Google translation, the reference text is the French text.
Paris, Friday, January 11, 2013
Copy to:President of the RepublicMadam Attorney
Your Ref. 12/00 282 (quoted in all correspondence)
N. No. : -1 - Wednesday, July 4, 2012. Article Chained Duck.2 - Thursday, July 19, 2012, article in the Nouvel Observateur.3 - Thursday, July 19, 2012. Letter to Mr. Prosecutor.4 - Thursday, July 19, 2012. Letter to the President of the Republic.5 - Friday, July 27, 2012, Addendum.6 - Friday, July 27. Letter to the President of the Republic7 - Monday, November 12, 2012. Letter to Mr. Prosecutor8 - Monday, November 12, 2012. Letter to the President of the Republic9 - Thursday, November 29, 2012. Letter to Mr. ProsecutorCopies to the President of the Republic and the Minister of Justice Ms.10 - Monday, December 3, 2012. Letter to Mr. ProsecutorCopies to the President of the Republic and the Minister of Justice Ms.
Subject: Cases and Impartiality
Mr. Prosecutor,
I come back to you regarding criminal acts imputed to Mr. Sarkozy and Ms. Guillaume press. There are indeed new questions about the legal status of which I initiated.
1) - The case
The
magistrates of the Karachi affair come to establish a new jurisprudence
of criminal liability of persons who were heads of state
A-factsThe
families of victims of the attack in Karachi had complained June 18,
2012 against the former president and his advisers, following a
statement from the Elysee, which stated that "with regard to the case
known Karachi, the name of the head of state does not appear in any of the facts of the case. He has been quoted by any witness or actor in this folder (...). This appears in the pleadings. "The
judges went against requisitions prosecutors, who believed it was not
possible to continue Sarkozy, under section 67 of the Constition stating
that the President "is not responsible for acts in that capacity. "B-The decision of the three judges"A
could be established, permitting the disclosure of information from a
current instruction is not within the functions of the President as he
keeps the Constitution," say the judges conclude "Whereas,
therefore, that the irresponsibility of the Head of State can not be
used in this case (...), it is necessary to inform the facts to Nicolas
Sarkozy"The
three judges were particularly relied on a scholarly article published
in the Criminal Registry Dalloz by François Molins, the current
prosecutor of Paris. He
felt as well as Article 67 of the Constitution on the criminal
responsibility of the Head of State could apply for the duration of its
mandate. "Mr. Molins,
interprets its own biased doctrine, "quipped the lawyer for the
families of victims of the attack in Karachi, Olivier Morice, referring
to the decision of the prosecution based on that article.C-Consequencesa-Lawyers"This is a victory for the families of victims who have always explained that there were obstacles, says the lawyer. We present a case of considerable state and Nicolas Sarkozy will have to explain the content of this announcement. If the Paris prosecutor's office appealed the indictment, it would be outrageous. "b-complainantsAn
opinion shared by the families spokesman, Sandrine Lecler: "This
indictment, if confirmed, shows that political leaders can not quite
afford. This is an encouraging sign for the rest of the Karachi affair. What we want is that the whole truth is made and those that have hampered its disclosure be condemned. We just ask to know why our loved ones are dead. "2) - The case of the alleged rape by SarkozyIt
can not be said that the criminal responsibility of the Head of State
covers acts of rape allegedly committed by Mr Sarkozy in his capacity as
Head of State.Therefore
apply the jurisprudence of judges: "A if proven, the fact (rape a
woman, a member of Parliament, the Constitution) is not within the
functions of the President as he keeps the Constitution
... Whereas, therefore, that the irresponsibility of the Head of State
can not be used in this case (...), it is necessary to inform the facts
to Nicolas Sarkozy "3) - ImpartialityA-factsThe
only arguments against the implementation of a preliminary
investigation concerning statements of Mrs. William concerning an
alleged rape committed by Mr Sarkozy are:a-personal hatred against the magistrates Mr. Salomone. This puts into question in criminal cases for which they have always avoidance is by cunning and indignities.b-hatred social judges against the poor, the weak, the vulnerable.The same hatred in all frames of the state. At least many of them.Lawyers are no exception. Sabotage their work when they are customers poor, weak, vulnerable part of the state of crime and disabilities of justice.The Office of Legal Aid denies the poor access to equal justice for all. It also helps to distort the action of the State.This hatred is the social basis of administrative crime. I think of the associations of official services and thugs who are vulnerable populations such as land negotiations. This crime is the subject of complaints from Mr. Salomone.B-The principleBoth judges are policy provisions contrary to the principle of impartiality.Reports
of the ethical obligations of judges published by the Higher Council of
the Judiciary, under the guise of its constitutional functions,
establishes rules Impartiality as a determinant in the exercise of
judicial office.4) - ConclusionStaff of State consider rape, torture, forgery public, etc.., Such as professional experience. The alleged rape gives us to see the institutional consequences.I
beg you, Mr. Prosecutor, overcome your prejudices and kindly consider
the alleged rape, as witness tampering in the case of the Regional
Council of Ile de France, are faults to examine .The consideration of the report of criminal acts is proved right. That
even if the request is made by a person whose judgment researcher Salas
said publicly that person and those of the same social status, the
contempt that are magistrates him and his fellows.Please accept, Mr. Prosecutor, the assurance of my highest consideration,
Marc Salomone
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire