Who was the first to introduce the "handshaking" and "baby-kissing" into politics?

Well, if you think that it was one of American politicians, think again: it was known at least 2500 years ago.  The Bible (2Samuel, 15) describes how king Davidís son Absalom used to stand at the gates of Jerusalem and greet everybody.  He was telling everyone who came to seek Justice from king David, that man Was right but that there was nobody to hear him out- if he, Absalom would be appointed top judge, then everybody would get justice in no time.

I quote: "Whenever a man approached him to show homage, he (Absalom) would extend his hand, hold him and kiss him". This tactics worked, Absalom got a lot of support and even managed to declare himself a king, though temporarily.  Dirty story: after taking power, Absalom decided to humiliate his father by publicly raping his step-mothers.  Read the Bible.  Name a repugnant thing, and I guarantee, you will find it in the Bible, and the most repugnant creature - God: what Absalom did was Godís will - punishment of David for his sins.  Since when is it OK to rape a woman for sins of her husband?  The easiest way to become an atheist is to read the Bible.

---

Bikers and the police

During the bikers' trial, it became known that bikers had latest police reports, pictures of antigang police squad, pictures of undercover agents, etc.  One Ontario policeman testified that bikers got all this information from his lap-top, which was stolen from him, while he was in a motel.  Let us see whether this makes any sense.

First, if you have a lap-top and you have sensitive files there, would not you protect it with a password?  One has to be a damn good hacker to break it. I do not think, bikers had these qualifications.  Now, presuming that they managed to open your lap-top, would not you in addition protect your files with yet another password, especially the one identifying an undercover agent?

Second, policeman is from Ontario.  He was asked to watch over several Quebec bikers, who came with some business to Ontario.  Why would anyone give him the pictures of SQ antigang squad?  Why would anyone give him identity of an undercover agent and an informant?  He certainly did not need either of those.

Now, why would a policeman from Ontario come to court and lie that bikers got sensitive information from his stolen lap-top?  Because otherwise the only conclusion is: bikers have one or more molls inside SQ. Our bravest are selling their soul, but do not want you to know.

By the way, the "stolen" lap-top was never found.
---

What really happened in court

The yellow media reported that I went to court wrongfully accusing an honest doctor of misconduct and demanding $10 million, and that judge did not believe a single word of mine, Em I lost the case.  Here is what really happened in court.

TESTIMONIES

I testified in court that in the morning of August 24, 1994, while in Donnacona Jail, I was told that I had to go to court.  I knew that my appearance in the Court of Appeal was on August 26, so I told the guards that it was a mistake and that I refused to go voluntarily, but I also said that I would not resist.  I laid on my bed, guards handcuffed me and shackled my legs, then grabbed the chains, lifted me in the air and started carrying me to the exit.  Guards could have used a wheelchair, but their purpose was to create excruciating pain in my arms.

In midway, guards have dropped me on the stone floor, trying to smash my back and head.  Then guard C. Amyot put me in a sitting position, grabbed me from behind, his hands under my arms and lifted me, simultaneously tightening his grub over my chest, so that I had difficulty breathing.  This way, I was brought to the Department of Personal Effects.

There, guard Amyot has refined his procedure. He placed me, handcuffed and shackled in front of an iron-clad counter, its height was slightly below my chin.  He got behind me, grabbed something in front and pulled abruptly thus smashing my chest against this counter.  He continued pulling with all his strength, my chest cracked and I could not breathe at all.

I have heard someone telling him to stop and he did stop, otherwise I would have been killed then and there, with almost no trace of violence on my body. Jailers did bring me to court that day, but it was a different court, and if they had told me about it, I would have gone voluntarily-. They misinformed me deliberately, knowing that I would refuse, and they would have an excuse to use force against me.

In the evening of that day, I have filed a report where I wrote that I had pain in my chest while breathing. The next day, I have met Jail doctor Gervais.  I also told him that I had pain breathing and demanded that I be brought to the hospital for an X-ray.  He refused.  He wrote nothing about my complaints, only that I had some small abrasions on my body.

On August 29, 1994, I have put it in writing that I still had pain while breathing and demanded to be brought to the hospital for an X-ray.  On August 31, I was told that I would be brought to the hospital for an X-ray.  On my arrival to the hospital, I was met by cardiologist Alain.  I met him due to my cardiac problems in April and June of 1994. He told me that he knew about the incident, that everything is arranged for X-ray pictures to be taken, so there I went to take X-ray.

