mardi, novembre 21, 2017

c4- 21.11.17, US, compensation13, law and compensation

Book: “Les deux formes”, Amazon


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



c4- 21.11.17, indemnisation13, droit américain et indemnisation


Livre: “Les deux formes”, Amazon

Paris, le mardi 21 novembre 2017

En copie :
Président de la République
Premier Ministre
Ministre de la justice
Ministre de l’Economie et des Finances  

Présidents du Parlement / Présidents des Groupes parlementaires

Président de la Cour d’Appel
Procureur général
Président du TGI
Procureur de la République


DROIT AMERICAIN ET INDEMNISATION




1)- L’introduction du droit américain
L’affaire HSBC est un cousinage de la procédure sur laquelle j’attire l’attention des pouvoirs publics.

Elle établit que la justice française ne méconnait pas le paiement financier, quelqu’en soit le titre, fixe par la procédure et indépendant du procès.

Le journal Le Monde, le 15.11.17, sous la plume d’Anne MICHEL, présente ainsi la logique de cette affaire :
« Accusée de blanchiment de fraude fiscale, la filiale suisse du géant britannique a signe un accord avec le Parquet national financier. Cette transaction a l’américaine est une première en France…
« C’est une transaction judiciaire a l’américaine, la toute première jamais signée sur le territoire français.
« L’accord pénal dévoile mardi, dénomme Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP), découle de la loi anticorruption du 9 décembre 2016, dite loi Sapin 2, censée moderniser et renforcer l’action du juge contre la délinquance financière transfrontalière.
« Il permet a la justice d’obtenir la réparation d’un préjudice lie a des faits de corruption ou de fraude fiscale, sans attendre l’issue d’un procès, moyennant non pas une reconnaissance de culpabilité de la part de l’entreprise soupçonnée, mais une simple reconnaissance des faits.
« Ce type de transactions, jusqu’ici étranger au droit français et mal compris en France, est en vigueur aux Etats-Unis. »

Le journal insiste sur l’origine étrangère au pays et au droit français de cette dissociation procédurale de l’accord financier et du procès.

Le défaut de cette référence étrangère est de créer mécaniquement l’opposition des partisans de la subordination au droit américain et de ceux qui sont ainsi conduits a définir le droit français en opposition a celui-ci.

Cependant, elle a le mérite d’installer la possibilité de cette pratique judiciaire en droit français.

Partie 1 : la Société civile

2)- La réflexion dans le droit français
Je propose une réflexion interne aux pratiques du droit français.

Cette réflexion pourrait par exemple aboutir a neutraliser les procédures de piratages judiciaires expressément spoliatrices des entreprises européennes au profit des entreprises américaines permises par le droit américain.

Cependant, ce ne sont pas ces extensions qui retiennent mon attention ici mais le monde du « petit ».

Les cadres dirigeants de l’Etat, partis politiques compris, sont convaincus qu’ils parviendront a ce que rien de leurs pratiques ne change. C’est leur Credo.
Dans les affaires ou le « petit » concerne la continuité des institutions, la mise en cause de la police ou de l’Armée par exemple ; cette inertie béate place dors et déjà les forces de l’ordre en situation d’infériorité juridique dans leurs rapports a la délinquance criminelle et elle conduit a des paralysies de leurs actions.

J’ai déjà analyse des affaires qui opposent des voyous a la police ou la gendarmerie et qui se traduisent désormais quasi-systématiquement en justice au détriment des forces de l’ordre et au bénéfice du contrôle de la population et de la politique dite locale par les réseaux maffieux.

Cette sujétion des autorités civiles locales aux réseaux maffieux communautaires ou la crise morale d’impuissance que traversent les soldats de l’opération Sentinelle est si développée qu’elle devient une affaire d’Etat.

Deux faits convoquent a nouveaux notre réflexion.

3)- L’acceptation du Pardon
Un fait singulier vient conforter la valeur pratique de cette réflexion : M. Theo Luhaka déclare qu’il pardonne a ses agresseurs présumes.

Les pouvoirs publics devraient être attentifs a ce fait nouveau qui devrait susciter la réflexion.
Or, il n’amène rien de tel de la part des autorités publiques compétentes pour permettre à la justice de faire droit au dol des victimes, aux troubles a l’ordre public, a la défense de la police.

Le 27 novembre 2017, neuf mois après avoir été sujet a une pénétration violente présumée par la matraque d’un policier au cours d’une arrestation légitime, M. Theo Luhaka déclare « Je suis un croyant (...) je les pardonne et je les laisse entre les mains de Dieu ».

Je prends ici le fait brut sans questionner sa genèse.

Ce « Pardon » permet de postuler que M. Luhaka se désintéresse de toute procédure vengeresse, de toute volonté de confrontation personnelle avec son vis-à-vis judiciaire.

La démarche de M. Luhaka permet de conceptualiser une autre démarche respectueuse des évolutions des uns et des autres.

En effet, le « pardon » de M. Luhaka rompt le lien qu’il peut y avoir dans l’actuelle procédure en vigueur entre la procédure pénale et la reconnaissance du dol.

Il s’en suit qu’il devient crédible d’envisager une procédure qui le moment venu distingue les deux aspects de l’action judiciaire, la réparation due a la personne et la réparation due a la société.

M. Luhaka renonçant a se situer dans un usage guerrier du prétoire, la question des réparations auxquelles il a droit se pose en termes de réparations financières.

Il a été blesse et rendu invalide a l’occasion d’une opération de police qui n’avait pas a lui en faire courir le risque.

Ce préjudice est indemnisable
.
Par contre, le questionnement de la subjectivité des faits objectifs, la responsabilité personnelle des parties en cause, sont reportes au procès pénal.

Il s’en suit que le cas de la victime et celui des faits est disjoint et que les mobilisations politiques partisanes perdent leur carte maitresse qui est l’identification de la procédure a la ressuscitation judiciaire de la victime virtuellement morte.

Les soutiens politiques de M. Luhaka ont très bien perçu ce processus de dissociation et le remaniement du champ politique qu’elle entraine.

C’est pourquoi, des le lendemain, 28 novembre, dument chapitre, M. Luhaka apporte une nuance commanditée a son propos.

A Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis), devant le Tribunal de grande instance (TGI), Theodore Luhaka a pris la parole lors d'un rassemblement de soutien en son honneur, a l’appel du Collectif « Justice pour Theo », devant environ 300 personnes rassemblées pour protester « au nom de toutes les victimes de violences policières ».

Il déclare :
1- « Dieu m'ordonne de pardonner, donc je dois pardonner. 
 2- «  Mais ce n'est pas pour ça que vous vous devez pardonner. Même ma famille a moi n'a pas pardonne a la police, c'est pour dire a quel point on est remontes.
3- « On attend tous la justice de pied ferme. »

Le parti communautariste a donc pris la mesure des circonstances nouvelles créées par le « pardon » de M. Luhaka. Il prend des dispositions pour justifier la continuation du combat et hypertrophier le contenu politique de la procédure.

4)- Le refus
Il ne semble pas que les représentants de l’Etat aient la même perception de l’évolution des rapports entre les parties.

Les représentants qualifies des Pouvoirs publics comptent bien passer outre le « pardon » de M. Luhaka a la partie adverse et continuer comme si de rien n’était.

Au même titre que les voyous et leurs ayant-droits, les autorités sont donc conduites passivement vers le procès.

Grace a son aveuglement, l’Etat y sera en faute. Il ne restera plus aux magistrats qu’a s’en prendre aux policiers sous le regard amuse des communautaristes.

Le parti communautaire qui vient de renouveler son engagement dans ce combat pourra en sus faire état du rejet de ce « Pardon ».

