Bellemare, ravi par la poursuite de Charest!
La Presse Canadienne
2010-04-16 09:31:00
Commenter
Marc Bellemare se dit ravi par la poursuite de 700 000 $ que son ancien chef, Jean Charest, lui intente pour ses allégations sur la nomination des juges.
En entrevue au journal Le Soleil, L'ex-procureur général du Québec explique vouloir profiter de la poursuite, tout comme de l'enquête publique, pour déballer son sac et peut-être même poursuivre à son tour le premier ministre.
Il affirme avoir plusieurs questions à poser à M. Charest et ne pas vouloir se priver des opportunités de le faire.
Contrairement à l'assignation du Directeur général des élections, M. Bellemare ne contestera pas une comparution devant la commission d'enquête sur la nomination des juges.
Il attend de voir de quelle façon le commissaire Michel Bastarache dirigera ses travaux et interprétera son mandat avant de commenter sa nomination.
Il affirme avoir plusieurs questions à poser à M. Charest et ne pas vouloir se priver des opportunités de le faire.
Contrairement à l'assignation du Directeur général des élections, M. Bellemare ne contestera pas une comparution devant la commission d'enquête sur la nomination des juges.
Il attend de voir de quelle façon le commissaire Michel Bastarache dirigera ses travaux et interprétera son mandat avant de commenter sa nomination.
Partager cet article:
Gmail
Outlook
Anonyme
il y a 15 ans> You don't seem to realize that I'm not talking law or C.d.a. but rather PR and perception. Of course Ryan has a duty towards his client. I'm just saying it's a bad marketing decision. Fellow bar members condemn it. It's the reality. It's like suing a judge.
I most certainly don't condemn it. I am rather astonished that your opinion is mainly focused on what other lawyers are thinking. It's a mandate like any other mandate. It wouldn't matter if the Ad.E. was a judge, either.
If we apply your logic again, an Ad.E. making those serious and public allegations about a fellow lawyer (who happens to be the PM here) is just as damaging from a PR and Marketing perspective.
Me
il y a 15 ans>>>>>>> If we apply your logic again, an Ad.E. making those serious and public allegations about a fellow lawyer (who happens to be the PM here) is just as damaging from a PR and Marketing perspective.
Bellemare is legally obligated by the C.d.a. to sustain the system's credibility. He is therefore legally bound to unveil whatever he knows, which is what he did. He acted upon a legal authorization drawn from the C.d.a. which makes the fault absent under 1457.
Me
il y a 15 ans>>>>>>> If we apply your logic again, an Ad.E. making those serious and public allegations about a fellow lawyer (who happens to be the PM here) is just as damaging from a PR and Marketing perspective.
Bellemare isn't loosing clients nor the respect of his colleagues. Read the polls. If I were a client of Bellemare's, I'd be just more proud of my choice of lawyer today. But I'm not. I'm a confrere and I raise my glass to him.
Me
il y a 15 ans* losing
Anonyme
il y a 15 ans> Bellemare is legally obligated by the C.d.a. to sustain the system's credibility. He is therefore legally bound to unveil whatever he knows, which is what he did. He acted upon a legal authorization drawn from the C.d.a. which makes the fault absent under 1457.
Fine. Let's apply your recent logic further although it deviates from your initial focus which was the reputation of lawyers as they are judged by fellow lawyers.
I find it difficult to believe that how many years later, Me Bellemare suddenly awakens to his duty under the C.d.a. and in the public eye, no less. The timing and the public forum within which he divulged his awakened conscience is what i find to be rather distrubing.
I look forward to reading the Enquiry Commission's report nonetheless. Thanks for your input.
Me
il y a 15 ans>>>>>I find it difficult to believe that how many years later, Me Bellemare suddenly awakens to his duty under the C.d.a. and in the public eye, no less. The timing and the public forum within which he divulged his awakened conscience is what i find to be rather distrubing.
You are absolutely right. However the fact that it is fishy isn't taken into account when deciding about his liability under CcQ.