Flood Watch
IF YOU HAVE ANY STORIES, PICTURES OR VIDEOS? EMAIL THEM TO ME AT oldmaison@yahoo.com


CARTOON OF THE DAY!!!!!!!
IN PRAYERS TO STOP THE 2014 FLOODS IN NEW BRUNSWICK!!!!!!!!!



Thursday, February 07, 2013

We need a Provincial Inquiry on the Fredericton Police Force!!!!

I have been going through the Bernard Richard report line by line for the very first time.

I will blog his whole report soon but we definitely need a provincial Inquiry on this issue!

Too many unanswered questions?

I mean this is sickening!!!!

We have no proof if they are continuing their same actions against the citizens in this City?

Stay tuned!!! 


11 comments :

Anonymous said...

thank god you are there for us charles... and who the hell is that bernard richard to say you have mental issues....he has mental issues.... you identified a problem and he covered it all up by saying you are crazy and the police just have to learn to treat you like a crazy person....gee sounds like he wrote the ticket for the police to do what they want to you all under the name that you are crazy and they can do what they want and he will back them up...is that what we get from that dam report.....not right those bastards..... can hardly wait for you to post the report and your review of it so it is exposed.... dam they have some big balls don't they

Anonymous said...

Yes, thank god the man has FINALLY taken time out of his busy schedule to read the report after making so many comments on it.

Charles LeBlanc said...

I know it sounds strange but I was a busy body....

Bernard Richard came out with his report...then 48 hours later the fire happened...then the holidays came and i went to Bathurst for a week...the whole report will soon be blogged and with my feedback.....the government must have an inquiry...the cops cannot get away with this.....

mikel said...

Ya had time to make lots of new cartoons!:) Anyway, better late than never. However, again, Charles since day one has said he has 'mental issues' (ADHD is a mental disorder), and ever since the police raided his home he's said repeatedly that he "hasn't been the same" and I even think he said he gets angry much easier, which is obviously a 'mental issue'. But again, the question in most of those cases is WHO caused many of the mental issues.

Maybe Charles is smarter than people think because just showing his blog to any lawyer in a civil suit is sure to prove 'mental duress'-or at least the effects of it. Charles ALWAYS has had a certain kind of style, but it was nowhere near what it is today. He was nice to Dan Brussiere's until he was banned, he was nice to the police until they harassed him.

However, I'd say about the ONLY 'good' thing in the report is Richard's recommendations for dealing with those who have mental disorders. It's worth pointing out something Charles may not, which is this quote at the end of the report :

"he (Charles Leblanc) is an example of someone who has surmounted the challenges
he faces and found a way to make his own unique contribution to our society."

Looking forward to hearing Charles criticisms, what I especially find aggregious is Richard's notion that the police "seemed well within their authority in pursuing criminal prosecution of Mr. LeBlanc. A review of the entire record also shows that they obviously chose
the wrong section of the Criminal Code under which to investigate the complaint"

I'm no lawyer but Section 301 is libel, Section 300 is libel which 'you know is false'. In other words, not only would they have to prove libel, but they'd have to prove that Charles KNEW that what he was saying was a lie. So that is just ridiculous.


However, what is quite obvious from the report is that it wasn't the POLICE that messed up (except for lying on the form to validate Charles IP address of course), but the Prosecutors. And oddly enough, I don't think ANY of the recommendations had to do with them.

Anonymous said...

437

There is nothing aggregious about it.

The police were within their authority to pursue criminal prosecution.

Then a period is there, then the next sentence says they used the wrong section to investigate,


The key thing to remember is that pursue criminal prosecution has no connection to investigation. I can be investigated for assault, but the police after investigation can and have the authority to pursue criminal prosecution based on any other number of sections. Manslaughter, murder, etc.

Let us not confuse investigation, charges, prosecution, warrants, they are all different entities with different meanings and intent.


Richards was completely accurate in his statement you called aggregious.

mikel said...

Your entitled to your opinion, but so am I.

300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty

And:

301. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty


IF Section 301 has no applicability, which Richard says it does not, then surely there is LESS reason to believe Section 300 does. Richard states that because there is no EVIDENCE of physical contact, therefore it didn't occur. However, it would need to be proven that Charles KNEW that he was lying. And that is VERY different, and virtually impossible to prove.

