Progressivism Contribution

is still incomplete!

The reader will judge whether the following evidence corresponding to two transcripts possibly made by Ms. Letarte is incriminating evidence. I say possibly because the transcripts are signed by anyone and copies of sound recordings of messages have even been entered into evidence, which shows more and the desire of non-transparency of the complainant and the bad faith of his allegations. Since these only 2 messages left on the voicemail of the executive secretary of the Bureau of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec are, according to the complainant, messages "threatening and hateful" to the point of arrest an individual in November 2007 Pinel and lock until February 2010? So I leave it up to Mr. Bedard to speak about this:

November 13, 2007: Appeal from the voicemail of Diane Letarte and transferred by the latter.

"So Ms. Letarte Daniel Bédard.
is to fix, not an appointment, I would say, but a period in which we could discuss with Mr. Ghavitian as a result of the dialogue sometimes we rule things. So my intention is to want to talk with Mr. Ghavitian, if he himself wants it to stop this circus and finally my rights under Article 49 are saved as they are guaranteed.
And by the way maybe Mr. Sicotte after four years could make the effort to file proof of his accusations, since his attorney, Mr. Rene Brabant, has mentioned him, it was my duty to respect the ruling "Stinchcombe" of the Supreme Court in that ultimately I need to file for me, full proof and complete with respect to these offenses against Mr. Sicotte.
So that since the Charter reminds us all that we are equal in right: Mr. Sicotte had no choice and must eventually drop its case.
So do the message to Mr. Ghavitian
Thank you and good day. "(sic)

Proof that I asked via this message on the voicemail of Ms. Letarte is always the same evidence I demand that my request through full disclosure of evidence. A request that the judge completely ignored Robert Sansfaçon December 4, 2008 and Judge Robert Marchi did likewise on February 18, claiming that this was the jurisdiction of the Superior Court judge presiding over the trial by judge and jury.

15 November 2007 9:11. Call DB (message left on voicemail Luce Bastien)

"Hello, ma'am,
My name is Daniel Bedard
I wanted to speak to the President of the Order of Engineers of Quebec, Mr. Ghavitian since I've joined earlier this week to Hydro-Québec to the effect whether or not responded to the demand there would respond within 7 days. So, I wonder if Mr. Ghavitian will take action because there is still only 1 day. Please remind me at (450) 582-3815.
Thank you and good day. " (sic)

Please note that this is the strongest evidence" incriminating "that were eventually filed nearly 15 months after having arrested and kept in custody all this time.
The other "evidence" being articles from my blog "acharnementjudiciaire.blogspot.com"
emails from a certain "Gilles Courchesne" is also having some trace of threat, harassment or other inappropriate comments. I was unable to communicate with OIQ; public entity and not yet involved in the initial litigation. The impediment being goofy after the order of Judge Bourque confirmed on 1 March 2007 or at the hearing on sentencing, which was imposed on me after 7 months at the Pinel Institute to punish me for have been paid by June 21, 2006 the jury! ? Justice Bourque has protected the entity which has bribed her to reverse the jury's decision to my extreme prejudice. For the balance of probabilities that this be so, after the 10 inferences explained later in this blog is 100%.

Imagine. I served the equivalent of a federal sentence is 26 months (taking into account the time called "preventive" account usually in duplicate, and all that gives me at the end of this trip is degrading imposed this proof that I can immediately let me call exculpatory

is how money is wasted taxpayers of Quebec and the lives of honest citizens who dare to denounce the incompetence of some engineers to protect the public!?

Eyetoy Namtai Drivers

Case Matte

FREE DANIEL BEDARD
POLITICAL PRISONER

At the detention center Rivière-des-Prairies Division psychiatric care due to the Institut Philippe-Pinel where Daniel Bedard traded occurred after his arrest to the court dated February 10, prison staff he was initially refused access to documents of evidence which had just be returned the same morning by the crown, before changing his mind. However, this "evidence" confirms the absence of reasonable grounds and valid reasons to keep Daniel Bedard custody.

Despite the exculpatory evidence disclosed that in February 10, 2009 by the crown after 15 months of non intentional and collusive, Judge Rolande Matte JCQ has cons Surprisingly, the court ordered Daniel Bedard at the Institut Philippe-Pinel for a week to evaluate his "ability to appear". This decision is all more surprising as it comes just two months after another similar ruling issued in Quebec court after two days of hearing chaired by Judge Jean-Pierre Boyer. The latter, based on testimony given by psychiatrist Pierre Mailloux as an expert witness and despite the contrary opinion of psychiatrists to the Pinel Institute, said Daniel Bédard "fit to stand trial."

The injury suffered by Daniel Bedard now is enormous. This situation makes the absurd in the sense that Mr. Bedard now has exculpatory evidence which confirms the arbitrary measures that the Crown is bent on making him suffer. Recall that his initial request full disclosure of evidence pursuant to terms of Stinchcombe was lodged 15 months earlier, well before his internment at the Institut Philippe-Pinel. It seems that the initial reason to question his ability to appear had no other purpose than to delay as much as possible the disclosure. However, February 10, 2009, there is a part of that evidence is missing or is missing ...

