Activist Professor Denis Rancourt’s Judicial Lynching
by Stephen Lendman
Rancourt reflects academia’s best, most competent, most responsible and bravest. He has two blog sites. Visit them for updated information.
What happened to Rancourt can happen to anyone responsibly challenging what’s too deplorable to accept.
Injustice defines Western societies. Canada marches in lockstep with Washington.
Rogue state ruthlessness defines both countries. Imperial priorities matter most. Inviolable laws don’t matter. Nor judicial fairness.
Rancourt is a distinguished University of Ottawa (U of O) professor. He’s tenured. He’s a recognized physics and environmental science expert.
Students loved him. He’s a “phenomenal teacher,” they said. He didn’t teach to the test like in America.
He prioritized learning. He inspired academic achievement. He supports fundamental human and civil rights.
Political activism caused his dismissal. University of Ottawa’s campus isn’t safe. President Allan Rock is a former Canadian politician.
He runs U of O like his private fiefdom. Like a police state. He’s unprincipledly hard right. He ignores fundamental Canadian law doing so.
Academic freedom doesn’t matter. Or free thought, opinion or expression. U of O is a hotbed of fascist extremism. It’s inhospitable to learning.
U of O Law Professor Joanne St. Lewis colluded with Rock. She did so against Rancourt.
She sued him unjustifiably. She wants $1 million. She irresponsibly charged racism.
It related to his legitimate blog site comments. He called St. Lewis a “house negro.” He cited Malcolm X. He first used the term.
A 2011 Statement of Claim (SOC) against Rancourt said:
“The Defendant’s conduct and actions are reprehensible insulting, high-handed, spiteful, and outrageous.”
“Such conduct warrants condemnation by this Court by means of an award of punitive damages.”
It spuriously claimed “(t)he Defendant defamed Professor St. Lewis in furtherance of his personal animosity towards President Allan Rock and the University of Ottawa which terminated him as a Professor.”
U of O pays all St. Lewis legal fees. Doing so smacks of collusion. It violates Rancourt’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For over three years, he’s battled for justice so far denied. One-on-one against St. Lewis is one thing.
Against U of O maliciousness another. Against courts piling on something else entirely. Against systemic injustice matters most.
Cynthia McKinney is special. She’s extraordinary. She’s an exception that proves the rule. She’s a true profile in courage.
She supports right over wrong. She does it courageously. She’s a committed human/civil rights champion.
She was Georgia’s House of Representatives first African American member.
She represented Georgia’s 11th district. She did so from January 1993 – January 2003.
She was 2008 Green Party presidential candidate. She’s close to receiving her doctorate.
She supports judicial fairness. She wants Rancourt given no less. She’s involved helping him get what he’s so far denied.
He was fired for doing the right thing. Over three years of battling judicially followed. It’s not east challenging systemic injustice.
McKinney circulated a petition
. It protests Ontario Superior Court Judge Michel Z. Charbonneau’s judicial lynching.
Rancourt is his own legal defense. He taught himself law to do so. During his opening jury statement, Charbonneau silenced him.
He did so reprehensibly. He acted extrajudicially. He took the law into his own hands. He twisted it irresponsibly.
He prohibited Rancourt’s fundamental right to speak. He violated Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s a constitutional bill of rights. It states:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.”
Article 7 assures “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
Academic and speech freedoms are inviolable. So is the right to a fair and just legal defense. America denies them. So does Canada.
Doing so reflects police state injustice. Charbonneau is more hanging than real judge. He shames the office he holds.
He has no legitimacy whatever. Rancourt walked out of court in disgust. He explained why, saying:
“On May 16, 2014, at 10:00 AM, in courtroom #36 of the Ottawa Courthouse of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, I walked out from the trial in which I am being sued, and in which I was representing myself without a lawyer.”
“The trial is continuing in my absence, before a Jury of my peers.” He continued, adding:
“Your Honour, the law foresees that I must be free to advance the very serious charge of “reasonable apprehension of bias.”
“It is very difficult for me to make this intervention. Give me five minutes because I must present the new evidence.”
“During my motion of May 7, 2014, asking that Your Honour recuse himself, Your Honour’s decision was silent on the central point that I had made that Your Honour’s decisions in this action could affect the reputation of the University of Ottawa and affect the monetary value of its scholarships, to which Your Honour donates money regularly and annually.”
