N° of FILE: 53986/08                                                                                                                                                                           April 25, 2009

                                                                                                                    

EUROPEAN COURT  HUMAN RIGHTS

France, Council of Europe Strasbourg

REQUEST - APPLICATION

Presented in application of article 31 of the European Convention of the Human rights, as well as articles 45 and 47 of the payment of the Court

AND ASKS Of JURISDICTIONAL ASSISTANCE

 

 

I - PARTS

WITH - THE APPLICANT.

B - THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTY .

Against the French STATE represented by the legal agent of the 6 rue Louise Weiss treasure - 75703 Paris Cedex13.

II - EXPOSE OR VIOLATION (S) OF CONVENTION AND/OR PROTOCOLS AL (S),

Texts Violated by France in all the procedures below: The Convention of European safeguard of the human rights.

1- Violation of article 5; 5-1 personal freedom.

2- Violation of article 6 accesses to a court

3- Violation of article 6-1 right to an equitable lawsuit.

4- Violation of article 6-3 right of defense.

5- Violation of article 7-1 prohibition of the retroactive laws.

6- Violation of article 8; 8-1 ; 8-2 right to the respect of the private life violation of our residence.

7- Violation of article 10; 10-1 freedom of expression

8- Violation of article 13 right to an effective recourse.

9- Violation of article 14 prohibition of discrimination.

10- Violation of article 17 prohibition of the abuse right.

 

Concerning the protocols.

 

11- Violation of the protocol N° 1 violation and diversion of our property.

12- Violation of the protocol N° 7 in its article 2 right to a double degree of jurisdiction out of penal matter.

13- Violation of the protocol N° 7 in its article 3D' compensation.

14- Violation of the protocol in its article 4, right not to be judged or punished twice.

15- Violation of the protocol N° 12 in its article 1, general prohibition of discrimination.

 

That it will be analyzed the various points below in the violation of the European convention of the human rights.

 

Arbitrary detention of October 8 2001 at October 2, 2002, removed in full audience by the gendarmerie to make to obstacle with a lawsuit in summary procedure against a Toulouse Magistrate Mr IGNACIO lawyer general.

Arbitrary detention of February 13, 2006 at September 14, 2007 to make obstacle with all the lawsuits in course and to divert the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Violation of the rights of defense in the two procedures Ci above, absence of lawyer, absence of parts of procedure.

Systematic refusal of handing-over in freedom.

Systematic obstacles with the grounds for appeal , in front of the first jurisdiction, Court of Appeal, supreme court of appeal and judgement concerning the continued facts and the stops of refusal of setting in freedom and relating to other lawsuits in progress.

Refusal  systematic of the jurisdictional assistance in front of the T.G.I; before the Court of Appeal, before the supreme court of appeal whereas Mr LABORIE was with the RMI, and that separated in fact with Mrs LABORIE the latter made the object of seizure on wages since 1995 in violation of any goes down for hearing conciliation, diversion by the magistrates' court of Toulouse by ordinances returned in violation of the article R 145-13 “of law and order” of the sum of 467.275, 53 euros and really on the wages of Mrs LABORIE of the sum of 77.740 euros.

Systematic refusal with the access to the supreme court of appeal.

Systematic refusal of a lawyer.

Diversion of our property in violation of all the legal provisions and means of defense.

Expulsion of our property without executory title, hanging grounds for appeal, refusal which the causes are heard.

Obstacles with the access to a court so that the causes are heard on arbitrary detention.

Obstacles with the access to a court so that the causes are heard against certain authorities quoted by ways of action in front of the correctional court of Toulouse.

Obstacle with the access to a court so that the causes are heard concerning the diversion of our property and in request for cancellation of the adjudication and after the consignment was versed.

Obstacle with the access to a court so that the causes are heard and to obtain provisional measures in summary procedure concerning our expulsion.

Diversion of the amount of the adjudication whereas grounds for appeal were hanging concerning the project of distribution of the adjudication.

Diversion of all the pieces of furniture and objects dated March 27, 2008 without intervention of the authorities to put an end to this disorder with the law and order and after having seized them.

Diversion by the magistrates' court of Toulouse of the sum of 467.275 euros to the damages of Mister and Mrs LABORIE by ordinance taken in violation of the fair labor standards act, absence of convocation in audience of conciliation “of law and order ”.

Real diversion since 1995 without audience of conciliation as regards seizure on wages of the sum of 77.740, 12 euros and without to have been able to obtain the parts of the procedure during more than 13 years, only obtained in October 2008 after the diversions are carried out.

Violation of our residence into dated March 27, 2008 without intervention of the authorities to put an end to this disorder with the law and order.

Refusal systematic of all the complaints deposited with the parquet floor of Toulouse.

Denial of justice characterized by all the French authorities to exclude Mister and Mrs LABORIE from the Company, obstacle to the access to a court so that the latter remain victims and stripped of all financial means by various additional seizures, irregular on the form and the bottom as much on the bank account , that on the fruit of the work of Mrs LABORIE.

The intellectual crime carried out in plot of the French authorities to destroy Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

That in my writings below all the material proofs will be brought.

III - EXPOSE RELATING TO THE REGULATIONS OF

The ARTICLE  35 & 1 OF CONVENTION

Mr LABORIE André is constrained for his interests, those of his wife and his family to approach the European court concerning the human rights within sight of a denial of justice characterized on the French territory to return the justice of which we are victims.

Obstacles with the access to a court, the Court of Appeal, the supreme court of appeal, the senior of the examining magistrates by various discriminatory means.

Mr LABORIE Andre N°2 street of Forging mill 31650 Saint Orens, on February 4, 2008 was constrained by Letter registered with AR: N° 1A 005.078 8716 6 to deposit felt sorry for with constitution of civil part to Mrs Fabienne LICE Senior of the examining magistrates to the Court of Bankruptcy of PARIS 75000 PARIS and in recall of a complaint formulated in August 2007 during my arbitrary detention.

That this complaint remained unanswered of the examining magistrate. (Denial of justice.

This complaint was deposited for criminal facts caused by the French authorities during the period of arbitrary February 14, 2006 to September 14, 2007 detention to make obstacle with many lawsuits in progress and to allow the diversion of our  property having heavy consequences prejudicial with the family of Mr LABORIE Andre.

That the examining magistrate to the Court of Bankruptcy of PARIS refuses to inform with the reason which I did not provide the various complaints deposited whereas all the complaints were regularly sent out of package recommended with acknowledgement of delivery received by the senior of the examining magistrates with the parts of the procedure concerning arbitrary detention.

The denial of justice is still characterized so that justice is not returned, obstacle with the access to a court to cover this intellectual crime raised and carried out in plot of authorities judicaires so that the facts are not recognized, leaving Mr LABORIE victims of this arbitrary detention and victims Mister and Mrs LABORIE by the diversion of their property and their pieces of furniture and objects furnishing their residence by their dated March 27, 2008 expulsion.

With this complaint of February 4, 2008, a dated March 17, 2004 complaint with the references preceded by the senior of the judges of the Court of Bankruptcy of Paris ref. Senior: 380/04 ref. Parquet floor: 04.077.2304/0 which underwent the same fate:

Following  silence of the high seized French authorities of many times, to have to refuse to put an end to several disorders with the law and order obviously illicit of certain people agents of the public authority or responsible for a mission of public utility on the French territory, acting in the exercise or on the occasion of the exercise of its functions or its mission, to have ordered or achieved arbitrarily acts attentatoires with the personal freedom with Mr LABORIE Andre to allow them to destroy morally, physically, financially this last at end to divert its property and to ruin all its family financially.

On the gravity of the false intellectuals:

Acts carried out by many French Magistrates whose names are included below in the request.

The false intellectual comprise any material falsification a posteriori act, no intervention on the instrumentum. It consists for the writer of the notarial act, which is necessarily a public officer, to state facts or to bring back inaccurate declarations.

Notarial acts : Acts of notary, bailiff, registrar, of judge, of the clerk.

Art. 457.du NCPC - The judgement with the conclusive force of a notarial act.

Mentions carried by the judge in his decision on the subject of the declarations of the parts that it collected itself and of which it gave notice are taken until inscription of forgery (Case. ploughshare, Apr 20 1950 : D. 1951, somm. p. 64 ; S. 1951, 1, 93; RTD civ. 1951, p. 429, obs. P. Raynaud. - For given the act of a legal consent,  CA Amiens, 1st juill. 1991 : N° 043760 Juris-dated).

Art.441-4. penal code - The false clerk in a public writing or authenticates or in a recording ordered by the public authority is punished ten years of imprisonment and 150 000 € of fine.

The use of the forgery mentioned with the subparagraph which precedes is punished same sorrows.

The sorrows are changed at fifteen years of criminal reclusion and 225 000 € of fine when the forgery or the use of forgery is made by a person agent of the public authority or responsible for a mission of public utility acting in the exercise of its functions or its mission.

Many French Magistrates misused their impunity by their statute to regulate their accounts in the opposition to Mr LABORIE André, this last by continuing certain Magistrates by  action sees in front of the correctional court of Toulouse as well as auxiliaries of justice.

The responsibility for the French state is committed on the base of the article L 781 of the COJ, this last refuses within sight of the L781-1 article of the COJ.

The responsibility on the French territory cannot be committed bus to make obstacle with the procedures, Mr LABORIE André was seen held arbitrarily with two recoveries with all the abuses rights described in the request deposited against the French state to destroy it physically, psychologically, financially.

