-MAI - LIE (video) to put you in context.

In a controversial decision of 12 January 2009 which caused much ink in Quebec last week, the judge Sophie Bourque jcs declare the arrest and release procedures on the field, 5 gang members charged with brutally beating to death the young Raymond Ellis, Aria Bar in October 2005.

course, even if they were detained''preventive''for more than 24 months, these individuals were also entitled to the presumption of innocence as well as a fair trial as guaranteed to Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But in a trial by judge and jury, questions of fact which alone is the master jury should they take precedence over questions of law? This on will have to decide what our highest court in Quebec. Since it seems clear that if Mr. Louis Dionne, Director of Public Prosecutions, no not appeal this decision, the new Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Ms. Katleen Weil could act according to Article 676 (1) (c) of the Criminal Code and lodge itself appeal to the Court of Appeal .

In an excerpt from its decision justifying it, the judge stated Bourque:

''Getting a judicial decision on the basis of false representations is likely to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice ''
(Journal de Mtl. edition of January 13 p.3)

A renowned criminal lawyer from Quebec, Jean-Pierre Rancourt, said he agreed with Justice Sophie Bourque. He argues that even ''The Court of Appeal is usually reluctant to change the decision of a trial judge'' (Journal de Mtl. Edition of January 13 p.2).

Just to reassure us and properly inform the public as requested by his colleague and another known criminal lawyer, Robert Hague, Rancourt might have interest in order to explain the existence of an appellate court if Such is the case?

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of Quebec and chief justice of the Court of Appeal,''JJ Michel''Honorable Robert continues to lie to himself, after all, perhaps in order to endorse the statements of Mr. Rancourt and discredit in advance the Court of Appeal rendered as usual. What did he, to say about that possibility that the Court of Appeal never changes the decisions of a trial judge? Was it instead to Judge Robert who was responsible to answer this question? Rancourt and not to interfere in this way in the appeals process?

Also suggests he no advance and a response to Judge Robert displayed openly as he is dangerous?

Supporting documents this section will help you understand what drives Mr. Bedard requested that the trial judge retracted Robert followed a hearing held May 14, 2008. A hearing to which was even invited Mr. Bedard and considering he was still more arbitrarily detained since November 19, 2007.

At ground 2 of his ruling, Judge Robert states:'' Considering that there was no hearing in the Court of Appeals 28 August 2006 as shown on the Court docket appeal to this decision.''

However, the docket of the trial record or the docket file 505-01-056133-057, so that the trial judge and jury that the presiding judge Sophie Bourque, indicates the contrary that there was indeed August 28, 2006 hearing on his motion requesting a replay Bedard of delivery the verdict. But without the presence of Mr. Bédard.

So with proof''beyond a reasonable doubt''in support, there is evidence that Judge Robert ment to himself a second time on page 2 as the trial called Mr. Bedard as if it 's was presented at the hearing''personally.'' Robert was therefore''invented''a meeting with himself because it was never called Mr. Bedard at this meeting. Very beautiful, is not it by the Chief Justice of Quebec? "

J. Robert lied a third time to himself to protect the lie to the judge to have Bourque protect those prosecutors Louise Leduc and Josée Grandchamp about the guilt of Mr. Bedard and prevent it by subterfuge judicial dishonest to rehear the verdict of not guilty was that on the contrary given by the juror No. 1. A juror named Nicole Lebrun.

Judgements "bought" in advance and therefore can not be changed and our chief justice can not but be the supervisor of this whole charade because he has control over all lower court judges underlying. Imagine the example he gives all those other judges who themselves have interest now to be bribed into account that their chief justice could not otherwise have that excuse is bribed?

So it is that all this wealth does not have confidence in the administration of justice when so much hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and lack of integrity are revealed to him?

Paradoxically, in its Judgement of 12 javier 2009 Judge Sophie Bourque said he could not tolerate no reservations under the Crown prosecutor who is lying to him because she says:

"Tricking the party is unacceptable. Our justice system is based on respect and trust that its actors are doing "
(Journal de Mtl. Edition of January 13, 2009, p.3)

Asserting something like a hypocrite he deserves that it retains its position as judge of the superior court? And Chief Justice Robert he deserves to keep his own after all this?

