The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 15

Jul 15, 2016 2:31 PM

Steven Sharp

Had to catch up on some sleep before posting, sorry for the delay. What I remember from court. Note: This all took place in French. So, these are legalese translations from memory, certainly not direct quotes. PIERRE DAOUST was called up. Pete explained that he isn't PIERRE DAOUST, he's a man that happens to be the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for the PERSON PIERRE DAOUST Inscription Number #####. JUSTICE: Ok Mr. Pierre. From then on they refer to Pete as Mr. Pierre. Two other cases then went up before the court. After which, back to Pete. The JUSTICE then started to read the 'instructions/rights'(not sure what to call it) out for 'Mr.Pierre' as he had 'chosen' not to have a lawyer. Pete began to interrupt but the JUSTICE told him not to interrupt, so Pete let him continue. Pete then insists that he doesn't UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. He points out that he WOULD hire a lawyer to provide the best possible defense to his PERSON, but he must first have access to the SURETY. WHERE IS THE SURETY? Mostly blank stares from everyone. JUSTICE says that they'll get to that. Pete continued to insist that he needs to know where the SURETY is, and doesn't UNDERSTAND. JUSTICE just repeats that they'll get that for him. Pete says he needs it now. JUSTICE asks the CROWN if they've provided (Not sure about this, discovery or evidence). The CROWN says they have, so the JUSTICE turns back to Pete and tells him that their (discovery?) will include the SURETY. JUSTICE finished reading the 'instructions/rights', and asks the CROWN to call their first witness. CROWN calls the cop, and starts questioning him. Pete interrupts, insisting that he doesn't UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. That this makes no sense. That his rights are being violated. That what's happening isn't RIGHT. JUSTICE repeats that they'll get to the SURETY part and insists that Pete sit down. Pete keeps standing, and reiterating his position. The Bailiff calls for backup, and begins approaching Pete. Pete continues to insists that this makes no sense, that his rights are being violated, and that this makes no sense. He asks the approaching Bailiff if he's the JUSTICE's bodyguard or something? Pete finally sits down when the JUSTICE further insists, and tells him he won't ask again. (Second bailiff arrives) Cop begins testimony. Just running through all of the 'FACTS' about the night he intercepted Pete. Pete objects many times during the testimony. Objections include: -He doesn't UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. -He doesn't have a lawyer here, and needs one to defend himself. He needs to know who the SURETY is to pay for one. -He himself isn't a JUSTICE, or a lawyer. This isn't his field/profession, so doesn't know what's going on. -The cop's testimony is inaccurate. -The cop is lying. Every time Pete objects, the JUSTICE simply says that those aren't objections, they're more like comments, but that they're noted. As for the testimony being inaccurate, Mr. Pierre will have a chance to cross-examine. ((I could easily be mistaken about this, as Pete doesn't remember it this way. But from memory:)) Pete said that he had no bad intentions. He then asked the cop if he thought Pete had bad intentions. He then sort of asked everyone if anyone thought he had criminal intentions. During that, Pete reiterated his position again. The JUSTICE then admitted that the CROWN had NOT answered Pete's question as regards the SURETY. The JUSTICE then asks Pete if he wants to recess(?) to have the time to find a lawyer. Pete says that if they tell him who the SURETY is, then sure! The JUSTICE then said that no one in the courtroom has any OBLIGATION to divulge who the party with SURETY is. Furthermore, he said that he will not ORDER anyone to divulge who the party with SURETY is. Pete again reiterates his position: He insists that he doesn't UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. He points out that he WOULD hire a lawyer to provide the best possible defense to his PERSON, but he must first have access to the SURETY. WHERE IS THE SURETY? WHERE IS THE INJURED PARTY? JUSTICE: There is NO INJURED PARTY. It is the STATE that is pursuing you. JUSTICE asks if Pete wants a new court date, to give him time to find a lawyer. Pete asks for a few minutes to think about his answer. JUSTICE agrees. Once back in court, Pete repeats again that he doesn't UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. He says that not having access to the SURETY to hire a proper defense for his PERSON is UNACCEPTABLE. For these reason, he asks that the case be DISMISSED. CROWN says that the testimony of the cop is evidence. JUSTICE says that to dismiss the case, there must be NO evidence, but the cop's testimony IS evidence, so case is not DISMISSED. JUSTICE asks again if Pete wants time to find a lawyer. Pete says that he would like time to CONSULT with a lawyer. JUSTICE recessed for 10 minutes to decide, then agrees and grants Pete the time to find a lawyer. Pro Forma date set for the 24th of August.

Read Comments 51

Steven Sharp

They referred to the cop as a 'WITNESS', which as Scott pointed out suggests this is criminal, however the JUSTICE explicitly said "There is NO INJURED PARTY. The STATE is pursuing you." For anyone who hasn't gone through anything similar, take note of how when Pete needed time to think about his answer, he asked for that time. Don't rush your answers. Take the time you need to say the RIGHT thing.

Steven Sharp

Also worth mentioning, is that at Pete's last court appearance, they insisted that the SURETY would be there for the next court date(yesterday). Then yesterday, the JUSTICE insisted that NO ONE would be divulging who the party with SURETY is.