IV - EXPOSE FACTS PREAMBLE

Recall

Mr LABORIE Andre N°2 street of Forging mill 31650 Saint Orens, on February 4, 2008 was constrained by Letter registered with AR: N° 1A 005.078 8716 6 to deposit felt sorry for with constitution of civil part to Mrs Fabienne LICE Senior of the examining magistrates to the Court of Bankruptcy of PARIS 75000 PARIS and in recall of a complaint formulated in August 2007 during my arbitrary detention.

That this complaint remained unanswered of the examining magistrate. (Denial of justice.

This complaint was deposited for criminal facts caused by the French authorities during the period of arbitrary February 14, 2006 to September 14, 2007 detention to make obstacle with many lawsuits in progress and to allow the diversion of our  property having heavy consequences prejudicial with the family of Mr LABORIE Andre.

That the examining magistrate to the Court of Bankruptcy of PARIS refuses to inform with the reason which I did not provide the various complaints deposited whereas all the complaints were regularly sent out of package recommended with acknowledgement of delivery received by the senior of the examining magistrates with the parts of the procedure concerning arbitrary detention.

The denial of justice is still characterized so that justice is not returned, obstacle with the access to a court to cover this intellectual crime raised and carried out in plot of authorities judicaires so that the facts are not recognized, leaving Mr LABORIE victims of this arbitrary detention and victims Mister and Mrs LABORIE by the diversion of their property and their pieces of furniture and objects furnishing their residence by their dated March 27, 2008 expulsion.

With this complaint of February 4, 2008, a dated March 17, 2004 complaint with the references preceded by the senior of the judges of the Court of Bankruptcy of Paris ref. Senior: 380/04 ref. Parquet floor: 04.077.2304/0 which underwent the same fate:

 RECALL of a precedence felt sorry for with references T.G.I over Paris:

Ref. Senior: 380/04 ref. Parquet floor: 04.077.2304/0

Deposited and recorded on March 17, 2004

Who remained without effect of the examining magistrate. ( Denial of justice)

For this complaint of March 17, 2004, I had a refusal to inform, which carried me an important damage by the refusal of the gendarmerie to inquire into order of the examining magistrate on  24 Mars 2004 and for the following reasons which were communicated to me verbally by the gendarmerie of Orens Saint in these terms.

That the parquet floor of Toulouse made obstacle with the mission ordered with the Gendarmerie of Orens Saint  by an examining magistrate exerting with the Court of Bankruptcy of PARIS

Ci  joint : the copy of the ordered mission on March 12, 2004 to the gendarmerie of Orens Saint by Mrs the judge HAKE senior of examining magistrates of PARIS,  recall of the dated May 12, 2004 requests remained without investigations.

Within sight of the refusal to inquire of the gendarmerie of Saint Orens place of the residence of Mr LABORIE, by the order given of the examining magistrate of the Court of Bankruptcy of PARIS, Mr LABORIE was constrained to seize by way of action the correctional court of Toulouse to directly put moving the public action by assignment of the authors implied in the complaint in front of the judge of the instruction and for the same facts complained of.

This assignment which is it against being able of the Public prosecutor was delivered to the parts for the audience of April 29, 2004 to appear before the correctional court of Toulouse and concerning the following physical people thus that the legal agent of the treasure representing the State responsible for its public agents.

With the opposition to:

· Mr NIGHTINGALE President of the jurisdictional assistance to the Court of Bankruptcy of Toulouse gone Jules Guesdes 31000 Toulouse.

· Mrs BERGOUGNAN Nicole Examining magistrate to the Court of Bankruptcy of TOULOUSE gone Jules Guesde 31000.

· Mrs MOULIS Marie Yvonne Examining magistrate to the Court of Bankruptcy of TOULOUSE gone Jules Guesde 31000.

· Mr BELLEMER President of the Room of the Instruction of Toulouse at the Court of Appeal of TOULOUSE places Saline 31000.

· Mr Bruno COAT President of the Court of criminal appeal  with the Supreme court of appeal to the 5, quay of the clock 75055 PARIS

· Mrs Domenica GITON Clerk in chief with the Supreme court of appeal to the 5, quay of the clock 75055 PARIS

· President of the jurisdictional assistance to the Supreme court of appeal to the 5, quay of the clock 75055 PARIS

· The legal agent of the treasure to the Ministry for the legal Budget service AJT;  207 rue de Bercy 75572 PARIS Cedex, civilly responsible according to article 781-1 for the code of the legal organization.

For this procedure, Mr LABORIE André had many difficulties by the permanent obstacle of the Parquet floor and the Court of Toulouse, concerning a discriminatory means set up , “consignment” and to have right which the file is open, contrary to article 6 of the European convention of the human rights.

Consignment requested, of 1500 euros was the subject of a call, in the absence of income the Court of Appeal of Toulouse per stop of September 9, 2004 has to modify the consignment with 150 euros.

Mr LABORIE André consigned this sum of 150 euros with the Treasury, controls of the receipts of the T.G.I of Toulouse 08/10/2004.

The parquet floor of Toulouse and the court did to date not rule on the bottom and returned the business on the jurisdiction of MONTPELLIER complicating even more the procedure with an only aim once again, to make obstacle with the access to a court and so that the causes are heard

Other files underwent the same procedures.

IMMEDIATE REPRESSION A OPPOSITION TO MR LABORIE

I had serious consequences after by the Toulousaine jurisdiction, the parquet floor of Toulouse and  to make obstacle with this procedure, and many procedures of which I am victim like my family.

The immediate obstacle by the parquet floor of Toulouse to the procedures in progress.

And on the opinion of the Public prosecutor

In these terms:

             

By the present one it to you is given opinion to put under safeguard of justice on September 2, 2004 of Mr André LABORIE born on May 20, 1956 and remaining in N° 2 rue de la FORGE.

Fact on September 2, 2004

N° RÖLE: N° 04 00601 and not signed

This attempt at setting under supervision was with an only aim of making obstacle with many files and with an only aim that Mr LABORIE does not have any more any means  of right to act as justice to take advantage of its rights and to continue the authors of which it is victim like its family.

Article 502 of the civil code : All acts passed, subsequently to the judgement of opening of the supervision, by the protected person, will be null of right, subject to the provisions of article 493-2 of the civil code.

Recall : procedure of setting under safeguard of justice, in defense made by Mr LABORIE Andre and included in his conclusions with the audience of December 13, 2004 in front of the Room of the Council.

Ruling in call on ground for appeal of an ordinance

 of setting under safeguard of justice.

Raising the exception of nullity on the base of article 112 of the NCPC

Miss medical certificate determining the deterioration of mental faculties.

Likes the court:

On the exception of nullity of the procedure of setting under safeguard of justice. 

SUBSIDIARILY

 

Page 10

 

Personality of Mr André LABORIE.

Mr André LABORIE was constrained to seize the legal authorities for the account of his family since many years to put forward the various undergone damages and of which certain procedures which were made in their opposition putting their inheritance in danger and by embezzlements made by the public agents to date continued in front of the penal jurisdiction to Toulouse.

That this procedure of safeguard of justice, made at the request of Mrs CHARAS vice Public prosecutor is not inappropriate, request made by the latter on July 5 2004 to require a setting under safeguard of justice.

Indeed Mrs CHARAS, with the course a procedure in correctional quotation in the opposition

· Old REAL BANK SOVAC recovery by the Company GE CAPITAL Bank 20 Avenue André Prothin  92063 PARIS Cedex DEFENSE.

· SCP ISSANDOU-TRAMINI-AUTHAMAYOU, 1 rue Montardy 31012 TOULOUSE Cedex.

· Mrs PUISSEGUR M.C. First Clerk remaining with the Court of Bankruptcy of Toulouse, sitting downtown the aforementioned, with the Law courts

· The SCP of ushers CABROL and CUKIER 70 boulevard Deltour 31000 Toulouse.

These last having diverted a real estate with husbands LABORIE by auction sale public,  procedure made in violation of all the procedure of right, (reason of the penal lawsuit)

Mrs CHARAS in the procedure made obstacle with the inspection of files by request deposited it April 30, 2004.

That with the audience of June 24 2004 in front of the court, Mrs CHARAS, vice Prosecutor made obstacle to order the substance even with the court.

On June 25, 2004, Mr LABORIE André addresses a new request with setting in residence to Mrs CHARAS to cause production of the parts.

That being in a difficulty of right, Mrs CHARAS Vice Public prosecutor seizes herself of an abuse right to try to block all actions of right to her opposition which Mr André LABORIE could engage, this last to preserve the economic interests and financier of all his family.

That Mrs CHARAS A thus acts by request on July 5, 2004 near the judge of the supervisions

Requisitions of July 5, 2004 made

By Mrs CHARAS Vice Public prosecutor

In these terms : With Mister Juge of the supervisions to the court  Authority of Toulouse.

File N° PARQUET FLOOR: 04566.

I have the honor to require you has fine to examine within sight of articles 493 and 501 of the civil code the question of a possible protection measure  in favour of Mr André LABORIE born on May 20, 1956 in Toulouse remaining in N° 2 rue de la Forge 31650 Saint Orens de Gameville.

This being prevailed last indeed of various damages begins in multiple complaints of about 60 since 2002 largely targeted around the actors of the legal world, usher, acknowledged lawyer  clerk Magistrate and of the economic actors.

This one claiming itself activates with all these files; that I tried to apprehend overall to include/understand the situation of Mr LABORIE André.

The CONSEQUENCES Of SUCH an ACT AND the GOAL SEEKS BY the PARQUET FLOOR

Recall, the requests made by the Public prosecutor were with an only aim of seizing itself article 502 of the civil code (Resulting L. n° 68-5, 3 janv. 1968, art. 1st and 15) allowing him that any act passed subsequently to the judgement of opening of the supervision, by the protected person, will be null of right, subject to the provisions of article 493-2 of the civil code.

