All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

When I entered the legal profession on January 23, 2013, I took a solemn oath declaring my allegiance to a constituted authority and swore that I would carry out my duties with honesty in the spirit of fundamental justice.

By taking this oath, I pledged to uphold the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers and not compromise the honour or dignity of the profession.

Following the events that have occurred since 2020[1], I found myself in a morally untenable position, one that has led me to a decision that I will explain briefly in this letter.

During this time, I have borne witness to a misleading narrative presented as unquestionable truth to a population in a state of shock. Today, this narrative, invoking the existence of a serious threat to the health of the population, has been taken as “judicial notice,” meaning that it can no longer be challenged in court[2]. Without any debate, contrary to all logic, and simply because it was repeated ad nauseam, a fraudulent story has become an absolute truth. I use the word “fraudulent” advisedly because that is exactly what it is, the alleged threat being only a pretext for making profound and potentially irreversible changes in society. These changes were accompanied by a massive transfer of wealth to the ruling class. I cannot overlook the fact that this imaginary threat also served as justification for the deployment of so-called “safe and effective” injections, which are likely linked to the excess deaths currently observed in Canada and elsewhere[3].

Over the last four years, my ongoing analysis leads me to conclude that this terrible chain of events could only have occurred through the unprecedented control of information with the complicity of key players in previously respected institutions and professions. For example, I witnessed doctors, scientists and professionals try by every means possible to set the record straight. In doing so, they were denied their share of the COVID pie and found themselves at great personal risk. I had the honour and privilege of working with these remarkable individuals. To my dismay, I saw them censored and attacked with unspeakable violence, all this happening in the context of widespread ignorance and indifference. The silence of my own profession was the most disturbing. On the other hand, I observed many people agreeing with the official narrative  without question, behaving in an opportunistic manner, and being rewarded for participating in the lies and misappropriation of science. What a sad sight to see.

The professional orders were key players in preserving the official narrative and managed to spread terror within their ranks by systematically attacking dissenting voices. This revealed their true nature; namely that their mission is to control professionals and protect vested interests, not to protect the public. Universities, awash in industry funding, have played a similar role, ensuring that none of their members threaten the current profit model.

I unsuccessfully defended[4] and advised some of the scientists and professionals who were attacked in this fashion. Along with a few of my colleagues, I also acted as a whistleblower[5]. Prior to that, in the spring of 2021, I had helped prepare an application for judicial review, hoping that the courts might halt the ongoing totalitarian drift. This application will probably never be heard. It was summarily dismissed by the Superior Court, and the leave to appeal was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeal[6]. Many legal remedies or complaints have met a similar fate. In hindsight, I now understand that an honest debate will never be permitted. The outcome of such a debate would be devastating to the official narrative, something which must be avoided at all costs by those who have benefited and continue to benefit from it.

Regrettably, I have observed a profession that has dishonoured itself, either through silence or through complicity, affirming what others have already stated; it essentially serves Power[7]. And this Power has shown, to put it mildly, that it doesn’t work for our well-being.

Yet, the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers requires that I serve only one master: Justice.

The protection of fundamental rights and respect for the individual must inspire my practice. I have an obligation to act with integrity and maintain my professional independence. This code also requires me to uphold the authority of the courts – courts which now refuse debates, which punish any form of dissent and which condone unprecedented violations of the citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms. The reasonable limits imposed in a so-called free and democratic society were used to justify those violations[8].

The fact is our society is neither free nor democratic, despite the great efforts to make us believe such an illusion.

Citizens are allowed to exercise their rights and freedoms, such as freedom of opinion, as long as this exercise does not seriously undermine the powers that be. The division of power into executive, legislative and judicial powers, to which I would add the power of the media, is also an illusion. The walls have disappeared. All of these are slaves to Finance and take part in a plan that is not ours or, in any case, is not mine.

In this context, and since it was no longer possible for me to reconcile conflicting professional obligations, I chose to bow out by resigning from the Quebec Bar. I have withdrawn my allegiance to this constituted authority. I no longer support the courts. I refuse to take part for another moment in these sombre theatrics. That is the only decision that allows me to feel at peace with my conscience. That is all that really matters to me.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This letter was originally published in French on April 22, 2024.

Notes

1. I will not go into the details of the 2020 crisis here, but whoever is interested can consult, among other things, the work of the National Citizens’ Inquiry (NCI). I participated in the NCI as a prosecutor during the hearings held in Quebec City on May 11-13, 2023. The commission heard 305 witnesses, including 94 experts, during the 24 days of hearings held in 8 Canadian cities. The report of the commissioners and all the testimonies are available to the public.

See: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca or https://www.nationalcitizensinquiry.com.

2. See, for instance, Monier c. Procureur général du Québec, 2023 QCCS 2111 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jxqcq.

3. See, for instance, the work of Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, Marine Baudin, PhD, Joseph Hickey, PhD and Jérémie Mercier, PhD: https://correlation-canada.org/covid-19-vaccine-associated-mortality-in-the-southern-hemisphere/.

4. See, for instance, my comments on the Linard case, during a conference in Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce on July 2, 2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvQCRFeylII.

5. See, for instance, the conference I gave with four colleagues in Longueuil on November 30, 2021: https://rumble.com/vqx7lv-les-avocats-de-rinfo-covid-qubec-prennent-la-parole.html.

6. See Monier c. Procureur général du Québec, 2023 QCCS 2111 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jxqcq and Monier c. Procureur général du Québec, 2024 QCCA 80 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k2dhm.

7. See my comments on a text from Duncan Kennedy during an interview with independent journalist Julie Lévesque, published on February 19, 2023: https://tribunaldelinfaux.com/2023/02/19/video-legitime-defense-3-formation-juridique-hierarchie-et-soumission-entrevue-avec-me-louis-olivier-fontaine/.

8. About the curfew and freedom of movement, see, for instance, Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. Pépin, 2024 QCCQ 299 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k2p4n.

Featured image: The Édifice Ernest-Cormier is the courthouse for the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)