“Then, on the first day of trial, Monday May 12 of this week, we did a motion in the afternoon, a so-called ‘Voir Dire,’ with detailed facta.”
“Mr. Dearden (plaintiff’s lawyer) brought the motion with a factum of 32 pages served on May 9 and accompanied by a book of authorities of 347 pages.”
“His motion was to eliminate my defence called ‘Litigation by proxy contrary to the Charter.’ “
“I answered with a factum of May 9 containing 14 pages and accompanied by a book of authorities of 342 pages.”
“I argued in detail that, in fact, my defense was a defence of abuse of process having three branches, with one branch being the ‘Jameel’ defence based on a 2005 decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal: Dow Jones Inc. v. Jameel, and I pointed to paragraphs 68 to 71 of my ‘Statement of Defence’ as pleading this Jameel defence.”
“The decision of this Court (of Your Honour) was pronounced on May 14 regarding the said motion or Voir Dire: The paragraphs 61 to 67 of the Statement of Defence were struck.”
“Paragraphs 68 to 71 remained intact, as did my Jameel defence.”
“Then, on May 15, yesterday, during my Opening Statement, the Court allowed Mr. Dearden to interrupt me when I was explaining my Jameel defence to the Jury.”
“And Your Honour, off the cuff, struck and forbade my Jameel defence despite my protest, and despite the fact of not having done so when Your Honour should have done so if you had had that intension.”
“It has been more than three years that I have been fighting for procedural justice in this action – and my ‘Statement of Claim’ is struck, cut into pieces, before my eyes during my Opening Statement, in contradiction with the considered decision of May 14 of Your Honour.”
“This would give nightmares to Kafka himself.”
“To my eyes, we are no longer in Canada – and we can no longer claim to have a system of justice in this action before you Your Honour.”
“I am outraged by this gag order imposed in a manner that is apparently arbitrary, which does not allow me to be heard and to ‘have my day in court.’ “
“I have pleaded ‘abuse of process’ at every step and now, at trial itself, I don’t even have the right to say that the University of Ottawa is entirely financing the plaintiff or the right to use the Jameel defense that applies to situations where the defendant advances a lack of actual damage to reputation, that’s ‘actual’ damage, and to ‘reputation,’ not some other kind of damage.”
“I was very disturbed by these incomprehensible events, and I have been deeply perturbed all day yesterday; confused also, as a self-represented litigant.”
“This morning I inform the Court that I can no longer participate in such a process.”
“Therefore, I’m leaving this unjust process. You will take the decisions in my absence. It’s over for me: I’m leaving.”
McKinney represents Rancourt’s fight for justice. He deserves universal support. He’s battling Canadian injustice singlehandedly.
He’s doing it on a shoestring. He performed courageously. He accomplished what few others would dare.
He’s a true justice champion. He’s a modern-day Don Quixote. He’s battling an entire judicial system. He’s entitled to fair proceedings.
A “judge cannot be or appear to be biased,” said McKinney. Each side deserves due process. Fairness requires defendants knowing charges against them.
Defenses available must be be permitted. “(A)fter more than three years of legal procedures,” said McKinney, “Charbonneau summarily denied Rancourt’s opening jury statement.”
His main defense. Without justification. Without legal basis. With unconscionable bias. One-sidedly supporting his opponent.
Perhaps unprecedented or close to it. Doing so was outrageously egregious. It reflected hanging court injustice. It has no legal standing.
Under Canadian law, Rancourt’s trial continues without him.
Prior to trial, he asked formerly involved Regional Senior Judge Charles Hackland to appoint a case judge with no U of O connection.
Charbonneau is an alumnus. He’s an endowment fund contributor. His university connection disqualifies him.
He’s unfit to serve. He’s judge, jury and executioner.
Rancourt formally petitioned him to recuse himself. He refused to do so. He acted irresponsibly.
“Help defend justice,” Mckinney urged. Sign the attached petition. It tells national, provincial and regional Canadian chief justices to halt trial proceedings.
Start over. Under a new judge. With no U of O ties. Under scrupulously free, fair and open proceedings.
With both sides treated justly. With due process respected. With jurors given all relevant information.
With them able to decide responsibly. With justice prevailing. With assuring it above all else.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.