Majeres' Musings

Mood: Not too sick to post this SICK Judges LIES
Listening to: the Jays and the Yanks

Here is another lie-ing sick Judge and Crown blatently screwing over a person self representing himself.

Is this Judge and Crown going to get away with it.  I hope not.

One good thing is that their kids and grandkids will be able to read about their lies and prejudices in the future against fellow Canadians.....thanks to the internet.

Snipped from John Turmel below:


JCT: No kidding. We thought we'd finally cleared up the
difference between a non-constitutional motion to quash
pursuant to Section 601.1 of the Criminal Code and a
constitutional motion to declare invalid pursuant to the
Charter. But no. The Crown is back to misleading the judges
into thinking it's a constitutional motion without ever
having to state which section of the Charter Dominic is
supposed to be claiming.

Cour du Quebec
April 18 2005
Judge Turpin

DG: Dominic Gravel
CR: Genevieve DePassille

CR: Call the file of Dominic Gravel who is representing
himself right away. He's presenting a motion this morning. I
don't think it will take too long and it would permit the
constable to go to the other chamber.

JCT: It never takes long when the Applicant doesn't get to
present is own case first.

Juge Turpin: Mr. Gravel.

CR: So, as I've indicated, Mr. Gravel is representing
himself. He has presented several applications in Superior
Court for bail revision. He presented two. The first was
rejected by Madam Justice Trudel which was presented last
week and the judge indicated that it did not conform, to
address it to the Court of Quebec. However, today, he's
presenting a second motion that's surely in the file and
this application, it says "Notice of Return of Application,"
and if I understand the... the... it's always not too
clear... the declarations sought by the mister,

JCT: Notice the introduction to the application and what the
applicant wants is by the party who is not too clear on the
application and not the Applicant himself who is clear on
his own application. Usually, the court lets the Applicant
explain the application rather than the respondent. Always
done backwards here.

CR: it's to declare that the law is no longer of force and
effect and in several instances, this application has
already been presented many times before the Superior Court.

JCT: Lie #1. The application to quash pursuant to S.601 was
never presented to the Superior Court because that's not the
place to do a S.601.1 application. What was in Superior
Court was, as mentioned earlier, applications to vary bail
conditions. It's not that hard to distinguish, I hope,
except for the Crown who did them. Lie #2. There's the
implication that it's been dealt with on the merits but it's
always been thrown out on technicalities.


CR: Judge Plouffe had indicated to him that he was not
ruling and returned the file to the Court of Quebec till the
trial since these are Charter questions being invoked.

JCT: Lie #3 is that Judge Plouffe simply refused to rule. Of
course, originally, Judge Plouffe indicated he was not
ruling because Dominic was lacking an affidavit. Then
secondly, because Dominic hadn't served the Federal Crown
who, the Trudel court accepted later, he didn't have to
serve. And Lie #4 that he's invoking the Charter. Of course,
the next time Dominic hears about his Charter questions,
he'll ask "What sections did I invoke?"

CR: Therefore, it's at the trial for them to be...

Juge Turpin: To be treated.

CR: To be heard, treated. I can indicate that his
preliminary inquiry is set for one day, May 6. Therefore, I
would simply ask...

Juge Turpin: To adjourn the application and hearing to May
6.

JCT: While Dominic stays in jail in the meantime.

CR: Yes.

JCT: So after all those lies, Dominic's motion to quash gets
adjourned without his even opening his mouth! All it took
was a Crown willing to spout four lies to fool a gullible
judiciary who don't know their jobs.

Juge Turpin: Mr. Gravel, I see that your application is
written in English. Would you like to express yourself in
English or in French?

DG: No, I'll speak in French.

Juge Turpin: So, your application, it's dated last April 5,
right?

JCT: Error #1. The Notice of Return of Motion is dated April
5. The judge didn't know this was an Application to Quash
pursuant to S.601.1 dated and served on January 24 2005.
Otherwise, the Crown wouldn't have had 30 days notice. So
the judge didn't even have the motion to quash before her,
only the request that the motion to quash be returned.

DG: Yes. It's the motion to quash. Judge Plouffe told me
that I was in the right place on the 18th, today. Me, the
last time, he had told me that it was the right place in the
Court of Quebec.

JCT: That should have put her on notice that something
wasn't legit. At least Plouffe knows what's proper.

Juge Turpin: The prosecution explains that you have your
preliminary inquiry pretty soon. That's May 6?

CR: Friday, May 6 before your colleague Judge Landry for one
day.

Juge Turpin: And it would be preferable that you present
your arguments at that time.

JCT: Error #2. The judge concluded the motion that invokes
no Charter rights is a Charter motion. And imagine the judge
saying that "it would be preferable" for you to stay in jail
another 2 weeks without seeing if the charges can be quashed
until then. Preferable for whom? And Error #3, of course, is
that when comes to his preliminary inquiry, the Crown is
going to pop up and argue that since he's not the trial
judge, he can't hear the constitutional matter either. So
the judge is wrong in telling him to await the inquiry judge
to hear his motion when the inquiry judge can't. Tricky.

Juge Turpin: So, unless you have something else to add, I
would invite you to present your arguments during your
preliminary inquiry very soon?

DG: So I don't have any choice? I can't present my motion
today?

Juge Turpin: Not today. You'll present it finally at the
time of the inquiry.

JCT: Of course, he was supposed to be heard upon 30 days
notice. I must admit that I've lost track of what rule
mentions the 30 days for a Quash motion. Anyone remember?

CR: Thank you.

Juge Turpin: The date has been set?

JCT: How many times does the judge have to find out?

CR: May 6 in Courtroom #5 for one day.

JCT: So the Crown tricked the judge into thinking that a
motion pursuant to Section 601.1 of Criminal Code is a
constitutional challenge pursuant to some section of the
Charter without showing which Right Dominic was invoking.
And his legal representative in the process, Judge Turpin,
let herself get fooled.

Of course, judges presume Crown Attorney's won't lie and
misrepresent so she's got an excuse. A lame one but an
alibi nevertheless. All depends how hard she'd come down on
on DePassille when it comes out.

Crown untruths:
1) This S.601.1 motion "has already been presented many
times before the Superior Court;"
2) implies it was ruled on merits;
3) implies Plouffe wouldn't rule;
4) Charter questions being raised.

Court errors:
1) Had only Notice of Return; did not know it was a S.601.1
2) Concluded it was a Charter challenge;
3) Told him to present his constitutional motion to
preliminary inquiry judge.

You have to admit, it would be a comedy of errors and lies
if the victim weren't sitting in jail while the judicial
cast of characters keeps screwing up.


Majere, how is that for a couple of sick fucks that I hope die a slow painfull death.  And yes, I have watched people die slow painfull deaths.  Its just that I would like to see these two die slow painfull deaths on concrete beds in a jail cell.

cheers :) majere
roger m roeder