The technician took 4 pictures, then told me that I inhaled too much air at the last one (on my back) and she asked me to inhale less, which I did, but it looked to me strange: a crack in the ribs is better visible when more air is inhaled.  Technician took 5 pictures, but one was discarded.

After the pictures were taken, I have been told to wait in Alain'93 office.  I spoke to him again about the incident, because I was worried about my ribs.  Several minutes later, Alain told me that he was to find out the results of X-ray, and I started moving with guards to the hospital exit.  He caught up with us at the exit, and he told me that there were no fractures on my ribs, which I had difficulty to believe.

I have decided to get to the bottom of it: I have requested to see the official X-ray report according to the Access to Information Act.  St-Francois Hospital (Quebec-City) ignored my request, so I complained to the Commission for access to information.  My complaint was heard in 1996, and the hospital was ordered to give me the documents.  It took more than a year.  I finally got the report in September of 1997.  The report was signed by radiologist Legare and it said that 3 old and consolidated fractures were found of the front are of the second and third left ribs and of the auxiliary are of the fifth right rib.

Each rib is numbered from the top to bottom and consists of 3 parts: front (anterior) arc, back (posterior) arc and the arc connecting these 2 -auxiliary are.

I wrote a letter to radiologist Legare asking to review my X-rays, because I have not had any rib broken prior to 1994.  I waited until February 1998, when I filed a complaint against her with College des medecins.  Soon after that, I have received a copy of her letter addressed to jail doctor and dated September 19, 1997.  I doubt that the date is true: I think that my complaint has prompted her to respond and she backdated it.  In this response, she wrote that one of my fractures was recent, namely, the auxiliary arc of the second left rib, while the fractures of the third left and fifth right ribs were not recent.

The first reading of this letter creates the impression that one of the cracks was misread, but look attentively: in her first letter, Legare mentioned FRONT are of the second left rib, while in the second letter she mentioned the auxiliary are.  Clearly, she did not misread anything, she just did not mention the fourth one which looked like recent.  I wrote to Legare yet again inviting her to admit that all my fractures were recent-. I invited her to look at my X-ray which was made in 1993 and I was sure did not contain any fractures.  She never responded.

In the fall of 1998, I have filed a lawsuit against radiologist Legare, claiming that she covered-up a crime committed by jailers. By that time I understood, that guards Amyot planned to kill me, not just to break my ribs.  There was a report in the media of a football player, who was killed by police: 6 of our bravest just pressed on his chest for several minutes, and after that declared that he all of a sudden stopped breathing while being arrested.  I know, how it happens.  Majority of ordinary people think that in order to kill a human being and extreme violence is required. Not at all: just exert enough pressure on the chest to prevent human from breathing for a couple of minutes, and you have a perfect murder, with almost no traces of violence.

The expenses related to the lawsuit were covered by Legal Aid.  If you think that Legal Aid decided to support my lawsuit because they really wanted to help me, think again.  The idea was very simple: they know that medical profession is like Mafia - if someone is suing any member of medical Mafia, all other doctors will refuse to treat him or do some sneaky things to have him dead.  Indeed, as soon as the medical Mafiosi learned that I am insisting on getting the radiology report, none of the cardiologists wanted to see me.

In the evening of May 8, 1998, 1 had a heart attack.  It took several hours for jailers to finally deliver me to St-Francois hospital.  The doctor there also did his best to kill me passively: he did not offer me the blood-clot baster, which needs to be applied within 3 hours after a heart attack, though I requested it.  His response was that he was not sure I had a heart attack.  Twelve hours later, when the medical Mafiosi saw that I did not die, they finally used this blood-clot baster, which was too late: the harm to my heart has been done.

From day one, I demanded angiography and angioplasty to be done.  Instead, cardiologist Couture connected me to several IV pumping into me various medications.  These IV were defective, since they carried a lot of air bubbles, so I had to be vigilant and shake the tube whenever I saw next bubble.  The purpose was obvious: sufficient amount of air pumped into my veins can kill, with no trace of fowl play.  When I got hold of my medical file, I saw a lab test of my blood, indicating that Couture deliberately used the dosage of Heparine either too much or too low to have a beneficial effect.  Heparine inhibits blood coagulation thus preventing blood clots, but too much Heparine can result in brain hemorrhage, and this is what Couture hoped for.