Mr LABORIE was constrained to deny himself without lawyer by the systematic obstruction with obtaining the jurisdictional assistance to obtain a lawyer although it is without income, applicant for work .

Financial standing coming from the intrigues of the parquet floor to refuse to put an end to various disorders with the law and order whose Mr LABORIE is victim, important embezzlement by a company of FERRI purse, whose Toulouse authorities remained under silence.

At the request of the parquet floor of Toulouse suspension of the activities of Mr LABORIE Andre regularly declared and up to date of its social security and different contributions, put in prison of October 8, 2001 at October 2, 2002.

That at my exit of prison in October 2002, I had by relation a friend lawyer with the title of the jurisdictional assistance in several files and against certain Magistrates.

Mr LABORIE arrived at the end of the procedure of setting under safeguard of justice by providing the evidence that it  was reached of no deficiency physical and intellectual, it obtained nona place of the judge of the supervisions on June 30, 2005.

On these serious facts of settings under safeguard of justice to the request Mrs CHARAS Substitute of Mister the Public prosecutor, Mr LABORIE was constrained to act juridically.

SASINE OF MR BREARD PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

For fixing of audience to make appear Mrs CHARAS before correctional audience for on November 8, 2004.

For the following offences:

· Discrimination by abuse of authority : “Refusal of a law granted by the law”

      act repressed by Art. 432-7 penal code.

· Measures intended to make failure with the execution of the laws ». act repressed by the Article 432-1 penal code.

· Attack with the action of Justice : Act repressed by the articles 434-11 ; article 121-7. penal code.

And to have:

Mrs CHARAS in a time not prescribed by the law running the year 2004, exerted obstacles with Mr André LABORIE with the access to a court by discriminatory means “ consignment ” while knowing the financial standing of the applicant with RMI and following a procedure whose the latter took note .

That Mrs CHARAS behaved out of her functions with an only aim of not continuing the authors of certain criminal acts, making pressure on the Presidents of  room to make order abusive consignments, voluntary act by animosity and as attests several judgement of it returned to exclude Mr LABORIE in his requests.

That these acts are attentatoires with the interests of Mr André LABORIE, his family and opposite with the European Convention of the Human rights, with our Constitution and our National law.

That Mrs CHARAS in a procedure of diversion of a real estate, by a intellectual offence, did not act in accordance with her functions although the criminal acts are characterized and with an only aim of protecting the continued people, with an only aim that Mr André LABORIE cannot obtain repair in front of the penal jurisdiction on the base of articles 1382 and 1383 of the civil code and following the various damages which the applicant and his family underwent.

That Mrs CHARAS justifies her will to harm Mr André LABORIE in several procedures in front of the correctional court of Toulouse and like the last making obstacle at the request of communication of parts of a file of seizure of property, fundamental object, belonging to the bottom of the business in front of the court, depriving this last of this substance.

That this refusal to make communicate the parts of the procedure in was followed the refusal to defer the business in waiting of this communication on the base of the R155 article code of penal procedure, Pascolini stop and other stops of the CEDH condemning France regularly by nonthe respect of the communication of the parts of the procedure.

That Mrs CHARAS uses of her capacities to make obstacle with the access to the court and so that the causes are heard in accordance with the European Convention of the Human rights in its article 6.

Facts are repressed by articles  432-7 ; 432-1 ; 434-11 ; 121-7. penal code.

On the basic rights of Mr André LABORIE and on the base of article 6 of the European convention of the human rights.

In accordance with the European convention of human rights in his article 6, Mr André LABORIE has the right to seize a court so that its cause is heard and no obstacle whatever it is must be put at its opposition.

Article 6 guarantees the rights most often called upon, as well in front of the national jurisdictions as in front of the European jurisdiction; it translates the state of right in practice and is generally regarded as the keystone of all the system of Convention: “in a democratic company with the direction of Convention, the right to a good justice occupies a place so eminent that a restrictive interpretation of article 6 §1 would not correspond to the goal and the object of this provision " (CEDH, Delcourt C Belgium, January 17, 1970); it is an obligation of result which weighs thus on the States and all the procedures whose exit is determining for a civil law are subjected to these requirements.

Contents of this guarantee of the “equitable” lawsuit was gradually defined by the authorities of Strasbourg: the idea, as summarizes it the professor Guinchard (Small posters, April 12, 1999) is to ensure very justiciable a lawsuit honest and balanced and the first requirement to reach that point is that of a right of access to the judge : any person wishing to bring an action entering the field of application of Convention must have a suitable recourse so that a judge hears it, the two others which will not retain us especially here, being right to a “good justice” (guaranteed organization of the court and composition of the jurisdiction) and right to the effective execution of the decisions of court.

The European Court specified that this right of access must be an effective right, this effectivity covering itself two requirements:

- the first requirement is that the jurisdictional recourse recognized by the State leads to a real and sufficient jurisdictional control; the seized court must be qualified in full jurisdiction to be able to slice the business as well in right as in fact;

- the second requirement is that there is a real possibility for the parts of reaching the justice i.e. they do not undergo any obstacle likely to practically prevent them from exerting their right (the stages, being this second requirement were the stop Airey C Ireland in 1979, the stop Belley at the end of 1995 and Eglise the catholic stop of Canée C Greece at the end of 1997)(2) ; thus economic conditions should not deprive a person of the possibility of seizing a court and for this reason, it is up to the States to ensure this freedom by setting up a system of legal assistance for the most stripped or whenever the complexity of the legal reasoning requires it ;

Of same a legal obstacle can also make of it the exercise illusory (Geouffre stop of Pradelle of December 16, 1992)(3).

THE RESPECT OF THE PRIVATE LIFE IS ALSO AN HUMAN RIGHT.

It is recognized by the universal declaration of the human rights. (Ace, gén. The United Nations, Dec 10 1948, art 12) (published by France: 19 Olympics févr.1949) and by the European convention of safeguard of the human rights and fundamental freedoms ( art) (Nov 4 .1950 ratified by France on May 3, 1974: OJ May 4, 1974).

These texts are directly applicable by the French jurisdictions (cont.4 oct.1948, art. - Cass.2E civ., May 24, 1975: JCP G 1975, II, 18180 (a));

The French judge who note a contradiction between the terms of European Convention and those of a national standard must make prevail the international text (Case. Crim., June 3, 1975: Bull. crim. N° 141. - Cass.crim., March 26, 1990: Bull, N°131. - EC, have, 20octo.1989: AJDA 1989, N°12, p.788).

On made Mr discrimination André LABORIE to have access to a court

Article 14 of the European convention of the human rights, prohibited any form of discrimination when with the pleasure of these rights and freedoms, discrimination “ based in particular on the sex, the race, the color, the language, the religion, the opinions political or all other opinions  the national or social origin, membership of a national minority, birth or any other situation”

PREMEDITATION FOR NOMBEUSES OBSTACLES

against Mr LABORIE Andre.

Mr LABORIE André saw many obstacles in many decisions by forgery and use of public forgeries in writing and on decisions returned by the court and the Court of Appeal of Toulouse with an obstacle permanant to the granting of the jurisdictional assistance to obtain lawyer in order to defend the files with equity and to the access to a court.

Mr LABORIE was constrained to defend himself in many files only, attacked by the parquet floor of Toulouse, or this last making pressure in many files so that it is made decisions contrary with the interests of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Mr LABORIE André was constrained to exert it against being able of Mister the Public prosecutor to try to make hear his cause in front of a court.

Files concerning:

The only lawyer that I had with the title of the jurisdictional assistance, was a friend who received all the conceivable pressures of the parquet floor of Toulouse and about lawyers of Toulouse to refuse to take my  defense.

For the failure of the procedure of supervision, it was necessary that the parquet floor is able another to make obstacle with the procedures of Mr LABORIE André.

That the order of lawyers intervened, many lawyers took the defense of many Magistrates continued by ways of action in front of the correctional court of Toulouse.

They found like alibi, the fraud with the RMI, defrauds with the jurisdictional assistance to make obstacle with defense by my friend lawyer.

This fact my friend lawyer being remunerated more and with the pressure about lawyers was obliged to cease all defenses.

The parquet floor of Toulouse also car-forged an insult via the president of the room of shouted of Toulouse as regards seizure of property, to exclude me from the procedure and to divert with impunity in violation of all the legal provisions our property by my arbitrary detention.

Specifying that no insult could be carried out in public sitting during a verbal challenge of a greffière and whereas I was regularly convened by bailiff .

They car-forged an ordinance of jurisdictional assistance signed by a Magistrate of the BAJ of PAU by making the point that I was a lawyer whereas I am ever claimed to be a lawyer, ever worn the dress of lawyer.

These intrigues of the parquet floor of Toulouse are easy to include/understand, with an only aim of finding a means of continuing Mr LABORIE penally and of putting it in detention.

It is to be specified that the legal provisions as much national than Européenne must be applied.

The plot of many Magistrates of the seat and the parquet floor with the order of lawyers is characterized within sight of the various writings below.

RECALL ON THE COMMITTED JUDICIAL ACTIONS

BY MR LABORIE ANDRE.

Many Magistrates for forgery and use of forgery were continued  in writing public in many judgement and stops under the responsibility of the French State represented by the legal agent of the treasure as well as auxiliaries of justice.

In an important file the continued facts were recognized after 7 years of procedures in a file of seizure of property, a prosecuting company “Athéna bank” did not have more legal existence since December 1999 (stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse of May 16, 2006).

That it is of this fact that Mr LABORIE André was quite founded in his action.

Technique employed:

Mr LABORIE taken by animosity by a continued Magistrate, obligatory working relationship sets up himself , impartiality.