Can we now responsible citizens and taxpayers, require the Federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Rob Nicholson, the urgent removal This judge obviously corrupt, but also that of Chief Justice Robert, who approves and signs this demonstration of a barbaric justice in full control?



To convince you, dear Internet that the Court of Appeal (Justice Michel Robert) makes the public increasingly spreading its own fraud in the case of Mr. Bedard click:

Judgement

Further explanation will follow shortly.

Pokemon Soulsilver Rom For Desume

Use of psychiatry for others?

Is that what the judge found Bourque LOYAL to the other party?
The popular discontent
amounts in respect of lack of integrity of our judicial system. People are starting to wake up and asked for accountability. Meanwhile, brave men of good faith displayed so that other honest citizens are protected from the miserable fate they had suffered the same.

" I'm always curious to see how files that mental illness is invoked, are borne by the courts because I am often called as expert witness. But when a court decides to file" shearer ", this shear''''not so. "

Dr. Pierre Mailloux, a psychiatrist

This statement was said to Mr. Bedard during a telephone conversation with him shortly before the hearing of the it before the Review Board of Mental Disorders (NETE) of 10 December 2008 and to which he testified as an expert so, again, as he has successfully done on 10 and 11 November in the Court of Quebec defend its position and cons opinion.

CASE BOURQUE back of the collar and regaining credibility since the judge gave Sophie Bourque, January 12, a stay on the field and acquitted five members of street gang and alleged murderers of Mr. Raymond Ellis, a man seemingly without history, which was itself member of a street gang whatsoever.

Ironically, it took the intervention of Dr. Pierre Mailloux judicious Trois-Rivières to release Mr. Daniel Bédard a psychiatric hospital at the Institut Philippe Pinel de Montréal projected to February 2010 even before the latter has the right to any trial whatsoever.

recall that this ordinance at least was crazy delivered by Justice Richard Poudrier, JCQ March 20, 2008 in Trois-Rivieres because Mr. Bedard had dared mention the word "corruption" yet politely, addressing the latter.

In the Soviet Union, the last time it was done in order to silence those who are right and demand accountability from the state, Stalin was in charge. Gold, Charest said on another Stalin in power? A Charest, who prevents his new Justice Minister and Attorney General to intervene in any manner whatsoever.

The first internment of Mr. Bédard (7 months) from June 2006 January 2007 was authorized by Justice Bourque following the acquittal by a jury of Mr. Bedard June 21, 2006. I say acquittal because the fact that the verdict be inaudible (as confirmed in the investigation report dated November 5, 2008 Pierre Despatis assistant syndic of the Barreau du Québec ( PAGE 1, PAGE 2 )) is not address Mr. Bédard.

Indeed, the notion of "reasonable doubt" must prevail at all times in criminal law and it MUST be granted, regardless of what the judge thinks Bourque or even our justice Chief of Quebec and longtime friend of Mr. Charest, The "Honorable " JJ Michel Robert. Which, as a dictator, while Mr. Charest said he believes in democracy, decided to close all files appeal Mr. Bedard before you even open it. It is clear that the Court of Appeal, which, however, partially upheld the appeal of the decision the Review Commission on Mental Disorders (NETE), could not be consistent and then refuse all other calls Mr. Bedard in cases pending.

In addition, Mr. Bedard was presented in June 2006 before Judge Sophie Bourque very first acquittal by a jury of four charges of threatening and harassment included in the notice (see article December 8, 2005 Journal de Mtl. edited on the right side of the site "judicial persecution"). Trial in which he defended himself alone, without a lawyer.

In these circumstances how could the judge Sophie Bourque itself questioning the ability to appear Mr. Bedard? The latter defended himself once again alone in a lawsuit brought a denunciation of the fifth complainant and principal investigator of all this bullshit story and had decided, on his side, to go it alone. After

have met with Mr. Bedard at the Institut Philippe Pinel September 19, 2008 during an interview 1:30 minutes, Dr. Pierre Mailloux said, inter alia, expertise in its cons-dated October 14, 2008:

"Mr. Bédard, imposing guy physically, calm, collected, thoughtful, analytical, does not show definitively currently no signs or symptoms of mental illness"

Finally, Dr. Mailloux concludes his expertise on the ability to appear to Mr. Bedard as follows:

"The role of the psychiatrist is not one to regulate social behavior to encarcaner individuals within an ideology as was the case in the Soviet Union but to diagnose and treat psychological disorders and mental disorders, while s 'ensuring that individuals are protected with mentally when it comes to court appearances. I deplore in this case, the use of psychiatry for purposes other than lofty goals that must prevail within the profession. "

Thus, Dr. Mailloux confirms that Daniel Bedard was detained and medicated for 20 months total of 31 months of arbitrary detention of an initiative springs from a decision of the judge Sophie Bourque in June 2006. While the last 13 months have been as unnecessarily redundant to question his ability to appear so that it could not have been more correct.

Moreover, Dr. Mailloux has delivered November 11, 2008 testimony before the Court of Québec to the effect that he had great difficulty understanding how a person accused is said to appear incompetent can have been authorized to represent himself without counsel, the Court of Appeal in Quebec City, October 27, 2008 and plead in his own application and appeal the decision of the Review Board of Mental Disorders (NETE) June 12 2008 to uphold the decision of Judge Richard Poudrier Trois-Rivieres on Mr. Bedard said inability.

In its decision of 31 October the Court of Appeal gives more reason for calling in part in welcoming his call. Click: http://prevarication101.blogspot.com/2009/03/respect-de-lart-67226b-du-code-criminel.html to find a certain passages very revealing.

Dr. Mailloux still can not believe in that.

Below you will find copy of the expert report of Dr.Mailloux.

Charmane Star Filmography

Criminals have all the rights

FREE FINALLY
DANIEL BEDARD

POLITICAL PRISONER OF CHARGES IMPOSED AGAINST HIM ALWAYS
DESPITE THE CONFESSION OF PUBLIC MISCHIEF BY ORDER OF ENGINEERS QUEBEC

recall that Judge Sophie Bourque, in a ruling Jan. 12, 2009, ordered stay of proceedings in a trial involving five members of a street gang, alleged perpetrators of a murder on the grounds that the Crown had deliberately lied to the Court, in complete complicity with the police and that similar actions were likely to cast a shadow over the integrity of the justice system. Either.

Paradoxically, in an application in revocation of Judgement (Amended) dated 16 November 2008, Mr. Bedard is for the Court of Appeal and request a stay of proceedings in cases pending and past mainly because the Crown can not otherwise having lied the Court. Indeed, Mr. Jacques Rouillier, the prosecutor, could not allege 14 November 2008 ignore the evidence made by the police and then December 4, 2008, before Judge Robert Sansfaçon JCQ agreed that all such evidence had been "destroyed" by the complainant (OIQ), including proof demanded since the beginning of the dispute professional dating to September 2003.

The Court of Appeal did not even deign to grant a hearing date to hear the request of Mr. Bedard even if it was served in a timely manner in accordance with the procedural rules of the Court Appeal and Article 484 CCP (see contents of this request below)

Contrary to the opinion of a judge of the Superior Court (Sophie Bourque), our highest court admit it that a prosecutor or a key witness to lie with impunity before the Court only when it comes to the rights of members of street gangs or criminal groups ?

Why not give the same treatment as an honest citizen Daniel Bedard who has no criminal history or violence? The latter spent 31 months of his life in illegal detention and even wild because of the incompetence of a liar engineer member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec that Daniel Bedard had a mandate in good faith in May 2003.

It will be interesting to follow the appeal before the highest court in Quebec whereas the Crown (Mr. Louis Bouthiller) that the court reporter Claude Poirier has described as an experienced prosecutor with integrity, has indicated its intention to appeal the decision of the judge Bourque of uttering a stay on the field and released the five alleged perpetrators of the murder of Raymond Ellis.

Doubtless Raphael and Joyce Ellis, are the mother and the father of the deceased, have reason to invoke a Journal de Montréal, edition of 13 January that "Criminals have all the rights."

But why, instead of terrorizing a person requesting the inquiry that was merely exercising a civil right in July 2003 requesting an investigation be initiated against an engineer that it had commissioned in good faith, the Order of Engineers of Quebec do not see it instead to protect the public as it is supposed to be its mission?

And how a whole judiciary can work together to support it as much pettiness and lack of accountability by allowing itself to do this lie?