Threatening Letter From City of Fredericton Sep 2014. by Charles LeBlanc
Now...this should be VERY interesting!!!! Suing a guy on social assistance!!!! The sad part of this story is the Cops began all this by telling my internet provider that I was exploiting kids for Sex!!!! All this can be settle with a simple meeting and apology!!! I wonder what our great Mayor and Council think about this eh? We must have lots of money to waste??? Truly Stay tuned!!!!
Send a copy to Brian Gallant - he just announced Len Hoyt of McInness Cooper as his "non partisan" transition of government representative!!! McInness Cooper is, of course, totally biased against the people and partisan - this does not bode well for our new government.
ReplyDeleteThis letter is hogwash. The common law they are referring to is only for formal discovery materials, which are not on the court record unless a party decides to use them. The documents uploaded before showed Charles' action was filed under Rule 79, which doesn't have a discovery process at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I don't live in the fascist city of Fredericton.
ReplyDeleteWhat a f3cked up system they have there.
What ever happened to free speech?
How many times will Charles get charged for some bs?
And I thought the mayor was your buddy?
--maurice the homeless guy--
Uh, I'm no lawyer, but the above seems pretty wrong. Under Rule 79, "Simplified Proceeding Rules", it certainly has a discovery process-how else would Charles (or anybody) get those documents?
ReplyDeleteUnder Rule 79, what it says is: " 79.07 No Discovery-Unless ordered otherwise, no examination for discovery under Rule 32, 33 or 34 is permitted in an action pro-
ceeding under this rule"
That doesn't mean there is 'no discovery', it means you have to look at rule 32-34, which sets out the rules for oral and written examinations. So under Rule 79 that means there are no oral or written examinations, it doesn't mean there is no discovery process (the fact Charles has the documents proves there is.)
I didn't know that's where Charles got those forms, but the implied undertaking rule was developed because otherwise the city or whomever involved, simply wouldn't give up the materials.
In this case though its just another way the deck is stacked. The only way for Charles to get justice is through a lawsuit, yet the rules for that lawsuit state that he can't show the very materials that prove his case!
I'm not sure whether charles is even allowed to use that material even if he drops his lawsuit! So Charles rants like a crazy guy, when people ask for evidence of why he's acting crazy, he has to say "sorry, I'm not allowed to tell you". Wow, thats some legal system we've got here!
Who cares! Let them spend thousands of dollars getting lawyers to do research and write you letters. OMG Charles Leblanc wrote something about a cop, call the chain of command so they can call the lawyer and pay her a minimum of 300 an hour to read this and write a letter . You should make your postings very very long so they have to pay her more money to read it and respond....bunch of fools! Make them spend as much tax payer money as they can so then they have to justify this to the public !
ReplyDeleteDont remove them ! Make them spend the money to go to court and have them removed!
ReplyDeleteSuing Charles LeBlanc is like squeezing blood out of a turnip,Charles is on social assistance ffs and there is no financial gain for the city or it's so called police force..Fredericton city council needs to fire the Dumbass that thought this was a good idea!
ReplyDeleteJAG
Mikel, you are right about the crazy system.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree the documents seem like Discovery materials, I would be interested for you to read the case law Leanne Murray quotes. I just read it and it is only applicable to protection of the public and oral discovery. It offers no protections at all for public servants who have committed crimes, which is the case in these matters. If the City wants to take this to a judge, they will have to come up with a better judicial precedent to rely on than Juman v. Ducette to protect corruption and fraud by cops. The case law confirms this unwritten agreement does not protect every one in every situation.
I'm not sure what Charles is suing for, but there have certainly been no verdicts on 'crimes'. His rights have certainly been infringed, no doubt about that, but I've never heard that he is suing specific individuals for 'crimes'.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if so, the rules for Implied Undertakings seem pretty specific. If Charles wants to use them publicly, he needs the OK from a judge, and numerous cases have set out the precedents for that, and only when there is a 'necessity' for them to be released is that granted. The above case was simply providing a definition, it did not claim to be 'precedence'.
I'm not sure what the process is for getting such information. However, Charles is free to use Bernard Richard's report as the basis for his assertions. I think its just the information from this discovery information that he can't use. So ironically, the city wants CHarles to go back to simply damning ALL police officers with the information from Bernard Richard's public report, rather than the specific officers identified by Charles documents.
That's that 'blue wall' they talk about. If you do wrong as an individual officer, then police policy is to circle the wagons, close off the public, claim to be doing some 'internal discipline', and make it impossible for the public to know which cops are doing wrong and when.
I doubt if its true, but I can remember a Law and Order episode where something sort of kind of similar happened. Basically it goes like this. Charles knows whats on this form. Bernard Richard has seen this form. If Bernard Richard's report is public, then one would think that the information it is based on is public (but maybe not). Anyway, if charles can get this form through Bernard Richard, then he could argue that it wasn't based on the discovery materials he received.
However, at this point Charles has already made his point, I doubt people are searching through past blogs for something like that, so the cat is out of the bag anyway, so save some trouble and get rid of those two blogs.
Anybody that thinks government can't make your life more difficult just because you are on welfare doesn't know government. As hopefully Charles knows by now, his 'buddies' Woodside, Alward and Gallant are at most fair weather friends. Good luck with the lawsuit charles, don't ruin your chances by messing with court rules, judges REALLY don't like that.
I agree that Charles should keep the documents up and available to the public. It is a matter of public interest and the documents and cops involved have never, every been investigated or disciplined. Let them drag him into court to argue it and it will bring even more negative publicity to the City, the cops and McInness Cooper.
ReplyDelete