Benoit Dassylva

Maître,

Suite à votre demande, je produis ce rapport après avoir révisé les documents que vous m’avez fait parvenir.

Master,

Following your request, I am producing this report after reviewing the documents you provided to me.

Here is Dassylva’s scandalous 20230913 “Expert Report”; provided, of course, only in French.

(I simply used Google translate to arrive at the English translation presented here.)

• Est-ce que l’évaluation de la responsabilité criminelle réalisée par Dre Kemgni est conforme aux règles de l’art? Plus particulièrement, pourriez-vous commenter les informations utilisées par Dre Kemgni dans le cadre de ce rapport?
• Quelles informations doivent être considérées par un psychiatre prudent et diligent dans le cadre d’une évaluation de la responsabilité criminelle?
• Ciue pensez-vous du diagnostic émis par Dre Kemgni?
• Les consultations de Dre Kemgni avec madame Moore, dans le cadre de son hospitalisation à l’hôpital du Suroît, étaient-elles conformes aux règles de l’art?

• Is the assessment of criminal responsibility carried out by Dr. Kemgni in accordance with the rules of the art? More specifically, could you comment on the information used by Dr. Kemgni in this report?
• What information should be considered by a careful and diligent psychiatrist as part of an evaluation of criminal responsibility?
• What do you think of the diagnosis made by Dr. Kemgni?
• Dr. Kemgni’s consultations with Ms. Moore, as part of her hospitalization at the Suroît hospital, were they in accordance with the rules of the art?

• Judge Joey Dubois requested a “Fitness to Stand Trial” assessment; not a criminally responsible assessment,
• Moore was acquitted as she committed no crime; ergo, she could not have been “not criminally responsible” for anything,
• Moore is clearly a whistle-blower on government-funded organized crime with superior mental fortitude and resilience and
• Kemgni clearly performed no meaningful consultations; just a damning NCR opinion for Kiska’s benefit.

ALL of which Perrault-Levesque has been long aware.

The so-called “medical file” from Suroît hospital was mostly BLANK, as Kemgni’s laywer Perrault-Levésque has been long aware (evidenced by a recent 20230905 response to her here).

1. Est-ce que l’évaluation de la responsabilité criminelle réalisée par Dre Kemgni est conforme aux règles de l’art? Plus particulièrement, pourriez-vous commenter les informations utilisées par Dre Kemgni dans le cadre de ce rapport?

Je suis d’avis que l’évaluation et le rapport d’expertise réalisés par Dre Kemgni correspondent tout à fait aux règles de l’art. Elle a bien décrit dans une section la mise en garde et les sources d’information utilisées. En médecine d’expertise, il est recommandé d’utiliser le plus de sources d’informations possible afin d’appuyer son opinion sur des faits bien documentés. Le poids que représente différentes sources d’information sur l’opinion peut évidemment varier et c’est au médecin d’en faire l’évaluation. La plaignante, en refusant d’autoriser l’accès à des dossiers médicaux, a malheureusement privé la Dre Kemgni d’une source d’information qui a habituellement une grande valeur. Les sources utilisées dans le cas présent sont conformes à ce qui se fait habituellement dans des cas semblables. Par ailleurs, il est habituel et conforme aux règles de l’art de prendre en considération l’information de tiers dans le cadre d’une telle analyse. La conclusion qu’un article 16 peut s’appliquer, donc que madame Moore était atteinte de troubles mentaux de nature à ne pas engager sa responsabilité criminelle dans le cas présent me semble la bonne, selon la prépondérance des probabilités (il s’agit du seuil de probabilité nécessaire dans le cadre d’une telle évaluation). Le seul élément qui me semble questionnable est de recommander un mandat en Ontario puisqu’un tribunal au Québec n’aurait pas juridiction en Ontario.

1. Is the assessment of criminal responsibility carried out by Dr. Kemgni in accordance with the rules of the art? More specifically, could you comment on the information used by Dr. Kemgni in this report?

I am of the opinion that the evaluation and the expert report carried out by Dr. Kemgni correspond completely according to the rules of the art.

She described well in a section the warning and the sources of
information used.

In expert medicine, it is recommended to use as many sources as possible information possible in order to support his opinion on well-documented facts. The weight that represents different sources of information on opinion can obviously vary and it is at doctor to evaluate it.

The complainant, by refusing to authorize access to medical files, unfortunately deprived Dr. Kemgni of a source of information which usually a great value.

The sources used in this case comply with this which is usually done in similar cases.

Furthermore, it is usual and complies with the rules of the art to take into consideration the information of third parties as part of such an analysis. The conclusion that section 16 can apply, therefore that Ms. Moore was suffering from mental disorders such as not to incur criminal liability in the present case seems correct, according to the balance of probabilities (this is the probability threshold
necessary in the context of such an evaluation).

The only element that seems questionable to me is to recommend a warrant in Ontario since a court in Quebec would not have jurisdiction in Ontario.

What happened to those issues Perrault-Levésque? (Pure . Repent.)

Regardless:

• re: rules of the “art”? What art? The art of the weaponization of the bogus field of psychiatry by sociopaths to prevent empaths+ from ever acknowledging, recognizing or reaching their true human potential?
• re: description of warning/sources? Like, her disclaimer that suggests she should not be held liable for the defamatory libel that multiple others will rely upon as detailed in my 20230925 e-mail to Kemgni’s current lawyer, Perrault-Levésque?
• re: “expert medicine“? Expert medicine vs. what? Amateur medicine? What a pile of crap.
• re: weight of different sources of information? LOL. 100% weight is given to the value of a husband’s testimony during a toxic divorce? You freaks are U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E and should be stripped from all licenses to practice anything … or even drive.

 ————————-

FALSE STATEMENT OF FACT: See evidence at para 6 c. below which corroborated allegation in revised Statement of Claim at para. 13 (see 20220421 re-write at para. 3 above).

 ————————-

• “similar cases“? What similar cases? Name one you quack.

• “balance of probabilities“? Clearly, Dassylva never taken (or remembered) a course in statistics in his life and is simply spewing rhetoric that any ignorant and/or crooked judge will simply skim over and accept. I, however, am not an ignorant or crooked judge and can spot his fiction-based prose within seconds.   #1800CallAnExorcist

• Good point: I’ll be sure to request that the warrant for Dassylva’s arrest be pursued by the QPP or RCMP in Quebec vs. Ontario

2. Quelles informations doivent être considérées par un psychiatre prudent et diligent dans le cadre d’une évaluation de la responsabilité criminelle?

Le premier élément à considérer est le contenu apporté par madame durant les entrevues, sa version des faits allégués. Puis on compare la description qu’elle fait de son état mental aux observations cliniques sur l’unité. Idéalement on obtient les autres dossiers médicaux pour prendre connaissance des états observés antérieurement par d’autres professionnels, leur similitude ou non avec l’état actuel. On peut aussi recueillir les observations par des personnes qu’elle a côtoyées, soit des tiers, tout en gardant à l’esprit qu’il ne s’agit pas de professionnels en santé mentale. Il est important de comparer la version de madame au dossier policier. Lorsque, comme dans le cas présent, madame nie  complètement les faits allégués, il n’appartient pas au médecin de trancher les faits allégués de ceux avérés, mais à la Cour. Le médecin doit assumer que les faits ont été ou seront avérés par la Cour.

2. What information should be considered by a careful and diligent psychiatrist in the framework of an assessment of criminal responsibility?

a) The first element to consider is the content provided by Ms. during the interviews, her version of the alleged facts.

b) Then we compare the description she makes of her mental state to the clinical observations on the unit.

c) Ideally, other medical records are obtained to become aware of the conditions previously observed by other professionals, their similarity or not with the current state.

d) We can also collect observations from people that she has worked with, i.e. third parties, while keeping in mind that these are not professionals in Mental Health.

e) It is important to compare the lady’s version to the police file. When, as in the present case, the lady completely denies the alleged facts, it is not up to the doctor to decide the alleged facts from those proven, but to the Court. The doctor must assume that the facts have been or will be proven by the Court.

a) LOL. There was only ONE interview. I was ignored for the rest of the 21-day detention.