The residual evidence does not bring criminal charges. For this reason, the crown is now seeking a stay of proceedings. For his part, Mr. Bedard requires a trial as soon as possible in order to clarify the situation particularly nebula surrounding the disclosure, both fragmented and late, in addition to obsessive questioning of the crown about his ability to appear.

The maneuver of obtaining a stay of proceedings is to prevent the Crown prosecutor Me Jacques Rouiller getting caught in default, to allow criminal charges without having the slightest evidence in addition to keeping his prey behind bars, minimizing its ability to communicate with the outside world, to make its voice heard and get justice.

Without support from outside and the professionalism of Doc Mailloux, it's a safe bet that Daniel Bedard was destined to be forgotten somewhere in a wing Secure Pinel. For now, it is important to put an end to this circus and release to Daniel Bedard to undergo a fair trial before his peers and that justice is finally done with full compensation for the damage incurred and the severe damage to his rights deemed fundamental. It is the integrity of the entire judiciary and public respect for it.

Krusteaz Pancake Biscuits

Meet Dr. Pierre Mailloux, consultant psychiatrist

Mr. Bédard you today comments on his recent meeting with Dr. Mailloux. Meeting, which, curiously it was imposed by conditions of release when it is precisely thanks to the intervention of Dr. Daniel Mailloux could recover his freedom from Pinel? A place hungry applications or considerations of mystical orders where the routine of making the least possible is more psychiatrists and their entire team revolves around them as blind followers to worship in their gurus. Forgetting presqu'ainsi display at least their real desire to really treat mental illness. One hospital said "psychiatric" where he stayed back against her will for 13 months while in 2006-2007 and following his acquittal by a jury of 21 June 2006, Judge Bourque sent there once for a period 7 months. Without doubt she has done to try to break it. So he can not speak well of his actions her: that of having either hinder the normal course of justice. A criminal offense which, if committed by a person other than a judge, he may "deserve" to 10 years in prison. That's at least what is understood now that this implies the Criminal Code, Article 139 (2).

I'm still happy to have, February 3 last met Dr. Pierre Mailloux, a psychiatrist, Trois-Rivieres, for a one-hour consultation. Since it is not the one who got me out of this mess?

Imagine. This meeting, along with another planned for March 10, 2009 were made possible because the two prosecutors, Mr. Jacques Rouillier Montreal and David Bouchard Three Rivers said, inter alia, as conditions of surrender released on promises to appear again at their respective veaudeville, that I should respect my appointment with my doctor treating , Dr. Pierre Mailloux.

Me Gaetan Bourassa, director of the "Legal Aid of Montreal," that, therefore, that according to Mr. Juli Drolet of the direction of criminal prosecutions and criminal, is supposed to do my rights, has once again done nothing to change these conditions as though I asked him to do. Thus, and because of my own counsel, there was and there will be another meeting. One last, I promised Dr. Mailloux. Yet they are always at the expense of taxpayers resigned in good taxpayers they are.

recalled that the 10 and 11 November, Dr. Mailloux, testified before Judge Jean-Pierre Boyer of the Quebec Court and then before the Review Board of Mental Disorders (NETE) in effect that following his interview of 1:30 pm with me, held Sept. 19 at the Institute Philippe Pinel de Montréal, he has come to the formal conclusion that the accused (Daniel Bédard) not suffering from any mental illness. And therefore, I can no longer be able to appear because, in addition, he will say, I filled in the new criteria set out in Steele v. The Queen. Criteria, although they had already led to Judge Louise Villemure the same Court of Quebec, to conclude my ability to appear Dec. 18, 2007. And this, after 7 or 8 hearings after my arrest on 19 November 2007. Imagine the incongruity embarrassing: I was made to appear 8 times whether I was capable to appear? Are we done this for all those who appear in the dock?

Furthermore, his expert report is proof that not only am I a capable person but also that I am an erudite person: a person, so who knows the laws better than the others, itself being able to prepare its own queries, quickly assimilate new information, just to make a synthesis being analytical. Dr. Mailloux, frank and objective to say that his reasons, he describes me as an individual more qualified to represent himself before the court rather see lawyers as being less able to do because not knowing my record as much as myself.

His report will also say that I demonstrate remarkable resilience. Resilience is a characteristic of the physiological and psychological state of a person to act with great courage and determination to an abnormal situation being imposed against their will.

A situation that could easily take me in a continual state of shock, depression and the abyss of the lowlands. But instead, I stayed right in front of adversity, I stayed right to collective idiocy to protect lies and irresponsibility of people who say they are important. Convinced, therefore, that the truth and not evil, finally one day triumph. And that's what kept me "out of the water," says Dr. Mailloux. So I avoided drowning when I am propelled to power in troubled waters to try and I m'essoufle and runs quietly at the sight of anyone.

Imagine. Psychiatry, as would be performed at the Institut Pinel, try to make people mad, rather than treat them to ensure they are getting smarter. The world is upside down, like what is sometimes practiced in professional bodies, and this is all really hard if the Institute receives, in addition, two grants from governments! !