Franki Rule

I really like to know the face of who we are talking about. For those who like it as well, here's the justice who refuse to Pete the right to the surety of Pete's person. https://www.google.ca/search?site=webhp&tbm=isch&source=hp&ei=dwWJV4z4C4Hrefi3hbgL&q=sylvain+lépine+juge&oq=sylvain+lépine+juge&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3...9873.26690.0.27364.20.19.0.1.1.0.1077.5944.0j1j4-1j3j3j1.9.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..12.8.4200.3..0j41.QHjzZcVundE#imgrc=9gMgU-giuSiGWM%3A

Pete Daoust

Sylvain Lépine a également été nommé à Saint-Jérôme mais à ceci près, qu'il exercera ses fonctions à la chambre criminelle et pénale et à la chambre de la jeunesse. Diplômé en droit de l'Université de Sherbrooke, il a été admis au Barreau en 1987. En cabinet privé jusqu'en 2002, il devenu procureur aux poursuites criminelles et pénales par la suite. Il a été nommé procureur en chef adjoint en 2009, puis procureur en chef l'an passé.

Pete Daoust

This is hilarious :D "Sylvain Lépine à la tête du Bureau de lutte contre la corruption et la malversation" http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/politique/2011/05/17/001-sylvain_lepine-chef_bureau_lutte-corruption_malversation.shtml

Stuart Stone

Would a useful question be: Are you claiming that I am the party with surety in this matter? If so, what evidence do you have that I have any surety in this matter? If you're not a/the party with surety, then why are they proceeding?

Franki Rule

You did a great job with this resume Steven Sharp. :) I'll add some details that comes to my mind.... At the very beggining, before the justice got into room for the proceedings, a peace officers told everyone to shut their phones off, insisting on COMPLETELY turning OFF the device, not just the sound, invoking that it could fuck up the audio recording. I'm not a tech genious but i can't see how this can be possible!?! :/ To me, this warning served a double purpose: Make sure that no one have a phone in his hand during the proceedings (looking for messages, notifications, or putting on recording the sound!) and set the stage for a potential technical failure to properly record the proceedings so they can edit the transcript.... maybe i'm wrong. Did you get the audio recording of this justice saying that the bank of canada is not a bank Pete Daoust?

Franki Rule

During the cop's testimony, Pete objected every time the cop used the words ''person'' or ''individual'' to refer to him, insisting on the fact that he is not a person or an individual but a man. Objections called ''only comments'' by justice. After few times, the cop used the word ''man'' to refer to Pete, but you could hear in his voice that it wasn't natural and feel the hesitation before the first uses of this word; he had to think about using it!!!

Franki Rule

Also during this testimony, the crown attorney asked many times to the cop what he did learned at cop school concerning the procedure he followed with Pete... maybe to confirm he has been well trained!?! But when a man asked that same cop in the hallway if he knew what the person's surety is, he said he didn't want to answer. When this man pointed out that he is kind of required to answer to his question, he retort that it wasn't the proper time and place for him to answer such question, and invite the man to ask any other cop in any other place!!! I then pointed out to this man some quotes from that cop i noted during his testimony: -cop ''I don't understand what's the person's surety is.'' and ''I really wanted to help him, but i wasn't able too.'' Then i said to this man: you see, he don't know what this(the LAW) is, it's not his fault if he violated one's fondamnetal right!!! (Ignorance of the law is an excuse for no one! Oups!!!) The cops (there was 3 of them) then moved a little bit further!!!

Franki Rule

Every time the cop said that Pete refused to identify himself, Pete objected, mentionning that he didn't refused to identify himself, he just wanted to know who is the surety for the debt that this cop was about to create before giving the name. He then tells to the justice that he did this because he doesn't want to get robbed by City of Terrebonne in order to pay the gaz for Tony Accurso's boat (local major corruption cases regarding public contracts attributions). In the end, Pete mentionned, again, that he is present as an AGENT for PIERRE DAOUST and he wants to know where is the surety for that person. He then talked about the legal case of a famous AGENT, one of the $$PVM's finest: STEPHANIE TRUDEAU #728, mentionning that the 170 000$ of lawyers fees for her defence must have come from a surety somewhere since that money didn't came from the pockets of the woman wearing the suit. The justice then asked Pete if he was suggesting that everybody should pay for his lawyer, Pete answered: It's YOU who should tell me this.

Pete Daoust

The crown attorney, on November the 16th 2015 said this. "I'll rather withdraw from this case and let Jonathan Rabchuk take care of it" It was another crown attorney, but the case was initiated by Rabchuk. So Rabchuk took over, and was the crown attorney on july the 14th. :/ I am not sure if this information is relevant.....

Pete Daoust

:D "You have a TENDER from Jonathan Rabchuk that suddenly he's VERY scared of, because you keep mentioning SURETY." Dear Justice, I just want to HELP here, I think this document brings us very close to WHO surety is. Look dear Justice, this document talks about MONEY :D ....it says so on the document. And I don't think Mister Rabchuk wanted to PAY for my wife's service with HIS money in HIS pocket :D That was EPIC :D

Back to top