Paris, Tuesday, November 21,
2017
Copy :
President of the Republic
Prime Minister
Justice Ministry
Minister of Economy and Finance
Presidents of Parliament /
Chairmen of Parliamentary Groups
President of the Court of
Appeal
Attorney General
President of the TGI
Prosecutor of the Republic
AMERICAN LAW AND INDEMNITY
1) - The introduction of
American law
The HSBC case is a cousin of the
procedure on which I draw the attention of the public authorities.
It establishes that the French
justice does not ignore the financial payment, whatever the title, fixed by the
procedure and independent of the trial.
The newspaper Le Monde,
15.11.17, under the pen of Anne MICHEL, presents the logic of this affair:
"Accused of laundering tax
fraud, the Swiss subsidiary of the British giant has signed an agreement with
the National Financial Office. This
American transaction is a first in France ...
"It's an American-style
court settlement, the first ever ever signed in France.
"The criminal agreement
unveiled on Tuesday, known as the Public Interest Judicial Convention (CJIP),
follows from the anti-corruption law of 9 December 2016, known as the Sapin 2
law, which is supposed to modernize and strengthen the judge's action against
cross-border financial crime.
"It allows justice to
obtain compensation for damage related to corruption or tax evasion, without
waiting for the outcome of a trial, by not recognizing guilt on the part of the
company suspected,
but a mere acknowledgment of the facts.
"This type of transaction,
hitherto foreign to French law and poorly understood in France, is in force in
the United States. "
The newspaper insists on the
origin foreign to the country and the French law of this procedural
dissociation of the financial agreement and the trial.
The defect of this foreign
reference is to mechanically create the opposition of the proponents of
subordination to American law and of those who are thus led to define French
law in opposition to it.
However, it has the merit of
installing the possibility of this judicial practice in French law.
Part 1: Civil society
2) - Reflection in French law
I propose an internal
reflection on the practices of French law.
This reflection could, for
example, result in neutralizing the judicial piracy procedures expressly
spoliation of European companies for the benefit of US companies allowed by US
law.
However, it is not these
extensions that catch my attention here but the world of the
"little".
The leading cadres of the
state, including political parties, are convinced that they will manage to
ensure that nothing of their practices changes. It's their Creed.
In cases where the
"small" concerns the continuity of institutions, the questioning of
the police or the Army for example; this
blissful inertia places law enforcement forces in a situation of legal
inferiority in their relations to criminal delinquency and leads to paralysis
of their actions.
I have already analyzed the
cases which oppose thugs to the police or the gendarmerie and which are now
almost systematically translated into justice to the detriment of the police
and to the benefit of the control of the population and the so-called local
politics. the
mafia networks.
This subjection of the local
civil authorities to the community mafia networks or the moral crisis of
helplessness that the soldiers of Operation Sentinel are experiencing is so
developed that it becomes a state affair.
Two facts convoke our thinking
again.
3) - Acceptance of Forgiveness
A singular fact reinforces the
practical value of this reflection: Mr. Theo Luhaka declares that he forgives
his alleged aggressors.
The public authorities should
be attentive to this new fact which should provoke reflection.
However, it does not bring
anything of the kind from the competent public authorities to allow the justice
system to allow the victims' fraud, the disturbances to public order, to defend
the police.
On November 27, 2017, nine
months after being subjected to a suspected violent penetration by a police
officer's baton during a lawful arrest, Mr. Theo Luhaka states "I am a
believer (...) I forgive them and I leave
them in the hands of God. "
I take here the crude fact without
questioning its genesis.
This "Pardon" makes
it possible to postulate that Mr. Luhaka is not interested in any vengeful
procedure, any desire for personal confrontation with his judicial counterpart.
Mr. Luhaka's approach allows us
to conceptualize another approach respectful of each other's evolution.
Indeed, Mr. Luhaka's
"pardon" breaks the link that may exist in the current procedure in
force between criminal procedure and the recognition of fraud.
It follows that it becomes
credible to consider a procedure which, in due course, distinguishes between
the two aspects of judicial action, the reparation due to the person and the
reparation due to society.
Mr. Luhaka renouncing to be in
a warlike use of the courtroom, the question of the reparations to which he is
entitled arises in terms of financial reparations.
He was injured and disabled on
the occasion of a police operation that did not have to put him at risk.
This loss is compensable
On the other hand, the
questioning of the subjectivity of objective facts, the personal responsibility
of the parties involved, is postponed to the criminal trial.
It follows that the case of the
victim and the facts is disjointed and partisan political mobilizations lose
their master card which is the identification of the procedure for the judicial
resuscitation of the virtually dead victim.
Mr. Luhaka's political support
has very well perceived this process of dissociation and the reworking of the
political field it entails.
This is why, the next day, November
28, duly chapter, Mr. Luhaka brings a nuance commissioned about it.
In Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis),
before the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI), Theodore Luhaka spoke at a
support rally in his honor, at the call of the Collective "Justice for
Theo", before about
300 people gathered to protest "on behalf of all victims of police
violence".
He declares :
1- "God commands me to
forgive, so I must forgive.
2-
"But that's not why you have to forgive yourself. Even
my family has not forgiven the police, which is to say how much we have come
back.
3- "We are all waiting for
justice firmly. "
The communist party has
therefore taken the measure of the new circumstances created by Mr. Luhaka's
"forgiveness". It
makes provisions to justify the continuation of the fight and hypertrophy the
political content of the procedure.
4) - The refusal
It does not seem that the
representatives of the State have the same perception of the evolution of the
relations between the parties.
The qualified representatives
of the public authorities intend to ignore Mr. Luhaka's "pardon" to
the other party and continue as if nothing had happened.
Like the thugs and their
rightholders, the authorities are therefore passively led to trial.
Thanks to his blindness, the
state will be at fault. It
will no longer be up to the magistrates to attack the police under the amused
gaze of the communitarians.
The community party that has
just renewed its commitment in this fight may also mention the rejection of
this "sorry".
By his rejection, he installs
the political confrontation in the courtroom instead of taking it out.
In this case, it is the regular
procedure that will artificially place the protagonists in confrontation. It
will indefinitely renew a confrontation that the judgment will turn into
resentment.
The current procedure federates
what in politics we call "dissatisfaction and discontent".
It does not precisely isolate
the specific case of "facts" and "victims". It
subordinates them to the dominant ideological and social environment that gives
its versions of the facts and organizes invasive solidarity with the
"victims".
The political demonstrations of
the year 2017 are otherwise exclusively, at least massively, organized in the
expectation of the presence of the victims, dead or alive, at the trials.
They prepare the subordination
of these to the memory or to the suffering of the victims.
In doing so, on the pretext of
police misconduct, real or alleged, they organize the public debate at the foot
of the portraits of thugs, killed or wounded by the police in the exercise of
their voyeuries, exhibited with the participation of senators and deputies.
French executives always think
they have the Police. But
it is precisely the police who are judged at the request of the thugs for
having opposed them in the name of the state.
With this in mind, as
demonstrated by the case Bentounsi against Saboundjian, it is the camp of the
delinquents who directs today the public debate and in fine the judicial
debate.
5) - The instrument of public
order
This is so firstly because the
instruments for leading the public policy debate are fit for the past, not the
present.
This doubling made audible by
Mr. Luhaka's "forgiveness" is not just about this procedure.
If we accept to take it into
account, it becomes possible to join the so-called "Theo" case to
other foreign affairs.
It can lead to include Mr.
Luhaka in the civil and collective public experimentation of a new practice of
compensation and the reports of the litigants to the facts.
This is the case with surgical
accidents, the families of seamen drowned by the shipowner's fault, the
discoverers of the Corse Treasury, the injured car manufacturers, the Villemin
parents, and so on.
It seems more conducive to
disqualify the National Police, the gendarmerie, and legalize the antagonism
that the community parties want to institute between the French state and
populations defined by a supposed strangeness to the French population and by
an insoluble religious martyrology.
Part 2: The Army
6) - The repetition of the same
Two soldiers die in training
service.
