I have already commented on the manner in which my civil liberties and human rights were grossly violated by the psychiatrists involved. Because of the special circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that even a lawyer would find it difficult to locate a similar case in contemporary Canadian jurisprudence. This thought leads me to draw an analogy between the inquisitorial proceedings common in the medieval era and those proceedings applied in my internment and later in the courts.

The Inquisition often acted upon a single testimony.¹⁹¹

I was arrested, confined for six months and abused physically and psychologically and deprived of my legal and human rights, solely on the basis of the alleged information given by my ex-wife, who had already been hospitalized once as a mental patient.

Its main characteristics (of the Inquisition) were, briefly, as follows:

1. The fundamental bias has already been described, the man was Defamatus, and bore the burden of proving his innocence.

I (defamatus) was the one who bore the burden of proving my innocence during my hospitalization and at the trial. Actually, I was in a worse situation because I was never told what the charge was. Even my attempts at proving myself to be not crazy or dangerous were seen as signs of mental illness. Therefore I did not have any chance to challenge the informants. I felt like someone who was asked to walk with his legs tied together.

2. His judges were purely ecclesiastical, and therefore prejudiced against him: the civil power strove vainly to secure even the right of consulting the documents.

In my case, the "judges" were all psychiatrists and my ex-wife's friends. Even the Ombudsman (Mr. Louis Marceau) would not attempt to preserve his judicial authority in order to protect me from these devious people. The same was also true with Mr. Justice Boudreault. He did not appreciate the reliable documents (medical records) that were exhibited. He preferred to accept my opponents' view, to accept whatever was convenient for them. He got bogged down in the details of the medical records which were irrelevant or of little relevance to the issue of my hospitalization. On the other hand, he ignored, the flagrant evidence regarding my unlawful arrest and internment, and physical and psychological abuse.

3. The procedure was secret.

Two weeks before my internment my ex-wife with her friends and psychiatrists had conspired my internment. I was arrested without a warrant or a decision by judicial authorities, without being interrogated or even informed about the nature of the charge. Everything was a secret. Even in the medical records it is written that the hospital authorities refused to tell me the reason for my hospitalization.

4. As a rule, the names of witnesses were also concealed; they might be partial or even infamous persons, yet the suspect had no chance of challenging them but at random.

5. In fact, infamous persons were explicitly admitted to testify though in other courts their testimony was altogether refused.

I did not know in advance or during my internment who the witnesses were (informants); neither did I have a chance to challenge them.

However, in this case, liars and mentally disturbed persons furnished the hospital with information that was accepted, although it would not have been accepted in another court. For instance, respectable persons like Dr. George Sotiroff, Rev. Claude LaVergne, Dr. Jaromil Danek and others, including my own children, were not allowed to say anything in my favour. The psychiatrists treated my questions as to why I was hospitalized as proof itself of mental sickness.

6. So, again, children were admitted to testify adversely, whereas neither the infamous person nor the child might speak in defence.

My children, the best and immediate eyewitnesses of their father's attitude and moral quality, were never contacted during my hospitalization or during the trial.

7. Advocates were at first allowed, but if the person was proved guilty, the advocate had to share his punishment; this was so shamefully exploited that finally, even the pretence of advocates for defence was abandoned.

It was really shameless of the hospitals where I was interned not to allow me to hire a lawyer; and even the Protector of Citizens (Ombudsman) was reluctant to help me. Later during the trial, Dr. R. Legault imputed to my lawyer he might have had a "paranoid disturbance" apparently because he spent time on my case.¹⁹²

I felt that the comment was addressed more to Mr. Justice Boudreault himself than to my lawyer, who spent much less time on my case than did the judge. Mr. Justice Boudreault commended the doctor's reproach in the judgment as perceptive and appropriate.

8. It was equally hopeless to rely upon favourable witnesses; for they were pretty sure to get into trouble as abettors of heresy.

I was not asked to name persons who might have given the hospitals an objective opinion about myself. My ex-wife's friends were carefully chosen while my true friends and visitors or my children were ignored. When making decisions the judge simply ignored the favourable witnesses for my case, while he took the other witnesses' testimonies as indisputable, although contradictory in many instances.

9. Torture might be inflicted not only on the suspect.

When I was first interned I turned to Dr. Juretic for assistance. He was later converted from being my friend to being the vicious person who showed no sympathy whatsoever for me when I was transferred to his hospital. He, in fact, inflicted the worst kind of "torture" on me.

10. This (torture) had, in practice, no legal limits. It was indeed forbidden to repeat torture, but the man who had been racked on Monday might be racked again on Tuesday under the excuse of continuation.

My hospitalization was for an indefinite period. When I was officially "definitely discharged",¹⁹³ I was actually transferred instead from Quebec City to Montreal for a continuation of "treatment", i.e. tortures.

Not only was there no time limit imposed, but there was even no adequate protection from physical attacks by other patients. Above all, there was great pressure placed on me to admit that I had been mentally ill.

11. A very small nonconformity might be magnified into a deadly crime.

A marital quarrel, described by Dr. Juretic as "a storm in a teacup", was magnified into a reason for a six-month hospitalization. And later on, Dr. Dorion in St. Michel Archange Hospital tirelessly invented all kinds of epithets about my attitude and behaviour, although in other circumstances it would be normal for such a person to defend himself from irresponsible labelling.

12. The medieval Inquisitor pushed in where the pagan of ancient Rome had disdained to tread.

The psychiatrists meddled in my family life. In the pretext of protecting my family, they destroyed it. And in the process they inflicted upon me the kind of treatment and barbaric "disciplinary measures" that I do not believe exist in any other civilized country.

13. There were other rigors, of which the result is that an acquittal, pure and simple, is almost unheard of in the records.

In the medical records, it is written that I tried all reasonable ways to get out of the hospitals, but my efforts were in vain. Mr. Justice Boudreault in his judgment was sometimes inclined to accept from the accused psychiatrists absurd statements, lies and frauds. Consequently, he did not fully appreciate my standpoint or the preponderance of proof that I was never mentally ill or dangerous.