Par son rejet, celui-ci installe l’affrontement politique dans le prétoire au lieu de l’en sortir.

Dans ce cas, c’est la procédure régulière qui va replacer artificiellement les protagonistes en confrontation. Elle reconduira indéfiniment un affrontement que le jugement transformera en ressentiment.
La procédure actuelle fédère ce qu’en politique on appelle les « mecontents et les mécontentements ».

Elle ne permet justement pas d’isoler le cas spécifique des « faits » et des « victimes ». Elle les subordonne a l’environnement idéologique et social dominant qui donne ses versions des faits et organise la solidarité envahissante avec les « victimes ».

Les manifestations politiques de l’année 2017 sont sinon exclusivement, du moins massivement, organisées dans l’attente de la présence des Victimes, mortes ou vives, aux procès.

Elles préparent la subordination de ceux-ci a la mémoire ou a la souffrance des victimes.

Ce faisant, au prétexte de fautes policières, réelles ou prétendues, elles organisent le débat public au pied des portraits de voyous, tues ou blesses par la police dans l’exercice de leurs voyouteries, exhibes avec la participation de sénateurs et députés.

Les cadres français pensent toujours qu’ils disposent de la Police. Mais c’est justement la police qui est jugée a la demande des voyous pour s’être opposée a eux au nom de l’Etat.

A ceci près, comme l’a démontré l’affaire Bentounsi contre Saboundjian, que c’est le camp des délinquants qui dirige aujourd’hui le débat public et in fine le débat judiciaire.

5)- L’instrument de l’ordre public
Il en va ainsi d’abord parceque les instruments pour conduire le débat d’ordre public sont adaptes au passe et non pas au présent.

Ce dédoublement rendu audible par le « pardon » de M. Luhaka ne concerne pas que cette procédure.

Si on accepte d’en tenir compte, il devient possible de joindre le cas dit « Theo » a d’autres affaires étrangères a celle-ci.
Il peut conduire a inclure M. Luhaka dans l’expérimentation publique civile et collective d’une nouvelle pratique des indemnisations et des rapports des justiciables aux faits.

Il en va ainsi des accidentes chirurgicaux, des familles de marins noyés par la faute de l’armateur, des découvreurs du Trésor Corse, des lésés des constructeurs automobiles, des parents Villemin, etc.

Il semble plus porteur de disqualifier la Police nationale, la gendarmerie, et de légaliser l’antagonisme que les partis communautaires veulent instituer entre l’Etat français et des populations définies par une supposée étrangeté a la population française et par une martyrologie religieuse insoluble.

Partie 2 : L’Armée

6)- La répétition du même
Deux soldats meurent en service d’entrainement.

Les procédures actuelles reproduisent exactement le même scenario d’affrontement judiciaire entre les ayant-droits des victimes et l’Armée.

Dans les deux cas chacun est reconduit dans ses jeux de rôles. L’Armée dénie toute responsabilité de la faute, les magistrats la couvrent, les victimes qui s’épuisent dans des procédures sans fin. La France est ridicule et vue comme arriérée.

Je reviens ici sur les deux cas militaires qui sont exemplaires.

7)- Premier cas
Le journal Le Canard Enchaine, du mercredi 15 novembre, p.5, dans sa rubrique judiciaire, « coup de barre », publie un compte rendu d’audience de Dominique Simonnot,

1- Le 19 mai 2017, 22 légionnaires du 2eme REI de Nîmes font « un exercice de cohésion » en canoë-kayak.
Ils dépassent le panneau « « Interdit danger de mort », au barrage de Cumière deux des leurs ont chavire.
Deux légionnaires sont morts noyés dans le cadre de leurs activités militaires.

