. L'Hon. Juge en chef, Lyse Lemieux
. L'Hon. Claude Tellier
. L'Hon. Nicole Bénard
. L'Hon. Pierre Tessier

The Judges subject of this present Complaint are inapt to perform their judicial functions for the following reasons, without limitation :

1. They have participated in "magasinage de juge" to accommodate the defendant Government of Quebec with intent to dispose of two duly filed lawsuits without a hearing, i.e.: 500-05-059435-006 (action in damages blocked by the repeated procedural fraud of the Procureur général Mtre. Linda Goupil and her attorneys in August and September of 2000), and 500-05-061581-003 (Book V Evocation (art. 846.1 CCP) dismissed in 3 minutes ex-parte by the hon. Judge Nicole Bénard invoking an incidental motion of attorneys Audet-Messier in virtue of art. 165(4) C.C.P.) on 16 January 2001, without the file's ever having been completed to the point of Rule 15;

2. These Honorable Judges of the Superior Court of Québec have participated in "magasinage de juge" to accommodate the defendant Government of Quebec with intent to set up the pro-se Plaintiff for civil incarceration as a mental case to prevent her from repairing and/or reinstituting the said two lawsuits, inter alia, by holding a "hearing" on 18 January 2001, where the Hon. Judge Claude Tellier, presiding functus officio, no file being open and thus no subject matter to be seized of, "ruled" (his ruling being an absolute nullity) that the Plaintiff was a "plaideur vexatoire", implying she is the kind of mental case who — as participants may learn who attent the Hon. Judge Lemieux's May 31st, 2002 conference entitled "Le Justiciable Qui Se Représente Seul" — is "paranoid," "querrulous," abuses procedure, and can be treated with "medication";

3. This libellous allegation constitutes a defamation tort, for it is clearly intended to damage the Plaintiff's credibility and her reputation and alter her image in the public eye, if there were a public eye on this particular Courtroom;

4. These Judges of the Superior Court of Québec also used abuse of procedure with intent to spare not only the Government, but themselves, for the structural fraud was calculated in such a way as to guarantee that their "final" "judgments" would be concealed, not only from the public, but particularly from the legal community in general, and from legal publishers as well, since these fraudulent "final" rulings were kept out of the Index of Judgments by being granted on the basis of illegal incidental motions that constituted litispendance, having been cloned by the attorneys for the other co-defendant, Mr. Conrad Arciero, from identical motions which had already been suspended by the Plaintiff's recusations;

5. More specifically on the point, on 16 January 2002, the Hon. Judge Nicole Bénard destroyed the Petitioner's 70-page, Book V Evocation in virtue of Article 846.1 C.p.c. in 3 minutes ex-parte using the first of Audet-Messier's illegal incidental motions invoking art. 165(4) C.p.c., by which they essentially admitted that the facts set out in the Plaintiff's Evocation were true, and their client was guilty, but asked the Court anyway to dismiss the lawsuit in limine on the alleged grounds that an Evocation under Article 846.1 C.C.P. cannot take place until there is "épuisement de recours" at the lower levels;

6. In fact, as Audet-Messier and the Judges well knew, Article 846.1 C.C.P. is the one provision that permits an Evocation without the necessity of first going to appeal;

7. At the same time as insisting — in their said cloned proceeding — that the Plaintiff must first exhaust all other procedures including appeal before filing her factually true Evocation, these skilled and quick-witted attorneys (Audet Messier) simultaneously argued that the Plaintiff had already filed "too many" proceedings, and therefore should be locked up if she dared to file any others;

8. With this astute legal reasoning, Audet Messier (i) convinced the Hon. Judge Nicole Bénard on January 16, 2001 to dismiss a Book V Evocation in limine, thus closing the file; and (ii) on January 18, 2001, using the Court number of the closed file, without petitioning to reopen the file, convinced the Hon. Judge Claude Tellier to label the Plaintiff a mental case, and threaten her with illegal arrest and arbitrary detention if she dared to file any more proceedings;

9. In any event, to come to the point, all these illegal, ex-parte and functus officio, so-called "judgments" of the Hon. Nicole Bénard and the Hon. Claude Tellier, appointed to their respective tasks by the Hon. Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux, were arrived at by a back door, i.e., incidental motions — precisely so they could be left on the procés-verbaux and not re-written for the Index of Judgments, and in that way, not only was there no evidence on Record, since the Evocation Exhibits had not even been file, but nobody would ever see these two fraudulent "final" judgments;