Section 301 does not require that you prove they are lying, which means its even easier to prove, so it seems VERY clear the police did use the correct section, and were completely justified in doing so.

That officer was completely right to file a complaint, and under the law, as it stands, there is really no reason why Charles couldn't be charged.

Again, the BIG mess up here is with the prosecutor. Don't you think its a little strange that the police came to the prosecutor, laid out their evidence, and the prosecutor gave them the OK to proceed, then when it 'hit the fan' they said they weren't going to prosecute? For those who didn't read the report, NB, PQ and BC are the only provinces where police bring their evidence to prosecutors BEFORE they lay charges.

Legally, they had EVERY right to proceed. Just because four other provinces said that section is unconstitutional means nothing in New Brunswick. A judge MAY agree with them, but then again the judge is free to disagree with them, and ultimately it is the Supreme Court of Canada that would have to decide.

Again, this is a whole murky area of the law that is virtually NEVER discussed. If the Canadian Supreme Court hasn't passed judgement, then every province is free to proceed. As was stated often, its PROBABLE that the charge wouldn't stick because the case was similar enough to that of other provinces that it 'probably' wouldn't get a conviction. However, that doesn't stop the police from laying charges, in fact they could still be doing so and we just don't know.

And again, to bring that around to something even more important (I think) is the whole panhandling issue. In that case its even worse, virtually EVERY province has agreed with the Appellate courts of BC and Ontario that panhandling is a protected form of freedom of speech. Yet New Brunswick continues with its law against it, and will probably do so until somebody challenges it in court-or sues them.

Charles LeBlanc said...

Well Mike...you are going to have some fun once the whole report is blogged!!

But I must say that the prosecutor at the local level was working very close with the cops...

She was over ruled at the Provincial level!!!

Bernard Richard never chatted with the local prosecutor!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Its a local prosecutors job to work closely with the local police. That how its supposed to work. That is the function of the job.

Try educating yourself Charles instead of looking in on something you clearly are unable to comprehend and then making ignorant statements about it.

Is there not money to send those on welfare to some sort of practical job training? You have FAR too much free time Charles and THAT is your biggest problem.

Those of us that have to work for a living don't have nearly the time afforded to you to develop your paranoia and conspiracy theories.

Charles LeBlanc said...

You know what Coward Jerkface?

This is the same as the Black were treated years ago down the States,,,ohhhhh,,he or she is not working...GO AFTER THEM!!

Guess what Coward Jerkface???

You're right!!!

I have too much time on my hand and they have Fuck around with the wrong guy!!!!!


This issue MIGHT bring down the David Alward Government?

Stay tuned!!!

mikel said...

That's really the issue. The prosecutor who 'chatted' with local police, and the JUDGE who signed the warrant. It's been awhile since I read it all the way through, but its very clear to me that apart from 'fudging' the form to validate the IP address (which IS pretty awful, and Richard takes it at face value that it was an honest mistake).

I think the 'on the job' training has been plenty valuable for Charles, why get welfare to pay for more? Given that unemployment is officially at 11% I wonder what kind of job is worth training for?

As for welfare, Charles is up at around 600 hits per day, so its really too bad that there isn't some way to monetize that. If every person who used it 'per day' ponied up a buck then that would be over $600 a month and more than welfare pays. However, given that I doubt people WOULD pony it up, then its a pretty good deal.

I doubt very much this will have ANY bearing on Alward because there is no connection to elected officials at this point. The judicial branch is separate from the legislative branch, so unless somebody can prove there was political interference, thats a no go. Besides which, most NBers, like most canadians, don't give that much of a rat's ass about people's constitutional rights, in fact a very vocal segment thinks we already grant TOO MUCH.

The only thing that I'd say would topple Alward would be that new liberal guy. Many other provinces and parties have had a lot of success with new 'unknowns' simply BECAUSE they are unknown. However, this new guy really doesn't seem to be doing much work to get noticed.

Anonymous said...

Mikel

I won't pony up a buck, because I don't believe in Charles cause, he's hurting. Things more than helping.

As for prosecutors and police in NB. It is much more efficient of a system in time and money, if one finds out from the prosecutor if they think they can win th case before charging that the opposite.

There is no sense in charging if the case can't be won.