2- Apres six mois d’une enquête préliminaire menée par le parquet :

a- La solution immédiate est de reporter les responsabilités sur le gérant civil du Site de loisir ou a eu lieu l’opération.
Le motif en est que « le panneau annonçant le danger était masque par le feuillage ».
Le 15 novembre, seul ce gérant est présent au Tribunal pour répondre des chefs de « homicide involontaire » et « mise en danger de la vie d’autrui ».

b- Pour les parties civiles : deux veuves sont plaignantes, une mongole et une africaine.

c- Aucun chef militaire n’a été interroge.

3- Les avocats font valoir qu’il n’y a pas de confrontation
a- Une victime n’aurait pas du être la pour cause d’ITT.
b- Les consignes de danger n’ont peut pas été traduite a ces « étrangers ».
c- Le parquet fait valoir que « le dossier est complet. Les 20 légionnaires ont ete entendus, les pompiers et le prévenu aussi ! Une bonne administration de al justice suppose qu’elle soit rendue dans un délai raisonnable ! ».
4- L’implication fautive de l’armée apparait si plausible aux yeux du Tribunal de Reims que, contre l’avis du parquet, il renvoie le dossier « a l’instruction ». Ce qui n’arrive que dans 3% des cas.

Comme le dit l’un des avocats « ici tout le monde aime la Légion et l’Armée ».

8)- Deuxième cas
Ce nouveau cas en reproduit tant d’autres.

Cf. : Le Canard Enchaine du 12 juillet 2017, p4, « Couac » publie un article : « Mauvaise chute ».

Le 5 aout 2014, M. Hugues, 23 ans, engage volontaire au 1er régiment du train parachutiste de Cugnaux fait son 134eme saut.
Le parachute ne s’ouvre pas.
Deux ans d’enquête pour déclarer l’Armée ni responsable ni coupable.
Le fond de prévoyance militaire et de l’aéronautique refuse d’indemniser la famille.
Le PV des gendarmes conclut a l’absence de responsabilité de l’Armée.
Le Procureur de la République du TGI de Toulouse classe la plainte sans suite.
Motif : « Infraction a sujet non caractérise ».
La Ministre de la Défense, Mme Goulard, a commande : « L’ouverture d’une étude complémentaire afin de s’assurer que la réponse obtenue était conforme ».

Les parties civiles peuvent également dire « ici tout le monde aime la Légion et l’Armée ».

9)- Le deux calvaires
Des accidents simples deviennent pour les ayants droits des victimes des sujets de confrontation avec une Armée que leur fils ou leur mari voulait servir.

Des personnes ordinaires doivent suivre une procédure dont tout le fonctionnement est subordonne a des formes archaïques de la préservation légitime de l’institution militaire.

Elles sont deux fois écrasées et l’Armée est deux fois abaissée publiquement.

Chaque faute de l’Armée devient pour ses victimes un calvaire et pour l’Armée une inquiétude relationnelle.

Par les temps qui courent, cette reconduite indéfinie de la réputation d’ingratitude de l’Armée envers ses soldats ternit sa bonne réputation, si durement acquise, auprès de la population.

Partie 4 : Commentaire

10)- L’entre-soi
Au nom de voyous, la police et la gendarmerie sont disqualifiées publiquement sans autres perspectives que de l’être encore plus.

L’Armée perd en une information le crédit public qu’elle a acquis au fil de ses combats contre le jihadisme,
Il semble que l’important soit que rien ne change et que domine l’entre-soi.

Un rapport écrit par Mme Marie Christine Lepetit, Inspectrice des Finances, nomme explicitement « l’entre soi » comme responsable de l’invalidation d’une taxe par la Conseil Constitutionnel et lui attribue une unité de compte : dix milliards d’euros.

Cet « entre-soi » imprime aussi sa marque dans le fonctionnement de l’administration publique en couvant l’affrontement de plus en plus ouvert entre la magistrature et la police, sous le regard goguenard des voyous devenus arbitres des élégances.

Il suffirait de peu de choses pour que la justice ne soit plus obligée de léser les victimes pour dire le droit et garantir aux institutions la place qui est la leur.


Marc SALOMONE













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