10. This "manigance" is thus clear and incontrovertible evidence of these Honorable Judges' consciousness of their own guilt mens rea in abusing process;

11. It also points inescapably to the necessity for collusion to have been in place at numerous levels throughout the Courthouse, from the Maître des Rôles to the Judge's own Greffiers, for this to have happened while everyone looked the other way;

12. More particularly, the Justice Minister is responsible for inspecting the Greffe and the Plumitif to ensure their integrity; and the Justice Minister is in charge of Human Resources at the Courthouse; whilst the Hon. Chief Justice, Lyse Lemieux is also responsible for issuing orders to Courthouse personnel and judicial officers; the Hon. Madame Lemieux is also charged by law to safeguard those presumably authentic documents, these unassailable Superior Court of Québec court Records;

13. Therefore, it is again inescapable that in order for all this to have transpired, both of these eminent persons, the Justice Minister and the Chief Justice, had to collude in order to falsify procedure, appoint accommodating Judges, use incidental motions to keep "final" "judgments" out of the Index, and secretly plot to kidnap the Plaintiff by falsely labelling her a mental case so she could be set up for an illegal arrest and then permenantly detained (in violation of Article 1, C.C.P.) so as to stop her from coming back to Court to defend her rights against the Government of Québec:

    "Dans Southam Inc. c. Sa Majesté la Reine, [1988] R. J. Q. 307, et principalement à la page 312, la Cour d'appel du Québec, sous la plume de l'honorable Paul-Arthur Gendreau, s'exprime ainsi :

    "Le débat judiciaire est public et cette publicité inclut et passe par la présence des médias. Leurs reportages sont essentiels à la connaissance du public du fonctionnement et du déroulement des procès. L'application de ce principe est indispensable à assurer une justice indépendante. [...] Les tribunaux ont souvent rappelé cette règle fondamentale à la base même de notre système démocratique. Ce principe, est-il besoin de le rappeler encore, est l'une des plus importantes garanties de l'intégrité du système judiciaire et assure la confiance du public envers son processus." [Nos soulignées] — Source: Québec (Ministre de la justice) c. Plante, (1997-04-30) QCCMQ CM-8-96-06
    

14. The Hon. Judge Claude Tellier had also ruled (notwithstanding the fact that he was at that time still functus officio), that if the Plaintiff should dare to defy his "orders" (which, given the circumstances of its issuance are an absolute nullity), this would result in contempt of court charges, which, of course, would expose her to civil imprisonment;

15. Now, the imprisonment of the Plaintiff, especially if there were some excuse to make it permanent — and the Hon. Madame Goupil, as we shall see, does have one — would certainly serve the ex-Minister of Justice and ex-Procureur général and her attorneys Bernard, Roy et Associées, who in the case of Plaintiff's file no. 500-05-059435-006, would be relieved to know that she could never again come back to Court and expose them for such innovative procedural frauds as their very creative and illegal "Désistement de comparution," signed by Mtre. Lizann Demers, acting for the Attorney General's office;

16. The said "Désistement de comparution" was delivered to the Plaintiff by a messenger who slid the envelope under her door along with a duplicate original of the yellow waybill, while she was not at home:

    "[...] on peut s'étonner et surtout se demander s'il est exacte, ce dont il m'est permis de doubter, que le ministre à qui sont confiées la garde et la surveillance des droits de tous les citoyens ait pu consentir à ce que je considérerais une mesquinerie judiciaire presque inconcevable de la part de ses représentants légaux [...] afin de mettre en péril le droit d'un demandeur en justice [...] à acquiescer à l'irrégularité afin de s'en prévaloir, pour ainsi dire avec effet rétroactif, lorsqu'il sera trop tard pour la partie adverse d'y rémédier ."

    — pp 2072 et 2073, l'Hon Juge Brossard écrivant dans l'affaire Procureur Général de la province de Québec, appelant vs. Sarto Duval, intimé [1975] C.A. 629.