How can a science that qualifies to be a medical discipline whose purpose is the study and treatment of mental illness, can allow that under the "study" by Dr. Jacques Talbot conclude that I should seek treatment until February 2010 (according to an order made by the judge Richard Poudrier, March 20 at Three Rivers) and another study (that of Dr. Mailloux) more objective this time say that I do not suffer from any mental illness and can no longer am able to appear? Dangerous as a science! Do not you think?

By analogy, and since I am, or was, should I, unfortunately, that after all damages, professional technologist in the field of construction, it is as if my client had received information to the effect that its building required no serif on its foundation walls and I tell him that not the opposite. That his building because it requires a sole collapse one day or another if not properly seated.

So how this study by Dr. Talbot can it have received the consent of the trustee of the College of Physicians Assistant before I decided, in addition, carry myself the complaint to the disciplinary committee of the College? ? Anyone being taken to follow up investigations at the College of Physicians? I asked for an investigation, but curiously no one came to meet me. And it dismissed the complaint, as following a single call made, imagine, against the respondent. At least that's the report of Dr. Fortin and a quarter of a page tells me. Should that its president, Dr. Yves Lamontagne, appears more accountable than that, I seems to ensure public protection.

Dr. Mailloux is a human person, simple and warm. What differentiates psychiatrists met at the Pinel Institute of Montreal. All cool, wordy, pretentious and arrogant. Except perhaps, Dr. Frederick Millaud, which, I must be honest, has at least demonstrated listening and showed understanding and sympathy in my case. What reassures me still that psychiatry is not completely on the decline in our great sovereign Quebec that some would like but I hope not only for this reason!

In return, I do not think a psychiatrist as Dr. Michel Filion can claim to cure anyone, especially not when it comes to a cure for anxiety if There was one that caused me much anxiety, it's him. More concerned to protect the immunities of his colleagues Talbot Wolwertz Morissette and rather than having to simply admit that I did not suffer any mental illness whatsoever. Say that taxpayers are paying him a salary of over $ 200,000 per year for causing mental illness rather than curing it. Another fine waste of public funds, if you ask me. Mostly it involves, in addition, psychiatrists women on probation at Pinel. I just hope for the future of psychiatry in Quebec, they will keep their spirit of synthesis and analysis learned in school and do not désapprendront him!

I believe that if there was only Dr. Mailloux or Dr. Millaud at Pinel, it would not be continually confronted to legal action of the kind incurred by the family of the young Justin-Scott St-Aubin, died of cardiac arrhythmia at November 28, 2007 RDP detention center because it lacked a bed for the receive Pinel when he visibly suffered from depression, I learned the media if they reported the facts objectively. In this sense read my comments for the least disturbing the bottom of the following article by simply clicking: http://acharnementjudiciaire.blogspot.com/2009/02/un-bref-resume-du-prejudice-et-de . html

Also, having still learned things from this wonderful adventure with the judiciary, could I afford counsel substitutes "rave" of the Attorney General that are Rouillier Jacques Bouchard of Montreal and David Trois-Rivieres, and judges that are dark and devious Sansfaçon Montreal and compacts and Tremblay Trois-Rivières, stopping to pay in mental decay and ecstasy euphoric feeling caused by the excessive power that has on other people because one day someone offered us this opportunity. To do so, the work that we demand from prosecutors complicit judges and vice versa for the road dust, dangerous criminals caught in the crosshairs leading to the Kingdom of the Queen, would be sufficient, I think. No need to attack honest citizens and be zealous spirit of contradiction! ? A treatable disease perhaps due to medication. Should consult Dr. Mailloux perhaps?

Because how else can one explain that Dr. Mailloux is identified as my attending physician and not as my doctor consultant to appear on the promises they made me sign of strength? What do they do then subsequent rulings of Judge Louise Villemure, 18 December 2007 in Montreal, Judgement of the Court of Appeal of 27 October 2008 in Quebec City Judgement of Judge Jean-Pierre Boyer, 11 November 2008, and the decision of the Review Board of Mental Disorders (NETE) of 10 December 2008 and taken to the Institut Philippe Pinel? Are all these judges and lawyer (s) spoke after hearing and weighing the expert testimony and then say nothing or do nothing to advance the court records still at taxpayer expense ? Can we move forward at some point? Or does it apply to what all this lasts as long as possible so no doubt prove other posts to "friends" who also want to become judges. For all this seems very charges. The latter seem to invest elsewhere, moreover, the least effort possible to try to understand the causes and they have to "judge" and roll the bank but wipe more than contempt in return from of litigants undoubtedly wrong way?

Moreover, and this question, Dr. Mailloux was certainly agree with me that it was my doctor-not my doctor and consultant-contractor.

Considering that I now recognize that our justice system as currently administered, can destroy an honest individual just producing paper, it seems important now that we agree on the precise terms. A responsibility that must absolutely take a judge, I think. While he delights not to be assumed by the complacency and complicity.

If this is not persecution, I wonder how we should call it? ?

Should stop the bloodshed to end ...