b) LOL. Clinical observations? The ones not documented anywhere? What, did she make some up after I left? This was my complete Suroit medical file.

c) Other medical records were made available … as well as many, many other records that would have substantiated my allegations. This is evidenced by the fact that I arranged for my laptop to be couriered to the hospital for Kemgni’s review. She, however, refused to review anything.

d) You can collect observations from people with whom I’ve worked; however, Kemgni did not. She merely translated the self-serving slander dished up by Kiska and his now-deceased companion sister. It’s not as if I didn’t have my extensive CV available at the time.

e) Why?  Because Crown Prosecutors don’t bury exculpatory evidence and Police don’t lie? LOL. Meet Ottawa prosecutor Mike Boyce and OPS Alex Kirady, for starters.

Also, the facts were not proven by the court: doctors’ assumptions, therefore, are as scandalous as their conclusions.

Avec les informations contenues dans les documents consultés, je serais parvenu au même diagnostic, soit un diagnostic de trouble délirant de type persécutoire. Il s’agit du diagnostic le plus probable, mais il n’y a pas de certitude absolue. Une des difficultés avec le diagnostic de trouble délirant est qu’il implique un ou des délires plausibles contrairement aux délires associés à la schizophrénie par exemple. C’est des indices comme le nombre de situations de victimisation dans différents contextes rapportés par madame ou les indices sur lesquels elle s’appuie pour conclure à une malveillance dirigée contre elle qui permettent de documenter ce diagnostic. À mon avis cela a été fait dans ce dossier.

3. What do you think of Dr. Kemgni’s diagnosis?

With the information contained in the documents consulted, I would have reached the same diagnosis, i.e. a diagnosis of delusional disorder of the persecutory type.

This is the diagnosis more likely, but there is no absolute certainty. One of the difficulties with the diagnosis of delusional disorder is that it involves one or more plausible delusions in contrast to associated delusions to schizophrenia for example.

These are indices like the number of victimization situations in different contexts reported by Madame or the clues on which she relies to conclude that there was malevolence directed against her which makes it possible to document this diagnosis.

In my opinion this was done in this file.

Benoit Dassylva? LOSER

4. Les consultations de Dre Kemgni avec madame Moore, dans le cadre de son hospitalisation à l’hôpital du Suroît, étaient-elles conformes aux règles de l’art?

La consultation du dossier médical me mène à la conclusion que les consultations ont été conformes aux règles de l’art. Elle a rencontré madame Moore à plusieurs reprises et a fait un bref compte rendu dans le dossier médical à chaque fois. Elle a consigné quelques épisodes où elle a dû refuser d’accéder à certaines demandes de madame Moore, comme de lui remettre son téléphone personnel pour qu’elle puisse faire des appels, qui me sont apparus justifiés dans le contexte. Une médication antipsychotique ne lui a pas été proposée, mais je l’aurais fait malgré qu’elle dise ne pas être malade. L’ensemble du dossier suggère tout de même que madame Moore aurait refusé une telle proposition à ce moment.

4. Dr. Kemgni’s consultations with Ms. Moore, as part of her hospitalization at the Suroît hospital, were they in accordance with the rules of the art?

Consultation of the medical file leads me to the conclusion that the consultations were

conform to the rules of the art. She met Mrs. Moore several times and made a brief report in the medical file each time. She recorded a few episodes where she had to refuse to grant certain requests from Mrs. Moore, such as giving her personal telephone so that she can make calls, which appeared to me justified in the context. Antipsychotic medication was not offered to him, but I would have done it despite let her say she’s not sick. The entire file nevertheless suggests that Ms. Moore reportedly refused such a proposal at that time.

Espérant ces renseignements utiles,

Benoit Dassylva

Psychiatre légiste

Kemgni respected the rules of the art in its efforts to establish a diagnosis and give its

opinion on criminal liability after the Criminal Court issued an order of

carry out such an assessment. His report seems to me to be consistent with legal psychiatric practice.

I am also of the opinion that Dr. Kemgni respected the rules of the art in the context of consultations that took place during Ms. Moore’s hospitalization.

Hoping for this useful information,

Benoit Dassylva

ex-taxpayer-funded psychiatrist, snitch and/or inmate