17. In light of the foregoing — all fully illustrated at this web site with scans of the documents in the supporting Exhibits to your right — it is inescapable, therefore, that the executive power of the Government of Québec has intruded upon the independence of the Judiciary in order, inter alia, to hide procedural fraud by the lawyers of the Procureur général;

18. These Honorable Judges of the Superior Court have readily supplied the Justice Minister with even worse procedural fraud committed by themeselves: four Judges (or more, if you count the Hon. Vital Cliche and the Hon. Judge Boilard) were all hand-picked and under the instructions of the Honorable Chief Justice;

19. Those non-lawyers whom Madame Lemieux may conveniently dispose of by labelling them as "mental cases" and "plaideurs vexatoires" simply because they are not lawyers — if we are to believe the convoluted reasoning of Professor Morrissette — are all being subject to anti-Charter discrimination and singled out as a "class" of people more likely to be a certain type of mental case because of their social condition as pro se pleaders (an American term) before the Courts. Surely, this is a defamation tort, for in contrast to these ordinary people, says Professor Yves Morrissette:

    "Les cas de quérulence chez les avocats sont par ailleurs plutôt rares, mais les abus de procédures le sont moins. [...] Aux mains de l'avocat, affirme le professeur Morissette [la cause du] le recours abusif [...] n'est plus la conviction d'avoir raison, mais la volonté implacable de gagner, qui explique les choses ]...]"

20. Whereas, speaking again of the non-lawyer representing him or herself at Court, Professor Morrissette has this to say:

    « Dans sa forme la plus virulente, la quérulence comporte un délire de persécution qui relève de la paranoïa, avec laquelle elle se confond d'ailleurs. Elle se traite par des médicaments.» ("La magistrature a un rôle à jouer pour éviter les dérapages, Les abus de procédures, Journal du Barreau, Vol. 32, No. 14.")

    While, in another article, the good Professor is quoted to say:

    "« L'avocat introduit un élément d'objectivation de la situation. Il stabilise et encadre l'exercice d'un recours judiciaire. » Mais, face à un quérulent, « il n'y a pas moyen de le dissuader »." (Ontologie de la quérulence, Journal du Barreau, Vol. 34, No. 8. )

21. The Petitioner in this present Complaint would therefore like to have Professor Morrissette's opinion on just how a "désistement de comparution", for example, issued by the attorneys for the Procureur général, could possibly "stabilize" and give a lawful "framework" to the Plaintiff's thus-damaged case.

22. Perhaps during Conference today, the Hon. Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux, would be kind enough to invite Professor Morrissette, and/or the psychiatrist who is her fellow panelist, to suggest the type of "medication" that would be a cure for say, your occasional fraud of a "désistement de comparution", or incidental functus officio or abusive ex-parte ruling kept off the public Record and out of the Index de Jugements?

23. For, if the lowly civilian citizen, representing him or herself before the Courts can be presumed, even before proceedings are instituted, as more likely to be a mental case and to abuse procedure than the next human being who just happens to be a lawyer, who is only over-eager to do his job, then what pill or injection could be recommended for Superior Court Judges, Justice Ministers, officiers de justice, greffiers, Maîtres des rôles and various other employees of the Crown and Court who abuse, and who aid and abet in the abuse of procedure and obstruction of justice?

24. Moreover, as further inescapable evidence that the Executive power of the Government has intruded upon the independence of the Judiciary, file laundering at the Montreal courthouse has included, without limitation, stripping out of the Court Record two (2) Motions of the Plaintiff, complete with affidavits and proofs of service, which Plaintiff had filed to repair the procedural damage inflicted by these Judges, the Minister of Justice and the Procureur général, i.e., her:

    • Motion of Plaintiff to Ratify the Unilateral Désistement de comparution of the Procureur Général, Es Qualité (Arts. 2, 5, 20, 46, 249, 164 C.C.P.) 500-05-059435-006;

    and her

    • "Requête en Rétractation de Jugement pour Functus Officio et Justice Naturelle (Articles 2, 482 et 483(1) Code de procédure civile) 500-05-061581-003

25. In both of these cases, with the Hon. Paul Bégin as the incumbent Minister of Justice in August and September of 2001, the stamps of the Greffe were stricken off the Motions in ballpoint pen, and they were then mailed back to the Plaintiff at her apartment under an unsigned letter from the office of the Minister of Justice naming Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux as the reason for their return. The lack of a signature upon the said letter by any individual party is taken by the undersigned Petitioner as yet another sign of mens rea, i.e. consciousness of guilt in the office of the Justice Minister;