For example, on May 9, 1998 at 3 p.m., my blood test showed the coagulation time 240 seconds, while normal value (without Heparine) is between 26 and 32 seconds; the therapeutic zone is 63-114 seconds.  Couture overmedicated me more than double.  This can not be an honest mistake.  The blood test on the same date at 10.45 p.m. gave my coagulation time at 44.7 seconds, which is too low for any therapeutic effect.  Couture deliberately Jumped between overmedicating me to undermedicating, hoping to trigger a disastrous reaction.  He did not succeed, because I ordered to be disconnected from all IV needles.  After this was done, I immediately felt myself better.

When Couture learned about my refusal to accept IV, he called a psychiatrist to evaluate whether I am mentally fit to make the decisions about my health care.  He wanted to declare me mentally inapt, so the he could kill me by his "treatment" against my will.  I was smart enough to refuse to speak with his psychiatrist, because if I did speak with her, no matter what I would say, she could write that she examined me and that I am mentally inapt.  Since I did not speak with her, she could not come to any conclusion about me, and this saved me.  As soon as Couture learned about his defeat, he changed his mind and told me that he had arranged for an angiography and angioplasty on May 15, 1998, exactly as I demanded from the very beginning.

On May 15, 1998, I was brought to Laval Hospital, where Dr. Barbeau did angiography, but refused to do angioplasty. He recommended bypass surgery, and I was scheduled on May 19, 1998 to undergo it.  This looked to me very auspicious: people in critical condition wait for the surgery for many months, and here they are offering me operation right away, and I am not in a critical condition at all.  I refused.  Bypass is a serious operation, which requires a long recovery time and in jail conditions this would have been especially difficult.  Angioplasty is much more simple and achieves the same result.  Indeed, later I read in medical publications that angioplasty is statistically as effective as bypass surgery, and angioplasty can be repeated many times, unlike bypass.

I decided to get "second opinion" by sending the film of my angiography to all major hospitals in Montreal.  Little did I know these medical Mafiosi, everyone responded that angioplasty can not be done and that bypass surgery was recommended.  The problem though was that these people were not surgeons, they did not do bypass surgeries, so I requested an appointment with a cardiac surgeon Pelletier in Montreal Heart Institute.  To my surprise, he wrote that he did NOT recommend bypass surgery.  If he was right, then I did a smart thing by refusing it back in May.

It was obvious to me that all these opinions were wrong: these Mafiosi decided to kill me by effective denial of treatment, just because I dared to sue one of the Mafiosi.  They knew very well (and I knew it too) that I would never win a penny, because corrupt Canadian judges will cover-up for them, nevertheless, they could not tolerate even the fact that I had dared to sue.  So, I sent a copy of my film of angiography to several places using fictitious name.  I got responses from such respectable places as Harvard Medical School, Columbia University, New York University. The top specialists responded that angioplasty was possible indeed.

There was also one specialist from BC, who also agreed to do angioplasty.  Jailers also wanted me dead, so they refused to bring me to British Columbia for angioplasty, though some of my colleagues and relatives were prepared to pay all the related expenses.  Based on false statements of Quebec medical Mafiosi, jailers declared that I was getting the best treatment available and that all I needed was available in Quebec.

I decided to check once again our judiciary.  I filed several motions in Federal Court explaining that my life was in danger, that my heart was deteriorating and that I needed to be transported to British Columbia for angioplasty.  Judge of Federal Court McGillis has declared me vexatious pleader and has forbidden me to file any action in Federal Court.  I moved to Quebec Superior Court.  I filed an action for damages against Jail doctor Corbin and a motion asking court to order Jailers to bring me to BC for an angioplasty.  My action was dismissed even without hearing and judge of Superior Court Rolland has declared me also a vexatious pleader and now I was forbidden to file any action in Superior Court.

Jailers knew that shooting in Concordia took place because I felt my life to be in danger and that the courts were corrupt and would not protect my life.  Now they created exactly the same situation: my life was again in danger and both Federal and Superior Court judges demonstrated themselves as totally corrupt.  Jailers hoped that they once again would be able to provoke me into a violent reaction. They failed: I never even raised my voice at anyone; I never begged for my life, but I demanded treatment and I filed numerous complaints.