The lawyer introduces false elements, the Magistrate follows lawyer although often the statements are false, the judge returns a decision on inaccurate facts constituting a false intellectual, that this forgery and put in execution and at the endorsement whereas the reverse exists.

That there is a spirit of body between Magistrats and auxiliary of justice, returning justice by active and passive corruption and with partiality.

The European court will be able that to realize some within sight of the writings deposited by my request against France and the violation of various articles Ci above of the European convention of the human rights and of its protocols.

All the procedures in progress were the subject of an obstacle by a taking of hostage of Mr LABORIE dated February 13, 2006 Andre under cover of an irregular legal procedure on the form and the bottom of the continuations and with an only aim of making obstacle with all the lawsuits in progress.

Consequences:

 On the complaint into dated February 14, 2008 against X:

 Of which known authors

(Criminal act Magistrates and auxiliaries of justices).

Complaint always not educated and without any

French authority wants answers it

In these terms with the senior of the judges of PARIS T.G.I.

New attack with my personal freedom , the integrity of my person of February 14, 2006 to September 14 2007.

The Senior of the examining magistrates regularly seized makes obstacle inform this criminal business.

Mr LABORIE Andre without income and separated in fact of its wife by distinct declarations near the tax services.

That  the jurisdictional assistance must be automatic. Note (Ministry for Justice).

· Victims “ voluntary attacks with the life or the integrity of the person ” like their having right are given an automatic jurisdictional aid : they are exempted to join to their requests for jurisdictional assistance certain documents (conditions of resources, nationality, marital status).

To date, the Senior of the judges remains dumb and the French State is responsible for this situation, making obstacle with the respect of the European convention of the human rights.

                              

This complaint counters X with constitution of civil part on the own territory in a time not prescribed by the law relates to facts which are considered criminals, Facts repressed by articles 432-4; 432-5 ; 432-6 of the penal code.

This complaint relates to the arbitrary deprivation of the personal freedom of Mr LABORIE André

The people who knew  and taken part in my arbitrary detention on the French territory in a time not prescribed by the law of February 14, 2006 to September 14, 2007 are as follows :

· Michel Mr SUCKERS;  Magistrate; President of the Room of shouted and JEX.

· Mr THEVENOT; Magistrate; Substitute of the Public prosecutor.

· Mr PAUL MICHEL; Magistrate; Public prosecutor.

· Mr SYLVESTRE; Magistrate; Lawyer General.

· Mr DAVOST; Magistrate; Prosecutor General.

· Mr CARRIE; Magistrate; First President.

· Mrs IVANCICH; President of the audience of February 15, 2006.

· Mr PUJOS SAUSSET; Magistrate; President  3rd room correctional calls.

· Mrs SALMERONE; Magistrate.

· Mr BASTIE; Magistrate.

· Mr SUQUE; Magistrate

· Mr LAPEYRE; Magistrate.

· Mrs DOURNE; Magistrate.

· Mr OULES; Magistrate judges freedoms and detention.

· Mr PETIPAS; Director of MA of Seysses.

The seized supreme court of appeal with the course this period of arbitrary detention as well as many French authorities, refused to intervene on the various grounds for appeal formed to the supreme court of appeal “the total denial of justice and the violation of the European convention of the human rights”

This denial of justice of the French authorities is the direct repression of the various judicial actions engaged by Mr LABORIE André counters many authorities.

Mr LABORIE André has volunteer various judicial actions so that his cause is heard equitably within the meaning of article 6 of the European convention of the human rights, convention which is absolutely not respected on behalf of the French authorities under the responsibility of the French State.

The repression of the French authorities was immediate once again, Mr LABORIE André on February 14, 2006 was taken as an hostage and imprison until September 14, 2007 in violation of all the rules of penal procedure and of the European convention of the human rights.

That during this time of arbitrary detention, Mr LABORIE Andre without any means of acting in his defense in the penal procedure, was stripped of his main home by a procedure of seizure of property in violation of all the legal provisions and by forgery and use of forgery in private and public writings, procedure under glaze of the Toulousaines authorities, grounds for appeal all violated and not recorded to the supreme court of appeal.

RECALL OF THE FACTS ARBITRARY DETENTION:

Mr LABORIE André was the subject of legal proceedings on the base of article 395 of the CPC, by a procedure in immediate appearance on  February 14, 2006 and put in detention on the base of article 396 of the CPC and for one duration which cannot to exceed three days to appear before the court and under cover of a legal procedure made by forgery and use of forgery.

Monsieur LABORIE André a comparu devant le tribunal le 15 février 2006 en violation de toutes les règles de droit et après une garde à vue préméditée sur des chefs d’accusations ne pouvant exister, seulement auto forgées  par le parquet de Toulouse.

Although the Court is inefficient dated February 15, 2006 to hear the causes by a request in progress deposited with the court of criminal appeal at the supreme court of appeal and to require that all the jurisdiction Toulouse in legitimate suspicion be declared, to this request was joined the suspensory effect on the base of the C-662 circular of the CPC.

Seized jurisdiction having to postpone to rule, the court with returned a decision  irregular at two years of firm prison, by forgery and use of forgery, in violation of all the rules right, refusing the communication of the parts of the procedure, refusing the reference to prepare defense, violation of article 6 of the European convention of the human rights

This court although inefficient in its audience of February 15, 2006 ruled on my maintenance in detention on the base of article 397-4 of the CPC without renewing the three days mandate .

Does decision of the court, maintain in detention?

The mandate whose made the object as a dated February 14, 2006 Mr LABORIE André in immediate appearance was on the base of article 396 of the CPC, it could not exceed more than 3 days, the court was to renew it to continue to hold me in prison.

Mr LABORIE without knowing contents of the judgement given, as much on the public action that on the civil proceeding , a ground for appeal “the call “on February 16, 2006 to the clerk's office of MA of Seysses formed. (herewith part).

Was applicable article 148-2 of the CPC:

Art. 148-2  (L. NO 83-466 of June 10 1983)  Any jurisdiction called to rule, pursuant to articles 141-1 and 148-1, on a request for replevin total or partial of legal control or on a request for setting in freedom decides after hearing of the public ministry, prevented or sound  (L.  NO 93-2 of the 4 janv. 1993)   “lawyer”; prevented not held and sound  (L.  NO 93-2 of the 4 janv. 1993)   “lawyer” are convened, by registered letter, forty-eight hours at least before the date of the audience.  (L.  NO 2004-204 of March 9, 2004,  art. 102)  “If the person already appeared before the jurisdiction less than four months before, the president of this

 

Page 20

The Court of Appeal ruled forever within 20 day on the base of article 148-2 of the CPC is at the latest on March 9, 2006.

It is starting from this date; maybe of March 9, 2006, in the absence of decision of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, that the prison authorities did not have any legal title to continue to hold Mr LABORIE André.

My detention as from March 9, 2006 is illegal and arbitrary under the responsibility of the prison authorities .

This arbitrary detention at duration until September 14, 2007.

These facts are repressed by the following articles:

 Art. 432-6 The fact, by an agent of the prison authorities, to receive or retain a person without mandate, judgement or order of nut established in accordance with the law, or to unduly prolong the duration of a detention, is punished of two years of imprisonment and 30 000 euros fine. -  Pr. PEN.   126,   136,   575.   

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ALWAYS NOT HEARD

Mr LABORIE André then that it was held arbitrarily until September 14, 2007 is seen all the grounds for appeal in the penal procedure on the bottom of the continuations with a permanent obstacle as much in front of the T.G.I, that before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, like by front the court of criminal appeal at the supreme court of appeal, (denial of justice) under the responsibility for the French state.

On the judgement of February 15, 2006 returned by the TGI of Toulouse.

On the stop of June 14, 2006 returned by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse.

On the stop of February 6, 2007 returned by the supreme court of appeal.

The French State must be justified before the European court of the human rights or passed these grounds for appeal seized by Mr LABORIE André during his arbitrary detention.

To note that these grounds for appeal could not be heard and to ask to produce by the French State the documents in proof which these grounds for appeal were heard in front of a court on the base of the European convention of the rights of the man and his article 6 and others with the respect of the right of defense.

For Mr LABORIE Andre on these grounds for appeal concerning the bottom of the continuations, those were never heard.

Several complaints were made, the French authorities always remained dumb.

The damages during this arbitrary detention are numerous:

Course of the procedure in front of the correctional court

February 15, 2006.

I appeared manu militari before the court, I informed this last which I did not accept main MARTIN officially appointed lawyer because this one was indicated by the order of lawyers plaintiff and civil part in the business (enclosures): (conflict of interest) and making left about lawyers Toulouse. (Violation of article 6-3 of the CEDH)

The request in legitimate suspicion was meant by bailiff on February 3, 2006 to Mrs Of ESPARES SERNY Marie Francoise, Substitut General (of Mister the Prosecutor General not being installed) at the Court of Appeal of Toulouse and for very serious facts of this jurisdiction (see contained request herewith).

— in case of interruption of the course of justice, in particular if the court of jurisdiction cannot legally be composed,

— for legitimate ground of suspicion,

— in the interest of a good administration of justice.

From the audience of February 15, 2006 I requested the reference of the business to prepare my defense and the parts of the procedure.

The court had in its possession the documentary evidences by Mr LABORIE André and included in the verbal lawsuit of setting in detention, “asking for the file of the procedure and be judged acceptance of that after having been informed of the parts of the file”

Mr André LABORIE had a systematic refusal of reference to prepare his defense and to obtain the parts of the procedure. (Violation of article 6; 6-1 ; 6-3 of the CEDH)

Mr André LABORIE was not quoted in accordance with article 394 of the CPC by respecting a 10 minimum days deadline. (Violation of article 6; 6-1 ; 6-3 of the CEDH)

Very to go with a their premeditated aim, to return me directly in prison for many months in violation of all the legal provisions which cannot be disputed to date. ( evidence with the support). (Violation of article 6; 6-1 ; 6-3 of the CEDH)

Although the court had the knowledge which the procedure would be sullied with nullity within sight of article 802 subparagraph 46, the court ignored the respect of the national law and the national law .