26. Everyone from huissiers de justice to Maître des rôles, to Greffiers and those responsible for updating the Plumitif, have all been required to obey the illegitimate orders of Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux as well as the Ministers of Justice, or look the other way while Records were falsified, procedure violated, and hearings conducted ex-parte without any Rule 15, and also conducted ex-parte and functus officio with the Greffiers' procès verbaux (the blue ones) marked "PAS DOSSIER", and again, "PAS DOSSIER";

27. On December 28, 2000 in the Practise Division, the Hon. Judge Vital Cliche even admitted that there were no proceedings of the Petitioner in the file before him, her Evocation was gone, no proofs of service, and no Motions produced for which she had paid a cash deposit of some $300 to bailiffs Gauthier Lévy not 48 hours before; yet the Hon. Judge Cliche proceeded to rule at the request of Audet Messier, and heckled the Plaintiff, "Why don't you pay your rent!", "Why don't you pay your rent!" while encouraging two men at the back of the courtroom to laugh and jeer;

28. As for the Honorable Judge Pierre Tessier, on 30 November 2000, he rushed in and out the Courtroom (a back room in Chambers, carefully out of the Practise Division and away from the public eye), and quickly denied the Plaintiff her demand for Sursis of the Government of Québec's illegal eviction about to be practised on her without any lawful proceedings having been filed. The Honorable Pierre Tessier ruled — over the objections of the Plaintiff, whose home was about to be destroyed without any valid legal proceedings in place to such effect, and to whom he denied the right to plead — that there were no grounds prima facie, having read her 70-page Book V Evocation, to grant a sursis;

29. This clearly violates equity and natural justice, and the rule of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), enshrined at Article 5, CPC, and at Article 23 of the Quebec Charter, not to mention those Constitutional rights protected under the federal Charter, including the right NOT to be subjected to arbitrary search and seizure and illegal detention, all of which would result from the carrying out of an illegal eviction;

30. Subsequent to the unlawful dismissal of the Plaintiff's Book V Evocation by the Hon. Nicole Bénard, these Honorable Judges and the Procureur général Mtre. Linda Goupil, then used the closed file of the Plaintiff's Evocation, destroyed by Judge Bénard on January 16, 2001, as an "action possessoire" to break the Plaintiff's doors open on the 26th of January, 2001 in order to illegally evict her and her property and animal into the street before she could produce at Court the various responsive proceedings that she had prepared and served;

31. The illegal eviction also rendered it impossible for the Plaintiff to carry out her lawful preliminary discovery of her landlord, Conrad Arciero, then under subpoena, such that she had no opportunity to pick up the proofs of service from her bailiff, as she was distracted with the fact that, apparently the Procureur général's bailiffs, acting for the landlord Conrad Arciero, were ransacking her apartment and putting her into the street, and her hard files and computer disks containing evidence, partially evicted into City Pound, whilst others simply disappeared at the scene, presided over by police assisting the bailiffs;

32. Again, this disgraceful behaviour by and on behalf of federally appointed Superior Court Judges and other Officers of the Court is clear evidence of their malice toward both the Plaintiff and her Evocation, and of the evidence — all her Exhibits were evicted into City Pound where they risked being destroyed, and of their urgent wish to rid themselves of her and her Motions — thus, the illegal eviction of January 26th is also a sign of their consciousness of guilt, i.e., mens rea;

33. These four (4) Judges, on behalf of the Justice Minister and the Government of Quebec have conducted a wholesale, malicious and premeditated "dérapage" of the Plaintiff to spare their functionaries at the Régie du logement from being found guilty of nearly-as-extraordinary a level of procedural fraud, which in fact, these Honorable Judges, themselves, have emulated to mock the Plaintiff, again proving mens rea and malice;

34. More importantly, these said Honorable Judges were relying for the success of their plan to arrest and unlawfully detain the Plaintiff as a "plaideur vexatoire", upon an earlier kidnapping set up on paper by the former Ministre de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité, the Hon. Louise Harel, through her conscientious staff member in the NDG office of Centre Travail Québec, a social aid ("welfare") agent of the name of FADI HAROUNY;

35. In 1998, after the Plaintiff caught Mr. Harouny and his colleagues at the CTQ-NDG in blatant procedural fraud to deny her benefits that were due and owing while her labor suit was pending before the Bureau du commissaire général du travail, Harouny threatened the Petitioner with medical reprisals when he learned of her justifiable complaints to the office of then-Premier, Lucien Bouchard;

36. Harouny, clearly colluding with CLSC social worker, Tamela Wescott, who provided a pipeline to the CTQ of confidential information out of medical records, threatened the Plaintiff, "If you want trouble, go see your doctor!", because Plaintiff had arranged an appointment with Dr. Georges Jipa of the said CLSC via the said Tamela Westcott, to get a letter from this authority figure notifying the CTQ to cease their procedural abuses of the Petitioner's temporary file and stop issuing her cheques late and threatening to illegally cancel her benefits;

37. Mr. Harouny, when he then received the medical letter documenting the fact that his abuses of the Petitioner posed a risk to her health, maliciously used the letter as a pretext to invade her medical privacy again, he pretended that the Petitioner had applied for "inapt" benefits, being sums of money granted to people who are too physically or mentally ill to hold a job;

38. Mr. Harouny abusively issued his June 11, 1998 Notice of Ruling, declaring the Plaintiff a beneficiary of "FSP" benefits, "inapt" to work and earn a living, and thereupon, a total of three levels of the Government of Quebec, including Harouny's own superiors in his immediate local office; Mr. Michel Lanctôt, a revising agent in the Ville de Montréal's Service de révision, and Mtre. Bernard Cohen of the Tribunal Administratif du Québec, all ruled, falsely and abusively — and while also abusing other procedures in addition — that the Plaintiff had applied for, or been "granted" "inapt" benefits, when in fact Harouny had forced them upon her and she had resisted this abuse with every legal measure at her means;

39. In this manner, Mr. Harouny succeeded in (i) illegally violating medical privacy without recriminations from either Lucien Bouchard or Madame Harel who both knew what was going on; Harouny also succeeded in (ii) illegally soliciting a medical decision from a doctor the Petitioner never spoke to nor met and who is apparently an employee of the Government of Quebec; Harouny also succeeded in (iii) illegally imposing the medico-psychiatric label of an "incompetent" upon a hard-working, competent woman while her labor suit was pending, thus disqualifying her from (i) lawfully representing herself in Court to get her job back (Article 56, CPC); (ii) and from being reinstated in her $25,000.00 a year job as a real estate secretary in Côte-des-Neiges:

    56. Il faut être apte à exercer pleinement ses droits pour ester en justice sous quelque forme que ce soit, sauf disposition contraire de la loi.

    Celui qui n'est pas apte à exercer pleinement ses droits doit être représenté, assisté ou autorisé, de la manière fixée par les lois qui régissent son état et sa capacité ou par le présent code.

    L'irrégularité résultant du défaut de représentation, d'assistance ou d'autorisation n'a d'effet que s'il n'y est pas remédié, ce qui peut être fait rétroactivement en tout état de cause, même en appel. — Code de procédure civile, [emphasis added]

40. In order to forcibly DETAIN the Petitioner under his illegal "inapt" label and disqualify her from reinstatement in her lawful job, the ever-resourceful Mr. Harouny also refused to issue to the Petitioner the necessary copies of her Employment Records, which copies he had in his file at a time when her originals were stolen out of her apartment (the briefcase in her clothes cubpoard disappeared on the same date that her computer was damaged and all her computer disks also stolen);

41. Even Legal Aid was of no assistance, for despite a duly signed mandate to Mtre. Clermont Bélanger empowering him to obtain from Harouny or anyone else the necessary copies of her Employment Records, Mtre. Bélanger, in a move (or an act of passive resistance) which fitted very well with the plans of Mr. Harouny to deprive the Petitioner of her job and of due process, sat on his hands and did absolutely nothing, all the while also knowing that Petitioner would be evicted shortly from her apartment without the higher sums of Employment Insurance to which she was entitled, in order to pay her rent;

42. The plan to keep the Petitioner jobless was not a unilateral plan by the functionaries of the Government of Quebec: the functionaries of Human Resources Development Canada, seized of her application for Employment Insurance benefits, and mandated by law to obtain copies of Employment Records from employers and anyone else in possession of same, refused to do so: instead, they submitted the Petitioner's file to Revenue Canada Taxation for a string of bogus "determinations", and this federal Tax department then deliberately reduced all of her moneys earned and hours worked, in some cases resulting in alleged wages $1 or $2 below minimum, so as to deprive the Petitioner of her full hours worked and sums earned and permit HRDC officials to declare her ineligible for Unemployment Benefits to which she was in fact fully entitled;

43. In this way, Mr. Harouny, with the help of the federal Government, was able to keep the Petitioner unemployed, entrapping her on welfare under the falsified ruling that labelled her "inapt", while both he, Mtre. Clermont Bélanger, Mme Yolande Demers at Human Resources Development Canada, and the agents at the Revenue Department, all falsified the Petitioner's employment history to deny her any other source of benefits than the FSP "inapt" cheques that Harouny was starting to issue marked "ADM", as if she were an "incompetent" whose legal business was being "administered" by the Government of Quebec;

44. If the Petitioner is incompetent, how is it that since March of 2000 when the Arciero abuses and the illegal eviction by the Rental Board's Mtre. Bissonnette began at the Régie du logement, she has been able to:

    (i) learn enough French to read law;
    (ii) learn enough law to bring herself to the Superior Court where even the Attorney General's lawyers had to admit she had caught them in an illegal subpoena, though they then compounded that fraud with their désistement de comparution;
    (iii) learn enough web design to build this present web site to document the procedural abuses of the Justice Ministers and their employees, the Honorable Judges of the Superior Court;

45. Alors, c'est qui, l'incapable? In fact, it is these Honorable Judges of the Superior Court who are "inapt" to fulfill their functions, in respect of Article 65(2)(b),(c),(d), Loi sur les Juges.

46. Without going much further into these distractions, suffice it to say that the Hon. Mtre. Linda Goupil, Quebec's former Justice Minister and Attorney General responsible for the désistement de comparution used to sabotage the Plaintiff's Superior Court Action and for the intrusion upon judicial independence used to destroy her Evocation and obtain her illegal eviction on 26 January 2001, is now the Ministre d'État de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité, i.e., the head of Welfare, as was the Hon. Louise Harel in 1998;

47. The Hon. Mtre. Goupil has recently managed to illegally force open the old "Harouny file" in the nick of time to fit quite well with the functus officio Claude Tellier ruling of last 18 January 2001, both of which nullities (which are also criminal acts in virtue of Art. 122, C.C.C.) falsely imply that the Plaintiff is a mental case, "inapt", and thus entitle the Minister, and perhaps as well the Public Curator, to step in and take the Plaintiff away before she can possibly compromise Mtre. Goupil and Mtre. Bégin by exposing Mtre. Goupil's fraudulent "désistement de comparution", and the authentic Court records stripped out of the Greffe and sent back in the mail by the Hon. Paul Bégin;

48. The timing for Mtre. Goupil to use her new position to make a move would now be ideal: because the Plaintiff was recently fired from her new job at $26,000 a year by Mtre. Gaëtan E. Lagarde, who on April 2nd, 2002 accused the Petitioner of trying to put "Lyse Lemieux" (his skiing partner) "out of office", stating that therefore, the Petitioner could no longer have her job; after which, on April 5th, 2002, Lagarde tried to extort a cancellation of their non-cancellable one-year signed contract by threatening not to sign the Plaintiff's $1,000 pay cheque that was due and owing;

49. When this did not work, Lagarde indeed did not sign the Petitioner's pay cheque;

50. Moreover, he changed the locks to keep her out of the office, thus forcibly breaking their contract, and then assaulted her in the hallway (Police file no. 38-020430-014) when she brought a camera to document the fact he had changed the locks, while he threatened to call police and tell them "you came to rob the office!" unless she relinquished to him her contractual keys that are a sign of her status in her contract;

51. The Petitioner is therefore now, again, unemployed; her rent is now a month and a half in arrears; Ministre d'État Goupil has forced her welfare file back open with a bogus Notice of Ruling from CLE Plateau Mont-Royal dated April 26th, 2002 by agent Mme Johanne Roy, and Human Resources Development Canada, on April 29th, 2002, has again denied her application for benefits although she is fully qualified, by issuing a "ruling" so vague and lacking in "motivation", that in law and administrative law, it does not constitute a ruling at all, i.e., another nullity;