My next step was to file complaints against jail doctors and nurses with their respective Discipline Committee.  I was not going to let them kill me quietly.  One such complaint was considered against jail doctor Corbin and the Discipline Committee has decided that my complaint was totally without merit, that I was getting the best treatment possible.  Of course, Corbin found 2 other doctors to testify as experts that this indeed was the case. -Mafiosi are one family, supporting each other in any crime. In the meantime, my heart continued deteriorating.

In June of 2001, Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Solicitor General of Canada went to court against me asking the judge to forbid me filing complaints against doctors, nurses and lawyers.  Judge Durand was happy to oblige: he immediately issued an order stopping all complaints already filed and forbidding me to file new ones.  Now I was silenced completely.  Jailers hoped that this would provoke me, they were wrong again.  I passed the provocation school at Concordia, I am immune now to any provocation.  I have written a separate posting about these proceedings if anyone wants more details.

A new test was done on July 4, 2001, and it showed that my angina has spread over the heart, so that even corrupt Quebec cardiologist Ayas had to write that my life was "possibly" in danger, but still he deliberately lost months by writing letters to Montreal Heart Institute and Jewish General Hospital, thus giving Jailers excuse not to bring me to BC since they were waiting for response from these places.  In December of 2001, jailers finally have transferred me to BC and on January 7, 2002, I had finally angioplasty done.

One of the 4 blocked arteries in the left side was open, but for the other 3 it was too late, they were blocked 100%.  BC doctor, who did the procedure told me that my life was hanging on 10% opening of the fourth artery; he also told me that all 4 could have been open, had Jailers brought me to BC 3 years earlier.  This doctor also confirmed to me that what he did was an ordinary procedure which could be easily done in Quebec.

After these events, one might think that I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that I was not vexatious, that I was right when I demanded medical care, and that Canadian judges should reverse their judgments and Quebec doctors should feel ashamed for bringing me to the brink of death - not at all.  Attorney General of Canada is still insisting on the request to forbid me to file complaints against doctors, and judge Durand is still refusing to rescind his order.

The assault of guard Amyot on me was filmed on video-tape, since in Jail every use of force is to be filmed, this is the rule.  I have requested, according to Privacy Act, to view that tape.  Jailers refused.  I appealed their decision to the Privacy Commissioner, and I was refused again.  Privacy Commissioner has concluded that viewing of the tape might jeopardize jail security.  He did not elaborate though as to how it could happen.  This is the kind of "watchdog" we have in this country.

After receiving the second report from Legare, where she admitted that one crack in my rib was recent, I filed a complaint with police against guard Amyot accusing him of breaking my rib.  I was never under illusion that police would really press charges, I just wanted to demonstrate that this is really so.  It took quite some time, and in 1999, 1 finally received the police decision not to press charges.  I requested a copy of police file to find out their reasons.  In police file, they actually did no investigation at all, they did not even speak with the suspect, they never called Amyot a suspect.  In addition, the Prosecutor decided that he can not charge Amyot, because the video shot on that day did not exist, so Amyot would be denied his right for full defense.

I looked through the file, and I noticed on the last page that the video was still existing, and it was in police custody.  I immediately wrote a request according to Access to Information to get that video.  As soon as my request was received by police, they decided to send the video-tape back to Donnacona, and they responded to me that police no longer had it.  Well, I wrote a similar request to Donnacona, and as you can guess, Donnacona can not find that video.  I asked for the court order that the video be presented in court, but jailers still claim that they could not find it, and it was OK with the judge.

The above was essentially what I said in MY testimony.  In cross-examination, defense lawyer Grondin showed me the report of jail doctor Gervais and asked why there was no mentioning in the report of pain in my ribs while breathing, to which I repeated that I did complain, and jail doctor did not mention it because he also wanted to cover-up for jailers.  Then Grondin showed me my numerous court actions related to my heart problems and asked whether I remembered that I was declared vexatious pleader by Federal Court Judge and by Superior Court.  Yei3, I did remember that.  After that, my complaints against jail doctors were deposited and I was asked whether I remembered them.  Not only I did remember them, but I have proven quite conclusively that these doctors and judges brought me to the brink of death, which means that all my complaints were well founded.

Cardiologist Alain was testifying next.  He said that he saw me in April and June of 1994 and scheduled next meeting in August, so my visit of August 31, 1994 was scheduled in advance and had nothing to do with my ribs.  According to Alain, I did tell him that I had pain while inhaling, but that I never mentioned being attacked by a guard. (Would you believe that?) Upon hearing from me about pain, Alain decided to order X-ray to be taken in order to eliminate possible rib fracture.  He claimed to have never met defendant Legare, though they were working in the same hospital.

On cross-examination, I asked him, how realistic is it to presume that I would have told him about the pain while inhaling, without mentioning that I was attacked by a guard?  Judge Goodwin did not allow this question. It happened like this all the time: whenever a witness is in difficulty, my question is not allowed. Next, I asked Alain, how did it happened that he saw me in April, June, August, and then, he never saw me again. I asked him whether this was related to the fact that he lied to me about my ribs.  His response was that I was never his patient, that it was he who saw me each time - it was just a coincidence.  According to Alain, whoever is available at the time a prisoner comes to jail, that specialist sees the prisoner.  Have you ever heard that kind of nonsense?  I have been in jail for 10 years by now, and each time I am going to the hospital, I know exactly which doctor would see me.

Defendant Legare took the stand next.  She testified that she honestly examined my X-rays first time and saw no recent fractures. Then she said that she did not speak with any of jailers and was not in any conspiracy with them. She received my letter in 1997 and reviewed the pictures. She noticed a fracture which seemed recent and which she did not notice first time, so she honestly wrote a new report indicating her new finding. She also said that after she saw my new X-ray made in 1998, she once again revised her evaluation and decided that the fracture she thought to be recent was in fact old as well.

On cross-examination, I asked her, why she did not bother to see my previous X-ray, made in 1993, and check whether any of the fractures were present there.  She said that it was not necessary.  My question, why did she think so, was not allowed by the judge. I asked her, how did it happen that she wrote the second report in such a manner as to conceal that she in fact found the fourth fracture, rather than misread the one which existed.  She responded that it was an honest oversight.

Then I asked Legare to show all the fractures on the X-rays.  The three fractures that she mentioned in her first report were difficult to see, while the fourth which she missed was in full view and looked like a small rectangular void at the top of the rib. I asked her, how could she possibly miss a crack, which was visible even to me. She mumbled something like what is obvious to an ignorant man is not obvious to a specialist. -Wow, how much a specialist one should be to notice a rectangular void?

I asked Legare to explain, why has she again changed her mind and declared that this rectangular void was not a recent fracture. She said that the reason was that my 1998 X-ray showed no change, while a recent fracture should have been healed.  So, I displayed the 1998 picture.  The rectangular void there was partially filled, w I asked her, why does she say that there was no difference, when it was obvious that it was healed.  She said that 1998 X-ray was focused on lungs, not on bones.

Well, if it is just out of focus, I asked whether we should just make another picture and then decide.  Judge did not allow the question.  Then I asked whether in this case it would be crucial to see my X-ray made in 1993, and if this rectangular void was not there, then one should conclude that I was not born with it.  She insisted that it was not necessary to see 1993 picture.  My question: "Why?", was not allowed by the Judge.

I described the following situation: someone is accused of assault on the basis of Legare's second report, indicating recent fracture.  Suppose my 1998 X-ray is not available.  The person is convicted, then comes my 1998 X-ray and she decides that it was not a fracture.  So, innocent person is in jail.  My question was: is her science really so unreliable?  The question was not allowed. 1

The next to testify was Deputy Warden of Donnacona jail Belanger.  I asked him where was the video-tape shot in 1994 when guard Amyot assaulted me.  He lied under oath that he did his best, but was unable to find any trace of the tape.  He even went so far as to say that it might be that the tape never existed.  I asked him whether he knew of obligation to film each and every use of force.  He pretended not to know this.

I demanded that the Head of Preventive Security of Donnacona jail be called to testify on the subject of video-tape, because he is the one who is in charge of this kind of tapes.  Judge refused.

I have met an inmate in Archambault, who was also attacked by a guard.  His hand was trapped between two metal plates and a guard deliberately hit on the plate to crush his hand.  His fingers were crushed and the hand looks flat and thin, he can not move his fingers.  In his case jailers also were trying to cover-up the crime.  First, they declared that this was the way he came to jail and that he himself refused any medical help. He denies this.  I asked the judge to allow him to testify to show the pattern of criminal behavior by jailers and doctors.  Judge Goodwin refused.