BY ABUSE OF POWER and violation of the law

With the audience of February 15, 2006 after having raised the observations above, have asked me questions of which I answered without to agree to be judged knowing that I had expressed my requests above, the court in violation of all, returned a verdict to the 2 years audience of firm judgment.

This audience was held: By the following Magistrates:

Miss IVANCICH vice president making function of President.

Mrs DOURNES, vice President, assessor.

Mrs CLEMENT NEYRAND, judge assessor.

Mrs BONAVENTURE, clerk.

Mr THEVENOT public ministry

Deliberated Mr CAVAILLES.

Specifying that Mr CAVAILLES representing the public Ministry and Mrs DOURNE were two Magistrates who wanted to put to me under supervision to make obstacle with many files against their pars.

This verdict was returned without knowing some of its contents of this judgement, given in violation of the legal provisions.

This decision of June 15, 2006 does not respect the communication with prevented within deadline the 10 days to be with courrant contents before the expiry of the period of recourse “ the call” .ce qui carried damage to Mr LABORIE André.

CALL WITHOUT COMMUNICATION OF the JUDGEMENT on February 16, 2006

Mr LABORIE André made call of the returned decision with the audience of February 15, 2006 that is to say on February 16 at the clerk's office of MA of Seysses (herewith document part) and without knowing the contents of the judgement as much on the penal level that on the civil level, it is only on March 30, 2007 that the minute of the judgement was brought to my attention, absence of communication within call, this which me because an objection to raise disputes on its regularity of the decision, (to date registered out of forgery in public writing and which will be examined during the procedure.)

OPPOSITION AND CALL On March 30, 2007

 Judgement of February 15, 2006

This judgement was only communicated on March 30, 2007 is more than one years afterwards, which justifies a dysfunction of the Toulouse Jurisdiction. (Herewith justifying of the TGI part).

That consequently an opposition and a call were formed to this judgement of February 15, 2006 N° 282/06  maybe in dated March 31, 2007 and attached document legal of the grounds for appeal still not purged by the court and the court. (Herewith justifying of the clerk's office parts).

And according to the following motivation: addressed with Mr Paul MICHEL Public prosecutor and the clerk's office of the prison so that it is not unaware of on March 31, 2007 of it.

To sensitize Mr Paul MICHEL of a serious dysfunction, I communicated at the same time as the opposition and the call, an ordinance of the office of jurisdictional assistance, made by a reporting Magistrate who an individual that I do not know would be defended by Maître Andre LABORIE Avocat in N°2 street of the forging mill whereas I was never a lawyer. (herewith document part) The forgery in public writing characterized.

Incompetence of the TGI of dated February 15, 2006 Toulouse.

- Articles 394 of the CPC,

- Articles 662 of the CPC

- Circular C - 662 of the CPC,

- 802 subparagraph 46 of the CPC

Article 486 subparagraph  9 of the CPC :  Formalities prescribed by art. 486 are not it hardly of nullity. Crim.  May 12, 1971:   Bull. crim. NO 153; D. 1971. Somm. 165  Nov 27 1984:   Bull. crim. NO 370  March 21, 1995: Bull. crim. NO 115.  Thus the late deposit of the minute of a judgement cannot involve the nullity of this one when prevented no damage underwent any. Same stops.  But does not satisfy in itself in the essential conditions of its legal existence, and especially with the regulations of art. 486, Al 1er, C. pr. PEN., a judgement which does not mention the name of the magistrates composing the correctional court and limits to state that it was returned by the president in the absence of two judges assessors whose presence, with the debates and with deliberated, is not mentioned, and without it being refers to the provisions of art. 485, Al 3, of the same code; the Court of Appeal could not compensate for the legal mentions and to only reject the exception of nullity of the judgement while noting, according to the notes of audience held at the time of the debates, the court was composed of the magistrates of which acts; the Court of Appeal must in this case, by application of art. 520 C. pr. PEN., to cancel, evoke and rule on the bottom. Crim.  31 janv. 1994:   Bull. crim. NO 40.  

DISPUTES WITH THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES

Mr SYLVESTRE Jean Jacques substitute of Mister the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeal of Toulouse took note well of my complaint deposited for dated March 4, 2006 arbitrary detention, this one cannot thus be unaware of it. (this day is responsible for this one not to have to act) made repressed by article 432-4 to 432-6 of the CPC.

By its mail of March 17, 2006 and beginning again that concerning my request deposited with the court of criminal appeal for suspicion of the Toulousaine jurisdiction, the judgment delivered on February 21, 2006 will be meant to me by usher in accordance with article 666 of the CPC and it is to be started from this significance that it will have authority of force of judged thing.

What proves well that the dated February 15, 2006 court, could not rule on the continuations made in my opposition in immediate appearance, the court of criminal appeal not having ruled on the aforementioned request and the suspensory effect requested according to the C-662 circular of the CPC,  that WOODLAND Mr wanted to be unaware of it and brought to his attention by act of bailiff.

WOODLAND Mr is unaware of in these writings the Circular C 662 CPC voluntarily.

 (herewith part).

SUR L’ARRET du 21 février 2006 rendu par la chambre criminelle

Ruling on the request deposited in legitimate suspicion.

The dated February 21 supreme court of appeal handed down its N°1267 judgment by pretexting that there does not exist in the species of reasons for reference due to suspicion legitimate.

Whereas was called upon in my request the jurisprudence which makes the force of joined law Ci:

Requirements of the equitable lawsuit.

Article 662 subparagraph 12 and 13 of the CPC

Is objectively of nature to give birth to a doubt about the impartiality from the jurisdiction, according to art. 6 Conv. EDH, and constitutes, consequently, a reason for dispossession due to suspicion legitimate, within the meaning of art. 662 C. pr. PEN., the circumstance that the general assembly of the magistrates of a court adopted a motion of support for the one of her members, made up civil part in a hanging procedure in front of this court. Crim.  Nov 3 1994:   Bull. crim. NO 351; Dr. penal 1995, NO 27, obs. Maron.  It is the same, when an examining magistrate has to inform on the facts denounced by the civil part after having opposed to this one a refusal to inform unjustified. Crim.  March 4, 1998:   Bull. crim. NO 86.  … Or when the examining magistrate, counters which a complaint with constitution of civil part was deposited, an ordinance of refusal returned to inform. Crim.  May 16, 2000:   Bull. crim. NO 191.

The circumstances of the species in which continuations were exerted, on the denunciation of a magistrate of the Parquet floor, being presented in the form of a victim of the facts, are of nature, not to make doubt independence of the members of the court, but to make fear that the jurisdiction having to decide cogency of the charge does not offer the sufficient guarantees of impartiality, according to art. 6 Conv. EDH and constitute consequently, a reason for dispossession due to suspicion legitimate, within the meaning of art. 662 C. pr. PEN. Crim.  Nov 30 1994:   Bull. crim. NO 392; Dr. penal 1995, NO 56, obs. Maron; D. 1995. Somm. 323, obs. Pradel. 

And for serious facts raised at the time of the request, in the following terms:

REASONS CALL UPON

 In the request deposited in front of the court of criminal appeal at the supreme court of appeal

Various obstacles put since more than 15 years against Mr André LABORIE by the Toulouse jurisdiction and at the request of the parquet floor, to date continuing to act with partiality in its opposition.

 

Page 30

 

Specifying that each business cannot be more detailed in this request, details for each procedure can be provided at the request of justice.

We will find during my explanations the repetition of the parquet floor and these Magistrates to make obstacle with the truth.

Magistrates Continued on Toulouse in front of the senior of the examining magistrates or way of action of quotation on the heavy and personal fault successor in title damage with Mr André LABORIE and his family.

— Mrs BORREL, Magistrate TI service of seizure on wages.

— Mr NIGHTINGALE, honorary Magistrate of the BAJ

— Mrs BERGOUGNAN, Magistrate examining magistrate

— Mrs MOULIS, Magistrate. examining magistrate

— Mr BELLEMER, Magistrate President of the room of the instruction

— Mr FULLER. M, Magistrat chair TGI

— Mrs FULLER. E, Magistrate of the seat.

— Mr MELIA. Magistrate examining magistrate

— Mr LANSAC. With, Magistrate of the parquet floor

— Mr IGNIACIO, Magistrate of the parquet floor

— Mrs IGNIACIO, Magistrate.

— Mrs CERA, Magistrate.

— Mr LEMOINE. Magistrate

— Mrs CHARAS, Magistrate of the parquet floor

— Mr SOUBELET, Magistrate of the parquet floor.

— Mr CAVAILLES, Magistrate of the parquet floor.

— Mr FARMHOUSE, Magistrate President of room.

— Mr PUJO-SAUSSET Magistrate, President of room.

— And various auxiliaries of justice having taken part directly or indirectly with or in complicity of the people continued above.

PS: All these procedures were in hand before the taking of hostage of Mr LABORIE André is on February 14, 2006

That consequently Mr André LABORIE is founded to request from Mister the Prosecutor general of the supreme court of appeal which the Toulousaine jurisdiction is put in suspicion legitimates in order to preserve the rights of Mr as much touching André LABORIE to his civil interests, which with its dignity like with  its personal freedom.

That consequently, Mr André LABORIE is founded to request from Mister the Prosecutor general at the supreme court of appeal which the Toulouse jurisdiction is put in legitimate suspicion for the various continuations of certain Magistrates of which Ci lists above, as much in front of the senior of the examining magistrate that in front of the correctional court on the heavy fault of each one, that the State should not be responsible for the personal faults of the Magistrates, concerning the public monies of the taxpayer.

That within sight of the various actions and of the corporatism of the Magistrates continued on the Toulousaine jurisdiction, that it can only be considered a partiality in the businesses concerning Mr André LABORIE and as can prove it the various documents remaining to produce at the request of the authorities other than that of the Toulousaine jurisdiction.

That an investigation must be diligenté on the Toulousaine jurisdiction concerning the businesses of Mr André LABORIE, who certainly within sight of the media are not the only ones to undergo the same fate. (All the disappearances covered by the authorities)

Mr André LABORIE remains at the disposal of Justice to be heard there on all his explanations above detailed in front of another jurisdiction.

But as of now urgently it is necessary for a good administration of justice to take act which the Toulousaine jurisdiction must be declared put in legitimate suspicion after investigation and concerning the businesses against Mr André LABORIE.

That it is urgently that is to order by the sasine of the Minister for Justice an administrative investigation and at the request of Mister the Prosecutor general at the supreme court of appeal.

Mr LABORIE André asks the court of criminal appeal to attach to the presentation of his request the suspensory effect following the general circular article 662  CPC (Circ. 1er March 1993. “Mentioned Below”. (partiality of the Toulouse jurisdiction), permanent violation of article 6 of the European Convention of safeguard of the human rights.

The suspensory effect involves the provisional dispossession of the jurisdiction until it is ruled on the bottom of the request.

UNFOLDING ON THE FUND  PROCEDURE BEFORE the COURT Of APPEAL OF TOULOUSE

On May 18, 2006

In his audience of May 18, 2006, I asked for the reference of the audience to prepare my defense as my setting in freedom to prepare this one knowing that I did not have a lawyer and any possibility of obtaining one from them on Toulouse.

There was a conflict of interest, the order of lawyers of Toulouse being plaintiff against me.

A reference was granted to May 30 2006.

On the base of the article of article 397-4 of the CPC, the court was to rule on the bottom of the continuations in the 4 months of the interjeté call and on the judgement of February 15, 2006 is at the latest on June 14, 2006 in measurement that Mr LABORIE was imprisoned.

That the will is characterized to harm the freedom of Mr LABORIE André, to prevent it from defending oneself and of the conflict about lawyers.

The Court of Appeal being seized by the ground for appeal “the call” of February 16, 2006 is not in the strict obligation to respect the 4 months relating to the bottom of the continuations if Mr LABORIE is not held but is obliged to satisfy the application of article 6-3 of the CEDH to obtain an equitable lawsuit on the base of article 6-1 of the CEDH.

Mr LABORIE André was to be released on March 9, 2006 by the absence of decision of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse on the base of article 148-2 of the CPC.

The bottom of the continuations cannot be approached by the court of the first blow if the incidents of procedures are not purged and in the absence of respect of article 6-3 of the CEDH.

Only influence is on detention which must stop in the absence of debate on the bottom in the 4 months and as a preliminary with a regular committal order, which was not the case for Mr LABORIE André, having only one committal order three days.

UNFOLDING ON THE FUND  PROCEDURE BEFORE the COURT Of APPEAL OF TOULOUSE On May 30, 2006

It is easy to include/understand the intrigues of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse to have violated all the legal provisions in its audience of May 30, 2006 and with an only aim of once again making obstacle with the freedom of Mr LABORIE André whereas it was already in arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006.

With this audience, the court was made up of the following Magistrates and the same magistrates who refused me my two requests for setting in freedom to prepare my defense and which were judges and left, the latter continued juridically by Mr LABORIE André in front of Mister the First President and high authorities, challenged in preceding businesses on serious grounds before with the taking of hostage into dated February 13, 2006.

With this audience of May 30, 2006:

I made deposit a request in challenge presented at Mister the First President of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse of all the members of the court.

Mister the First President answered on this request only on June 19, 2006.

The court was advised of this request deposited with the opening of the audience.

The court was advised of a request for reference formulated by Mr LABORIE André with the reason which it had seized the office of jurisdictional assistance of dated May 23, 2006 Toulouse and after the refusal of setting in freedom in his audience of May 18, 2006 to obtain the possibility of defending oneself.

Ask of the jurisdictional assistance to obtain the assistance of a lawyer Parisien (Main BOUZERAN).

The court was advised of a request for reference made by a Parisien lawyer (Main BOUZERAN) and before with the audience of May 30, 2006.

The court was advised by Maître BOUZERAN of a request for parts of the file which was granted by the public ministry.

Specifying that these parts arrived to Maître BOUZERAN only in July 2006 after the audience of May 30, 2006.

That the court after having to raise my request above the request for carryforward to the reasons ordered with the police force to remove me audience whereas I correct and serene with was seen raised elements of right and put to me in cell at under ground of the Court of Appeal.

Mr LABORIE nonpresent and not represented at the audience of May 30, 2006.

Mr LABORIE was re-installed before the court after the public ministry made its requisitions.

Mr LABORIE André forever be informed of these requisitions to answer it, which is confirmed by the judgment delivered on June 14, 2006.

That this stop of June 14 2006 is well sullied with nullity.

Violation of the rights of defense article 6; 6-1 ; 6-3 of the CEDH.

Absence of lawyer, parts of procedure.

Challenge refused by the court before Mister the First President makes his ordinance dated June 19 2006.

Carryforward of audience refused following the request of Master BOUZERAN and on standby of the jurisdictional assistance regularly deposited on May 23, 2006 and the parts of the procedure.

No possibility of being made hear as much on the exceptions of the procedure that on the bottom of the continuations.

That Mr LABORIE André filed opposition on the stop of June 14, 2006 which has not been able to assist and represent by a lawyer near the Clerc's Office of the prison of SEYSSES.

That Mr LABORIE André formed an appeal in cassation on the stop of June 14, 2006 near the Clerc's Office of the prison.

That the jurisdictional assistance at the supreme court of appeal was required, it was refused whereas I was held, without returned and average of cassation undeniable.

That afterwards, I learned that I had the request for jurisdictional assistance refused by the T.G.I of Toulouse following my dated May 23, 2006 request for the assumption of responsibility of Master BOUZERAN.

That Mr LABORIE saw himself refusing to be present in his public sitting at the supreme court of appeal, private on report/ratio of the adviser rapporteur, private of the conclusions of the lawyer general whereas in writing Mr LABORIE André had asked to be présdent.

ON the INTRIGUES OF the COURT Of APPEAL TO COVER

 THIS ARBITRARY DETENTION

The Court of Appeal of Toulouse to cover these various decisions tolerating the arbitrary detention of Mr LABORIE Andre and since March 9, 2006, makes believe the execution of a stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse of June 14, 2006 of which this last fact the object of an opposition carried out L June 5, 2006 (herewith justifying N° part    ) .auprès of the clerk's office of MA of Seysses and recorded at the Court of Appeal under the references: 06 4600 become N° 06314.

The Toulousaines authorities do not want to hear this ground for appeal, the opposition on the stop of June 14 2006, what constitutes a denial of justice under the responsibility of the French State.

This act of ground for appeal , regularly formed, was hidden by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, by WOODLAND Mr who is the instigator and the actor of the various obstacles before the Court of Appeal so that my cause is heard in front of an impartial court.

Act hidden at the supreme court of appeal to induce them in error of right and with an only aim of obtaining with precipitation a stop of the court of criminal appeal, of legal administration of refusal to the access to the supreme court of appeal to the pretext which there is not any means of right to cassation whereas the stop itself in its entirety in is stained of nullity, mainly and without any dispute in the debates and on the base of article 513 subparagraph 11 of the CPC and others!!

The supreme court of appeal, the court of criminal appeal cannot rule as long as the opposition on the stop of June 14, 2006 was not heard before the Court of Appeal and on the base of article 657 subparagraph 7 of the CPC.

                                                                                                                              

On the judgment obtained and handed down by the court of criminal appeal at the supreme court of appeal on February 6, 2007 in violation of the legal provisions,  Court of Appeal of Toulouse to cover an arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006 with suborned the supreme court of appeal and to put in execution the stop of June 14, 2006 returned by the Court of Appeal in violation of all the legal provisions.

This stop made of course to the object of an opposition by Mr LABORIE André, recorded on April 12, 2007 after sasine of Mister the Prosecutor General at the supreme court of appeal and recorded under the reference of the file N° Z 07/82.712 (herewith justifying N° part    )

Specifying that this judgment of June 14, 2006 was handed down:

Article 802 subparagraph  46 of the CPC:  Right to information. Any person counters which a judge has the capacity to pronounce a judgment has the right to be informed, in a detailed way, nature and cause of the charge carried against it, to have of time and the facilities necessary to the preparation of its defense, and to deny itself or with the assistance of a defender his choice, at the time of a public lawsuit. Crim.  28 janv. 1992:   Bull. crim. NO 31.  The public Ministry cannot refuse to deliver a copy of the parts of the procedure with prevented quoted in front of the police court, if necessary with its expenses, because this would be against the provisions of art. 6, § 3 Conv. EDH; such a refusal involves the nullity of the procedure. Toulouse,  1er avr. 1999: JCP 1999. IV. 2811. 

It is in this context that Mr LABORIE was founded to make opposition on June 15, 2006 on the stop of June 14, 2006 so that its cause is heard equitably in the presence of the parts has the authority and by respecting article 6-3 of the CEDH.