The current procedures
reproduce exactly the same scenario of judicial clash between the victims'
rights-holders and the Army.
In both cases each is repeated
in his role plays. The
Army denies any responsibility for the fault, the magistrates cover it, the
victims who exhaust themselves in endless procedures. France
is ridiculous and seen as backward.
I come back here to the two
exemplary military cases.
7) - First case
The newspaper Le Canard
Enchaine, of Wednesday, November 15, p.5, in its judicial heading, "coup
de barre", publishes a report of hearing of Dominique Simonnot,
1- On May 19, 2017, 22
legionnaires from the 2nd Nîmes REI are doing a "cohesive exercise"
in canoeing.
They exceed the sign
"" Prohibited danger of death "at the dam Cumière two of their
capsized.
Two legionaries are drowned as
part of their military activities.
2- After six months of a
preliminary investigation by the prosecutor's office:
a- The immediate solution is to
postpone the responsibilities to the Civil Manager of the Leisure Site where
the operation took place.
The reason is that "the
sign announcing the danger was masked by the foliage".
On November 15, only this
manager is present at the Tribunal to answer the counts of
"manslaughter" and "endangering the life of others".
b- For the civil parties: two
widows are complainants, a Mongolian and an African.
c- No military leader was
questioned.
3- The lawyers argue that there
is no confrontation
a- A victim should not have
been the cause of ITT.
b- The instructions of danger
could not have been translated to these "foreigners".
c- The prosecution argues that
"the file is complete. The
20 legionaries were heard, the firemen and the defendant too! A
good administration of justice presupposes that it be rendered within a
reasonable time! ".
4- The faulty involvement of
the army appears so plausible to the Court of Reims that, contrary to the
opinion of the prosecution, it refers the file "to the instruction". This only
happens in 3% of cases.
As one lawyer puts it,
"Everyone here loves the Legion and the Army."
8) - Second case
This new case reproduces so
many others.
See: The Enchaine Duck of July
12, 2017, p4, "Couac" publishes an article: "Bad fall".
On August 5, 2014, Mr. Hugues,
23 years old, volunteers for the 1st regiment of the Cugnaux parachute train,
making his 134th jump.
The parachute does not open.
Two years of investigation to
declare the Army neither responsible nor guilty.
The military provident fund and
aeronautics refuse to compensate the family.
The minutes of the gendarmes
concluded that the Army was not responsible.
The Public Prosecutor of the
TGI of Toulouse classifies the complaint without further action.
Reason: "Non-Characteristic
Offense".
The Minister of Defense, Ms.
Goulard, ordered: "The opening of a complementary study to ensure that the
response obtained was consistent".
Civil parties can also say
"Everyone here loves the Legion and the Army".
9) - The two martyrs
Simple accidents become for the
rights holders of the victims of the confrontation with an Army that their son
or their husband wanted to serve.
Ordinary persons must follow a
procedure the whole operation of which is subordinated to archaic forms of the
legitimate preservation of the military institution.
They are twice crushed and the
Army is twice lowered publicly.
Every fault of the Army becomes
for its victims a calvary and for the Army a relational concern.
In these days, this indefinite
renewal of the Army's reputation for ingratitude towards its soldiers tarnishes
its good reputation, so hard-won, among the population.
Part 4: Commentary
10) - The inter-se
In the name of thugs, the
police and the gendarmerie are publicly disqualified with no other prospect
than to be even more so.
The Army loses in information
the public credit which it acquired during its fights against the jihadism,
It seems that the important
thing is that nothing changes and dominates the inter-self.
A report written by Marie
Christine Lepetit, Inspector of Finance, explicitly named "the
inter-house" as responsible for the invalidation of a tax by the
Constitutional Council and assigns him a unit of account: ten billion euros.
This "entre-soi" also
impresses its brand in the functioning of the public administration by brooding
the increasingly open confrontation between the magistracy and the police,
under the mocking gaze of thugs who have become arbiters of elegance.
It would not be enough for
justice to be no longer obliged to harm the victims to speak the law and
guarantee the institutions their place.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire