Justice exception.
President of TGI took a deportation order upon request of the prefect of the Brittany Region.
a decision of the President of Tribunal de Grande Instance of Rennes, Dominique Couturier.
Any owner can and must seek an interim expulsion following the application for a property he owned.
Above all, remember that the state Prefecture in our case, is responsible. Its duty housing asylum seekers.
That the President of TGI can sign in favor of the warden, an enforcement order against deportation of immigrants who commandeered a ship of state, while he himself is the first in the unlawful failure house them, we seem to say the least objectionable and offensive.
Especially since the choice of an arbitrary procedure is contrary to any idea of justice and casts doubt on the independence of it from political power. Mainly in the initiating country of human rights.
Never mind, let us detail the procedure .
1) Although announced by the press, and all such statements are not guarantees of truth, the proceedings was never communicated to anyone and is not registered.
2) Technically we can not say if the decision was actually made or whether we are witnessing a signature by agreement between two parties against one another.
3) Because the order has not been addressed, the culprits were identified and pre- could be heard, make an explanation or be defended by a lawyer, he was an appointed lawyer.
4) The expulsion order was given by the President of the Usher Dal35 himself not concerned by this matter personally. In fact as it was, and yet still not registered and had no more skill, the bailiff could just as easily could be declared unfit for distribution.
5) An order, randomly distributed, with one sheet of 6, the final decision. The observation made by the same bailiff is not there.
6) Not more than the application and therefore the rationale of the decision and the laws relating thereto. Are we witnessing a statement of inadequacy, a break characterized, in flagrante delicto or disturbing the public order?
7) In the context where the latter is chosen, it is obvious that if someone creates a disturbance to public order, there can be other than the warden who, by refusing to enforce the law, contributes to the existence of homeless wandering the streets of the city of Rennes.
8) The order does not indicate the slightest indication as to the possibility be challenged, as befits any fair trial.
9) Our lawyer immediately faxed a motion for reconsideration with the TGI, before going on site to request an audience with the President. Height of unfairness or bad luck absolute, Mr. Couturier meant he would study the issue but not until the next day. Thus he took the risk that the police intervene even before a possible appeal could be filed.
10) Today, President of TGI just refused to communicate the request to our lawyer Melanie M. The Orchard. He asserts that the bailiff should have Graive Emmanuel himself forward.
11) Meanwhile we still do not know if we have a possibility of appeal and if so, we lost time is obviously prejudicial. Hopefully Mr. Graive parte do suddenly on holiday.
coincidences, he finds that counsel for the prefecture is the same as that of the City of Rennes ...
President of TGI took a deportation order upon request of the prefect of the Brittany Region.
a decision of the President of Tribunal de Grande Instance of Rennes, Dominique Couturier.
Any owner can and must seek an interim expulsion following the application for a property he owned.
Above all, remember that the state Prefecture in our case, is responsible. Its duty housing asylum seekers.
That the President of TGI can sign in favor of the warden, an enforcement order against deportation of immigrants who commandeered a ship of state, while he himself is the first in the unlawful failure house them, we seem to say the least objectionable and offensive.
Especially since the choice of an arbitrary procedure is contrary to any idea of justice and casts doubt on the independence of it from political power. Mainly in the initiating country of human rights.
Never mind, let us detail the procedure .
1) Although announced by the press, and all such statements are not guarantees of truth, the proceedings was never communicated to anyone and is not registered.
2) Technically we can not say if the decision was actually made or whether we are witnessing a signature by agreement between two parties against one another.
3) Because the order has not been addressed, the culprits were identified and pre- could be heard, make an explanation or be defended by a lawyer, he was an appointed lawyer.
4) The expulsion order was given by the President of the Usher Dal35 himself not concerned by this matter personally. In fact as it was, and yet still not registered and had no more skill, the bailiff could just as easily could be declared unfit for distribution.
5) An order, randomly distributed, with one sheet of 6, the final decision. The observation made by the same bailiff is not there.
6) Not more than the application and therefore the rationale of the decision and the laws relating thereto. Are we witnessing a statement of inadequacy, a break characterized, in flagrante delicto or disturbing the public order?
7) In the context where the latter is chosen, it is obvious that if someone creates a disturbance to public order, there can be other than the warden who, by refusing to enforce the law, contributes to the existence of homeless wandering the streets of the city of Rennes.
8) The order does not indicate the slightest indication as to the possibility be challenged, as befits any fair trial.
9) Our lawyer immediately faxed a motion for reconsideration with the TGI, before going on site to request an audience with the President. Height of unfairness or bad luck absolute, Mr. Couturier meant he would study the issue but not until the next day. Thus he took the risk that the police intervene even before a possible appeal could be filed.
10) Today, President of TGI just refused to communicate the request to our lawyer Melanie M. The Orchard. He asserts that the bailiff should have Graive Emmanuel himself forward.
11) Meanwhile we still do not know if we have a possibility of appeal and if so, we lost time is obviously prejudicial. Hopefully Mr. Graive parte do suddenly on holiday.
coincidences, he finds that counsel for the prefecture is the same as that of the City of Rennes ...
http://dal35.blogspot.com/ 
0 comments:
Post a Comment