The next to testify was expert Montminy.  I knew him from the previous hearing of my complaint against jail doctor Corbin.  He also testified there that Corbin provided for me the best medical care imaginable.  The man has no scientific publications in the field of radiology or fractures.  Despite my objections, Goodwin accepted him as an expert in the field.  Defense lawyer Grondin demonstrated himself quite dumb, so Goodwin decided to do Grondin's job and practically conducted the whole examination himself.

On the cross-examination, I asked Montminy how much time had he spent on his expertise. He responded that he spent about 4 hours. Then I asked him how much is he being paid for his expertise and his presence in court. He did not want to say, but finally he admitted being paid about $8,000. I asked him whether he testified regularly at various legal proceedings, and he admitted that he did testify about every 3 months.  I asked him, what percentage of his salary constitutes his expert earnings.  He answered that only about half of percent.  I immediately did a little arithmetic and asked him whether his salary was close to $4,800,000.  He said no, so I asked him to admit that he was misleading the court.

I wanted to ask Montminy about veracity of his previous testimony, where he claimed that jail doctor Corbinís behavior was beyond reproach.  Jail doctor Corbin and other jail doctors brought me to the brink of death, this was proven by the turn of events, so I asked Montminy how can he defend his previous testimony.  Goodwin did not allow this and every other question, proving that Montminy effectively helped jail doctors to murder me by justifying their actions, which Montminy knew to be wrong.

The second expert to testify was radiologist Laroche whose specialty is soft tissues, not bones.  Goodwin did not allow me even to question Laroche about his qualifications, recognized him as an expert and allowed him to testify.  My objections were just ignored.  This was a grave breach of procedure.

Laroche testified that defendant Legare did excellent job; she missed in her first report a fracture which she marked in her second report as recent and it was quite normal and understandable: the fracture was difficult to detect; Legare was absolutely right to revise her second report when she saw my 1998 X-ray, etc.  He dismissed my claim that my ribs were never broken prior to 1994, saying that he met many people claiming the same while their ribs were fractured and they did not know about it.

On the cross-examination, Laroche admitted that he had no publications in his field.  He is a professional testifier: he does it for 30 years with even greater frequency than Montminy.  I asked him whether he had ever testified against another doctor.  His response was that in the past 30 years he never testified against another doctor, but that he is now involved in a proceeding where he is to testify against a doctor.  I asked him to name the proceeding, and he refused.  Well, every legal proceeding is open to public, so I asked the judge to order him to respond.  Judge refused.  Montminy, when asked a similar question, admitted that he never testified against a doctor.

I asked Laroche, how one in good faith can not notice the rectangular void on my second rib?  He again repeated a nonsense that what is obvious to a layman is not obvious to a specialist.  I placed together my X-ray from 1994 and a similar X-ray from 1998, and I asked Laroche, was not it obvious that the edges of rectangle in 1998 picture are more smooth (like healed) than they were in 1994. He responded the same way, as defendant: I should not believe my eyes, but believe a specialist.

Then I showed Laroche my X-ray taken in September of 1993, which did not have any defect on the second rib.  Laroche explained it by saying that 1993 X-ray was taken from a slightly different angle.  Then I tried to ask the same question I posed to the defendant, namely, if a person is convicted of an assault on the basis of her testimony and then comes the 1998 X-ray proving that there was no assault, is their science so inaccurate?  Again, Goodwin did not allow me to pose this question. This was a typical picture: whenever a witness is in difficulty, my question is not allowed.

I asked Laroche whether the complex of fractured was compatible with the picture of assault which I described in my testimony.  He responded negative by deliberately lowering the level of the counter against which my chest was pressed.  I again told him that the counter was close to my chin, exactly where the second rib is located. He continued to insist that the picture is not compatible, though he could not give a reasonable explanation why.  When I tried to press him for answer, the picture was the same:  my questions were not allowed by Goodwin.

During examination on discovery, I asked the defendant, how long time does it take for a fracture to become viewed as not recent, namely, when healing is getting visible.  She responded then that it took usually from 7 to 10 days.  I immediately asked that since I was brought to her 7 days after the assault, she might have mistook recent fractures as old.  At that moment, her lawyer understood that she made a great mistake and ordered her not to answer any question on this subject.  I repeated the same questions to Laroche, and he was obviously aware of Legare's "oops", so he gave time estimation in months.