Under these conditions, the Court of Appeal of Toulouse cannot prevail itself of any final judgment:

On these two last ground for appeal , the minute of the judgement only was brought to my attention on 30 March 2007 (herewith justifying N° part      )

That an opposition is in hand on the stop of February 6, 2007 returned by the court of criminal appeal and recorded April 12, 2007 under the reference of the file N° Z 07/82.712.

The Court of Appeal of Toulouse, in such a context cannot prevail itself of any titrates executory to cover this arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006.

The seized authorities always made silence on this legal situation constitutive of refusal of justice and confirming the arbitrary detention undergone, after having voluntarily tolerated it by different the refusal from settings in freedom and while knowing that all the procedure made in my opposition is sullied with nullity on the base of article 802 subparagraph 46 of the CPC.

ON MY VARIOUS REQUESTS FOR SETTINGS IN FREEDOM

ON the PROCEDURE BEFORE the COURT Of APPEAL

AND CONTENTS OF the STOPS (false and use of forgery in public writings)

Mr LABORIE Andre  formulated various requests for settings in freedom for arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006 and to prepare its defense before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, denying oneself only at the time its requests, not being able to obtain a lawyer, no means to seize one of them,  Mr stripped LABORIE of financial means, a systematic refusal with the jurisdictional assistance.

Recalling that left civil

Its only means of defense was to be free to bring the substance to the Court of Appeal after of course having had time necessary to prepare its defense.

On my first request for setting in freedom for arbitrary detention and to prepare my defense on the bottom of the business before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse

A judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on March 30, 2006, (forgery in public writing) Mr LABORIE Andre who cannot be held regularly  by a committal order of February 14, 2006. (cannot exist)

Freedom refused by the following composition of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse (judge and left), tolerating my arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006. (herewith stop part).

FACT : envisaged and repressed by articles 432-4 and 432-5 of the penal code.

An appeal in cassation was formed on April 4, 2006 (joined part Ci N°    ) raising partiality, the abuse of power, the Magistrates composing to it course were continued juridically by Mr LABORIE André in serious businesses.

The supreme court of appeal answered forever within the legal time on my arbitrary detention, it was to answer in the 3 months on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC, fault of what I will have being given of office in freedom.

Arbitrary detention is once again confirmed by the absence of decision in conformity of the court of criminal appeal, Mr LABORIE André would have being released on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC.

On my second request for setting in freedom for arbitrary detention and to prepare my defense on the bottom of the business before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse

A judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on May 23, 2006 (forgery in public writing) Mr LABORIE Andre who cannot be held regularly  by a committal order of February 14, 2006. (cannot exist)

Freedom refused by the following composition of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, tolerating my arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006. ( herewith stop N° part     ).

FACT : envisaged and repressed by articles 432-4 and 432-5 of the penal code.

An appeal in cassation was formed on June 8, 2006 ( enclosure N°     ) raising partiality, the abuse of power, the Magistrates composing to it course were continued juridically by Mr LABORIE André in serious businesses.

The supreme court of appeal answered forever within the legal time on my arbitrary detention, it was to answer in the 3 months on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC, or else I will have being given of office in freedom.

The applicant in cassation or his lawyer must, hardly of forfeiture, to deposit his report exposing the means of cassation within one month as from  (L.

 

Page 40

Arbitrary detention is once again confirmed by the absence of decision in conformity of the court of criminal appeal, Mr LABORIE André would have being released on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC.

On my third request for setting in freedom for arbitrary detention and to prepare my defense on the bottom of the business before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse.

A judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on August 23, 2006 (forgery in public writing) Mr LABORIE Andre who cannot be held regularly  by a committal order of February 14, 2006. (cannot exist)

Freedom refused by the following composition of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, tolerating my arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006. ( herewith stop N° part     ).

FACT : envisaged and repressed by articles 432-4 and 432-5 of the penal code.

An appeal in cassation was formed on September 8, 2006 raising partiality, the abuse of power, the Magistrates composing to it course were continued juridically by Mr LABORIE André in serious businesses.

The supreme court of appeal answered forever within the legal time on my arbitrary detention, it was to answer in the 3 months on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC, fault of what I will have being given of office in freedom.

Arbitrary detention is once again confirmed by the absence of decision in conformity of the court of criminal appeal , Mr LABORIE André would have being released on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC.

On this same stop of August 23, 2006, Mr LABORIE André filed an opposition by the absence to be present at the audience in his debates and while being excused near the court (herewith N° part    ). Judgment delivered contradictory by abuse of power.

That the debates are open D on October 10, 2006, Mr LABORIE  Andre alone has to defend himself and to put forward his cause, was taken with party by the police force with the audience and under the orders of its president for not whom it is publicly explained on arbitrary detention that it underwent, it was attacked violently by the police force and was excluded from dirty from audience (herewith medical certificate reporting the aggravated assault N° part       ).

The composition of the court to the audience of October 10 2006:

On this decision with the audience of October 10, 2006, arbitrary detention always was tolerated by the magistrates above ( herewith N° stop      ).

On my fourth request for setting in freedom for arbitrary detention and to prepare my defense on the bottom of the business before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse and continuation in a hanging opposition on a judgment delivered on the dated June 14 bottom 2006

A judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on October 17, 2006 (forgery in public writing) Mr LABORIE Andre who cannot be held regularly  by a committal order of February 14, 2006. (cannot exist)

Freedom refused by the following composition of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, tolerating my arbitrary detention since March 9, 2006. ( herewith stop N° part     ).

The latter are always judges and left

This stop of October 17, 2006 returned the audience to November 29, 2006 before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, this last seizure by a request for setting in freedom on August 29, 2006

In its audience of November 29, 2006, I was assisted by Master BOUZERAND Avocat at the bar of PARIS, this last raising my arbitrary detention good established since March 9, 2006.

The court tolerated still this arbitrary detention and returned its decision by a stop of December 20 2006, (by forgery and use of forgery in public writing) and by pretexting the same terms as the preceding stops, with partiality, abuse of power ,  denial of justice to really rule on the disability of the committal order of February 14, 2006 and the absence of final judgment.

That the composition of the court in its audience of November 29, 2006 was made up of the following magistrates:

Mr SUQUET, President

Mister  BASTIE, adviser

SPANGLING Mr, adviser

WOODLAND Mr, Lawyer General

Mr SPANGLING absent in the decision, appears the name of Mrs SALMERON whereas the latter missed .

The stop is sullied with nullity on the base of article 592 of the CPC

That an appeal in cassation was formed on January 11, 2007  the court of criminal appeal not to rule forever contradictorily and on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC.

Arbitrary detention is once again confirmed by the absence of decision in conformity of the court of criminal appeal, Mr LABORIE André would have being released on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC.

On my fifth request for setting in freedom for arbitrary detention and to prepare my defense on the bottom of the business before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse and continuation in a hanging opposition on a judgment delivered on the dated June 14 bottom 2006

The request for setting in freedom presented on December 27, 2006 heard forever before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse in the 4 months (herewith request at the clerk's office of MA of Seysses N° part   ).

A judgment was handed down on March 15 whose debates would have taken place this m^me day, in my absence and not convened for March 15, 2007, which constitutes a forgery in writing.

On the base of article 148-2 of the CPC, I will have being released on April 27, 2007.

Arbitrary detention is once again confirmed by the absence of decision in conformity

That an appeal in cassation was formed, the court of criminal appeal not to rule forever contradictorily and on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC.

Arbitrary detention is once again confirmed by the absence of decision in conformity of the court of criminal appeal, Mr LABORIE André would have being released on the base of article 567-2 of the CPC.

ON VARIOUS SASINES OF THE AUTHORITIES

In registered letters and answers

On December 21, 2006, sasine of Mr SUQUET  President of the third room of the correctional calls of Toulouse and Mister the Prosecutor General  and concerning my arbitrary detention, my request for opposition on the stop of June 14, 2006 formed on June 15, 2006 and not heard before the court, requires remained without answer.

On January 9, 2007, sasine of Mr SUQUET President of the third room of the correctional calls of Toulouse  and concerning my arbitrary detention, asks remained without answer.

On January 20, 2007, WOODLAND sasine of Mr Substitute of Mister the Prosecutor General and concerning my arbitrary detention, requires remained without answer.

On January 26, 2007, sasine of Mr DAVOST Patrice, Prosecutor General of Toulouse and for my arbitrary detention, requires remained without answer.

On March 5, 2007, sasine of Mrs the judge of the application of the sorrows to the TGI of Toulouse and for arbitrary detention, request remained without answer.

On March 10, 2007, sasine of Mr Jean Louis NADAL Prosecutor General at the Supreme court of appeal and my arbitrary detention, requires remained without response still to date .

On March 12, 2007, sasine of Mr Paul MICHEL Public prosecutor of Toulouse and for complaint against the clerk of MA of Seysses and to make me obstacle with my grounds for appeal and for confirmed arbitrary detention, request remained without answer.

On March 16, 2007, sasine of Mr JOLLY Magistrate at the Supreme court of appeal and my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On March 17, 2007, sasine of Mr Paul MICHEL Public prosecutor D Toulouse, Mrs IVANCICH; Mr THEVENOT, concerning my arbitrary detention and the oppositions in progress and not heard still to date, request remained without answer.

On March 26, 2007, sasine of Mr KATZ Regional manager of the prison authorities in Toulouse and to raise my arbitrary detention, asks remained without answer.

On March 26, 2007, sasine of Mister the Public prosecutor of Montauban and concerning my arbitrary detention, requires remained without answer.

On March 27, 2007, sasine of Mister the Minister for Justice and concerning a complaint counters Magistrates, for crime and to have returned an ordinance of jurisdictional assistance by indicating that I was a lawyer, whereas I it and am not felt sorry for for arbitrary detention,  ask remained without answer.