52. All is therefore now poised for the imminent arrest and permanent civil detention of the undersigned as a "lunatic" who allegedly "abuses procedure", can't hold a job, and, as the Hon. Judge Cliche on December 28, 2000 repeatedly pointed out for the Court to laugh, doesn't "pay the rent";

53. In effect, Judge Claude Tellier's January 18, 2001 functus officio plaideur vexatoire ruling cannot be usefully executed until the Petitioner can be made simultaneously, (i) unemployed; (ii) a vagrant evicted into the street; (iii) and an "inapt" mental case, in order to fulfill the slate of typical "symptoms" for a psychiatric case such as a paranoid schizophrenic;

54. Therefore, the State and its Chief Justice and her friends have all taken measures to ensure that these "symptoms" be repeatedly manufactured by their own procedural abuse, so that years of prior criminal abuses by Quebec Government officials can all be blamed on their victim;

55. In the Petitioner's view, now would be an excellent time to remove these Honorable Judges, and their various Justice Ministers and Ministre d'État, from office;

56. These Judges are not fit to sit on the Bench;

57. Their dishonorable conduct, their contempt for the Canadian Constitution and other laws and Charters they have sworn to uphold, tarnishes Canada; while, taken with the new trend espoused by the Hon. Lyse Lemieux of labelling pro se pleaders as more likely than lawyers to be "mental cases", suggests that arbitrary detention and civil imprisonment of anyone who sues or challenges the Government, is about to become a standard remedy for unwanted lawsuits;

58. Moreover, none of these Honorable Judges, in particular the Honorable Judge Claude Tellier, may be permitted to hide behind judicial immunity for what they are doing and have done. The Hon. Judge Tellier knows very well what it means to abuse procedure to harm a party, having ruled on the subject himself more than once:

    Les procédures abusives :

    "Le juge Claude Tellier qualifie encore les procédures abusives dans l'affaire Roland Godbout* :

    "Le Tribunal doit conclure en intentant les présentes procédures, à leur face même mal fondées, il ne demandait pas justice mais se servait de la Loi pour nuire à autrui ou d'une manière excessive ou déraisonnable, le tout contrairement aux exigences de la bonne foi.

    Le Tribunal conclut donc à la responsabilité du demandeur à l'égard de la défenderesse, et ce pour abus de droit."

    — Lafond c. Corriveau, (2002-02-21) QCCQ 500-22-037129-999
    * Roland Godbout c. Les Entreprises J.G.F. Fioreline, C.S.M. 5005-05-005022-940
    

59. In short, the Hon. Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux, Judge Claude Tellier, Judge Nicole Bénard, and Judge Pierre Tessier have all sold their judicial independence to the highest bidder. They have obstructed justice, acted in contempt of court, and defied due process to willfully wreak maximum harm upon a Plaintiff, including defamation, criminal harassment, illegal eviction, and promises of false arrest in order to stop the Plaintiff from suing the Government of Quebec;

60. These people have brought the administration of Justice into disrepute, they have tarnished judicial independence in Canada, and their presence in the judiciary should not be tolerated as a result;

61. The Petitioner asks this Honorable Canadian Judicial Council to investigate the dishonorable conduct of the Hon. Chief Justice Lyse Lemieux, the Hon. Judge Nicole Bénard, the Hon. Judge Claude Tellier, and the Hon. Judge Pierre Tessier and recommend to the Senate and to Parliament their immediate removal from office;

62. The Petitioner also asks for an immediate injunction denying these Honorbale Justices the right to resgin their respective jobs in order to evade public justice;

    [SGD.:] Kathleen Moore
    Montreal, Canada
    May 31, 2002

The Exhibits linked in the righthand column contain scans and pdf files of pertinent documents, in particular, scans of the Honorable Mtre. Linda Goupil's "Désistement de comparution," and of the Court-stamped motions of Plaintiff stripped from the Record and sent back to her in the mail by the Honorable Mtre. Paul Bégin.

If this PRELIMINARY WEB SITE is of any interest to you at all, please consider doing two things quickly: (i) immediately PRINT each and every page and item that you wish to document; (ii) leave your e-mail address at the gateway to this web site in order to be notified when the full web site goes online. The Petitioner had to produce this compact summary, since the full site consists of over 30 pages and as many exhibits, which will be duplicated completely in both English and French, was too large a project to meet this important May 31st deadline.

Thank you for your time.