Laroche also insisted that I could sincerely not know that my ribs were broken in the past. I asked him, how could this possibly happen, especially if the fractures were not childhood fractures (childhood fractures heal with no traces left). He responded that some people can get their ribs fractured just by coughing.  I asked him whether this might be applicable to me.  He had to admit that this is applicable only to people with a severe osteoporosis.  I started pressing him again to admit that in my case, it would be impossible for me not to know whether I had my ribs broken.  Goodwin, as always, did not allow me to continue my questions.
 

DEFENDANT'S SUMMATION

Defendant Legare is a radiologist of high qualification, she did her job the best possible.  She could not conspire with Correctional Service, because she never spoke with any of them, she never met me or Alain, she has hardly known who I was (believe it or not!).  She received X-ray pictures, she viewed them and wrote her report.  She received my letter, she reviewed the X-rays and made a correction which at that time was necessary.  Then she had the opportunity to view my 1998 X-ray and she reversed her second report saying that I had no recent fractures at that time.

According to defense, I am a pathological psychopath, I complain all the time on honest doctors, who are doing their best to help me.  As proof, defense presented numerous complaints and legal proceedings of mine, and as a proof that all these complaint were unfounded, defense presented decisions and judgments saying so.  I was declared vexatious pleader by both Federal Court and Superior Court; I was forbidden to file any legal proceedings in these courts, I was also forbidden to write complaints against doctors, nurses and lawyers.

As proof that I was never assaulted, defense presented records made by jail nurse and jail doctor - none mentioned me complaining on broken ribs or pain while breathing.  My trip to the hospital on August 31, 1994, was not for taking X-rays, but rather to fulfill previous arrangement with cardiologist Alain, who wanted to see me for follow-up.  It was Alain, who ordered the X-ray to be taken.

As legal precedent, Grondin presented the case (Johnson v. Forcier 200-05-000055-876, Court of Appeal case 200-09-00627-924).  In this case, both judge of Superior Court and Court of Appeal decided that despite the fact that defendant Forcier made a mistake in diagnosis, he is not liable for damages because it was an honest error and not negligence.  Grondin argued that if in the case of a person made a quadriplegic no damages were awarded, then in my case it should be even more so.  In order to make Goodwin angry with me, Grondin mentioned that I had no respect for judiciary, that I called one judge "little low crook", that I consider all judges dishonest and corrupt.
 

MY SUMMATION

I was assaulted by guard Amyot.  He tried to kill me, but succeeded only to break my ribs.  I did complain to both jail nurse and jail doctor on pain while breathing.  The proof that I told the nurse about it is in my writing on the Use of Force Report.  If I wrote about it there, then I certainly told about it to jail doctor Gervais and the fact that he did not write it down proves only that he also did his best to cover-up for jailers.

Cardiologist Alain admitted that I told him about pain while breathing.  He also testified that I never mentioned about assault.  How believable is it, if defense itself presented my lawsuit against jailers on this subject dated August 30, 1994?  Clearly, I was furious about this assault and I was telling everybody about it.  The fact that Alain denied that I told him about assault proves that he was a part of the whole conspiracy.

Jailers did the following: they had jail nurse and jail doctor not to mention anything about broken ribs.  I do not know whether they indeed had a pre-arranged appointment with Alain or they wrote some back-dated documents after assault, but this is not really relevant. What is important, that they obviously communicated with Alain and asked him to make proper arrangements to initiate my X-ray.

This trick allowed jailers to keep out any information about possible broken ribs.  Indeed, the report written by Legare did not go to jail, it went to the initiator - Alain.  Jailers never sent me to take X-rays, they sent me to visit Alain. When I filed my lawsuit, I had no idea of all these tricks, otherwise, I would have certainly included Alain and Gervais as co-defendants.

Defense could never explain why did it take 3 years for me to finally get hold of the X-ray report written by Legare.  If the report was honest, hospital would not delay sending it to me for so long.  Alain could not explain why after this August visit he never saw me again as patient, which proves my point that medical Mafia decided to kill me by denial of medical care just because I dared to demand information about myself.

I also presented proof that after I had the heart attack in 1998, cardiologist Couture and others did their best to sabotage the dosage of medications and proper work of medical equipment (air bubbles in IV).  They might have succeeded had I not disconnected myself from the IV.  As I testified before, Quebec doctors lied to me about the availability of angioplasty and brought me to the brink of death.

It was neither a coincidence nor oversight that defendant used confusing wording in her second report: she did not want to admit missing fourth crack; she presented it as reevaluation of the third.  Defendant could never explain why did she refuse to view my 1993 X-ray.  Obviously, she knew that I was telling the truth and there would be no fractures on 1993 X-ray.

Grondin argued that my health was not harmed by defendant, since broken ribs heal themselves, no treatment necessary. I never said that I demanded $10 millions due to a grave damage to my health.  I have read in the newspaper that Celine Dion had filed a lawsuit claiming $20 million against one publisher, who claimed that she had sex with her manager prior to age 18. Well if such a statement is worth $20 million, then my broken ribs are worth at least half of that.  I never expected to collect a penny, I Just wanted to make a statement of how repugnant Legare's actions were.

In addition, I decided to check the moral qualities of Legare.  I made an offer to Grondin: I withdraw my lawsuit if Legare arranges for me proper treatment for my heart, no money to be paid.  As I expected, Legare refused, though what I requested was part of her duties anyway according to Hippocratic oath she took.

I analyzed the case presented by defense as legal precedent.  This is what happened there.  Johnson felt tingling in his fingers, so he went to see neurologists.  He was referred to Forcier, who told him that he probably had a tumor in his spinal cord and a biopsy was needed to clarify the situation.  Johnson agreed.  Forcier operated on him in 1982, and Johnson woke up after the operation a quadriplegic.  In addition, Forcier told Johnsonís wife after operation, that Johnson had an inoperable tumor and that he had 6 months to live.

Ignorant Dr. Forcier was wrong in every aspect: Johnson had no tumor, he is still alive and decided to sue for damages.  Can you imagine the psychological trauma to hear a death sentence?  Even for this he would have received millions in US, not here.  Imagine, Johnson was made a quadriplegic and was told that he would die within 6 months, and Canadian judge Laflamme decided that Johnson is not entitled to any compensation, because there was no causal connection between his suffering and the actions of doctor Forcier.  I could not believe my eyes when I read it, but this is so. Forcier just made an honest mistake in his diagnosis.

More than that: Johnson went to the Court of Appeal, and judges Pidgeon, Dusseault and Letarte decided that Laflamme judgment was correct.  Now you understand, why Americans do not allow judges to make decisions in civil cases: it is the jury of peers who decide there.  Can you imagine a regular person deciding that a medical doctor, making his patient quadriplegic and telling him falsely that he had 6 months to live, is not liable?

Grondin was right: I indeed consider all Canadian Judges dishonest and dishonorable, and this includes judge Goodwin.  This is exactly what I told him.  One might ask: if I knew that I would loose and that my health and life would be in jeopardy due to this lawsuit, why did I proceed with it?  Well, a man has to do what a man has to do.  There is an unholy alliance between jailers, doctors and judges which cover-up for each other.  Someone has to have the courage to say it loudly.  If not I, who?
---

About our finest and bravest

As usually, I am saying something that nobody else seems to dare to say.  It was reported that the largest ever fire in Colorado was set up by a Forestry Service employee and the largest fire was set by one of our finest.  His explanation was quite logical for this kind of people: he just wanted to make some money on fighting this fire.  And now, here is what nobody dares to say: don't they all?  Indeed, ask yourself, what is better for our finest: to extinguish a forest fire right away or to let it spread?

The answer is obvious: if they extinguish a forest fire right away, home they go, no hefty overtime.  This is the explanation why all these fires were not contained.  The persons arrested are just a small portion of all those who start fires.  Imagine a situation: a forest fire is detected; it odes not take much brain to project its future movement and to make ahead of it a sufficient space where there is nothing to burn.  The fire comes there and stops.  Now, this does not happen?  There are two ways to let fire grow: to make a "mistake" in the fire movement projection and to start yet another fire elsewhere.  I am sure they are doing both.

It was also reported that one of our bravest in Montreal was suspended without pay. What did our bravest do?  He was fighting crime the usual way: instead of looking for a criminal who committed the crime, he just grabbed the first guy at hand and then created "proof" that the person has committed the crime. How many of our bravest are doing the same?  A lot and they would never be caught.