On April 7, 2007, sasine of Mr DAVOST Patrice Prosecutor General of Toulouse and concerning a file of diversion of my main home during my detention and also relating to my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On April 9, 2007, sasine of Mister the Prosecutor General at the supreme court of appeal and my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On April 16, 2007, ordinance returned by Mr RIVETS Fabrice examining magistrate in Toulouse and following my complaint deposited for arbitrary, average detention discriminatory by the request for payment of a consignment of the sum of 10500 euros whereas it reached there with my personal freedom and that I am without resource, denial of justice confirmed

On April 18, 2007, sasine of Mr DAVOST Patrice Prosecutor General of Toulouse and concerning the formed opposition on June 15, 2006 and on the stop of June 14, 2006 N° 622, request remained without answer to obtain a date of audience, to date the denial of justice and confirmed.

On April 19, 2007, sasine of Mr DAVOST Patrice Prosecutor General of Toulouse and concerning my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On May 3, 2007, sasine of Mister the Prosecutor General at the supreme court of appeal and my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On May 5, 2007, sasine of Mr PAUL Michel Public prosecutor of Toulouse and concerning my arbitrary detention, remained without answer.

On May 6, 2007, sasine of Mister the Prosecutor General at the supreme court of appeal and my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On May 12, 2007, sasine of Mr DAVOT Patrice Prosecutor General of Toulouse and concerning my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On May 17, 2007, sasine of Mr Nicolas SARKOZI, President of the Republic and concerning my arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On May 19, 2007, sasine of Mr PAUL Michel Public prosecutor of Toulouse and concerning my arbitrary detention, remained without answer.

On May 29, 2007, sasine of Mrs ELHARRAR Andre, Clerk in chief penal service at the Court of Appeal of Toulouse to ask which date the opposition of June 15 on the stop of June 14, 2006 was made available of the court of criminal appeal and on which date this opposition was it programmed  before the Court of Appeal, asks remained without answer.

On June 25, 2007, WOODLAND sasine of Mr Lawyer General at the Court of Appeal of Toulouse and concerning the recorded opposition on June 15, 2006 and on the stop of June 14, 2006, has which date it is envisaged to be heard and pled, request remained unanswered .

On June 29, 2007, complaint with Mrs RACHIDA - DATI,  Minister for justice and for arbitrary detention, to date remained without answer.

On August 3, 2007, complaint addressed to Mister the person in charge for the gendarmerie of Montauban for detention arbitrary and reached with my personal freedom, complaint remained without answer.

On August 4, 2007, felt sorry for for arbitrary detention addressed to Mister the Prefect of the High Garonne Jean François CARENCO in Toulouse and so that it seizes the proper authorities, requests remained without answer.

On August 9, 2007, complaint with the Senior of the judges of the TGI of Paris and for arbitrary detention, remained without answer still to date and against, with constitution of civil part. (refusal to inform)

· Michel Mr SUCKERS;  Magistrate; President of the Room of shouted and JEX.

· Mr THEVENOT; Magistrate; Substitute of the Public prosecutor.

· Mr PAUL MICHEL; Magistrate; Public prosecutor.

· Mr SYLVESTRE; Magistrate; Lawyer General.

· Mr DAVOST; Magistrate; Prosecutor General.

· Mr CARRIE; Magistrate; First President.

· Mrs IVANCICH; President of the audience of February 15, 2006.

· Mr PUJOS SAUSSET; Magistrate; President  3rd room correctional calls.

· Mrs SALMERONE; Magistrate.

· Mr BASTIE; Magistrate.

· Mr SUQUE; Magistrate

· Mr LAPEYRE; Magistrate.

· Mrs DOURNE; Magistrate.

· Mr OULES; Magistrate judges freedoms and detention.

· Mr PETIPAS; Director of MA of Seysses.

· Directing Mr DELANCELLE of MA of Montauban.

On August 20, 2007, sasine of Mister the Barristers president to the order of lawyers of Paris and  to be assisted in my defense, concerning my complaint deposited with the senior of the judges in Paris, asks remained without answer.

On August 22, 2007, sasine of Mister the prosecutor General at the supreme court of appeal and my arbitrary detention and continuation that my opposition on the stop of February 6, 2007 returned by the court of criminal appeal whereas there was an opposition on the stop of June 14, 2006, request remained without answer.

On September 10, 2007, received mail of Mr André VALLINI Appointed of Isere at the national assembly informing me that my request relating to a dysfunction of our justice and following my arbitrary detention, file transmitted to Mrs RACHID - DATI Minister for Justice, the latter, any answer, the file being in its possession by the president of the Republic Mr SARKOZI Nicolas.

Concerning the texts Violated by France in the arbitrary procedure of detention, the Convention of European safeguard of the human rights.

The violation of the convention of European safeguard of the human rights was indeed violated by the French state in its articles: 5 ; 5-1 ; 6 ; 6-1 ; 6-3; 14 ; 17.

The violation of its protocol N° 7 in its articles 2 and 3.

The violation of its protocol N° 12 in its article 1.

  ON THE EXAMINATION DIVERSION OF OUR  MAIN HOME DURING ARBITRARY MA DETENTION

Last  complaint deposited final dated March 6 2009 not followed by effect by the French legal authorities in these terms.

Complaint deposited with Mr SERVANT Michel Public prosecutor of Toulouse to the T.G.I 2 alleys Jules GUESDE 31000 Toulouse.

LETTER RECOMMANDEE WITH AR: N° 1 A 027.249 8058 3.

Subject: Complaint counters X. (with known authors).

             Mister the Public prosecutor,

I request your very high benevolence to take into account my complaint to preserve our interests of the community, our property, our residence and to put an end to this disorder with the law and order.

Mr LABORIE André remains at the disposal of justice, of all authorities for any interrogation and parts required.

Complaint for:

Preamble.

It is provided below the course of the fraudulent appropriation of our property in a quite particular context,  with premeditation to have carried before felt sorry for the opposition to Mr LABORIE Andre by libelous denunciations with an only aim of  to imprison, depriving it in this situation of all its means of defense allowing the plaintiffs to act with any impunity by forgery and use of forgery to obtain favorable decisions of justice.

These intrigues  punishable called upon were carried out by the physical people and morals below.

SYNTHESIS:

The SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ.

Acting for its customers CETELEM; NOT; ATHENA.

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

The SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ. made deliver a command to pay for purposes of dated September 24, 2002 seizure of property per forgery and use of forgery for sums whose company did not have any more a legal existence since December 2000.

SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ made publish this command of October 24, 2002 with the Land Registry of Toulouse by a single act at three companies of which one which did not have any legal existence since December 2000.

SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ A acts near the registrar of mortgages of Toulouse to the damages of Mister and Mrs LABORIE for the account of a company which did not exist juridically any more since December 2000 and to seize the room of shouted at end to obtain the forced sale of their property and this fact of diverting the fruit of the sale unlawfully.

That SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ A acts in his command of September 24 2002 near the registrar of mortgages of Toulouse with a forgery capacity in seizure of property delivered on September 9, 2002 on behalf of the company Athéna Banque whereas the latter did not have any more a legal existence since December 2000.

That these intrigues are voluntary because the SCP of ushers had the duty of checking and control of its acts.

That these intrigues of this SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ seizing the room of shouted were with an only aim of diverting the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, important money sums to the profit of a company which did not exist any more.

That the room of shouted by judgement from December 19, 2002 the seizure of property cancelled on the civil level for vice of procedure, prohibiting the delivery of a new command for one three years duration for the account of these three companies having acts by a single act.

That Mr LABORIE Andre after complaints lodged with the Toulouse authorities, those  remained unfruitful the public action put moving  by way of action while making deliver a quotation to appear before the correctional court of Toulouse against the SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN ; LOPEZ.

The way of action having the same consequences as an indictment of Mister the Public prosecutor.

Procedure in front of the correctional court in progress against the SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ, causes always not heard since 2003” per different obstacle put by the parquet floor from Toulouse against Mr André LABORIE acting for the interests of Mister and Madam.

That it cannot exist the regulation of the continuations against the SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ

Repeat of the facts by  SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ

on September 5, 2003

The SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ. has to deliver a command to pay for purposes of dated September 5, 2003 seizure of property for sums whose company did not have any more a legal existence, procedure identical to that of September 24, 2002 whereas the judgement given by the room of shouted on December 19, 2002 had authority of judged thing, that the déchues parts in the authority had not formed call like ground for appeal in dispute, prohibiting the renewal for these three banks of a new command for purposes of seizure of property for one three years duration is until December 19, 2005.

The SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ. With fact of delivering a command to pay for purposes of dated September 5, 2003 seizure of property while making believe in the court that this one was regular to once again divert naps with the profit of a company which did not have any more a legal existence since December 2000.

 

Page 50

The SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ  was useful itself once again of the same forgery capacity in seizure of property, that of September 9, 2002 in front of the court for the Athéna company banks which did not have any more a legal existence since December 2000.

Repeat of the facts by  SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ

on October 20, 2003.

Whereas these three companies were prohibited to renew a command of seizure of property within sight of the judgement of December 19, 2002 is until December 19, 2005, the SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ always in the same way operated by a forgery capacity of September 9, 2002, makes deliver a command for purposes of seizure of property on October 20, 2003 and published in the Land Registry of Toulouse on October 31, 2003 by this same forgery capacity, pretexting another legal entity to replace the company Athéna bank is AGF, with the RCS on the command “company erased since February 13, 2003”

That these facts are repressed penally by the articles : 441-1 ; 441-2 ; 441-4; 441-5 ; 441-6 of the penal code; Facts repressed by articles 313-1 to 313-3 and 311-12 of the penal code; Fact repressed by article 314-1 to 314-4 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by articles 432-8 of the penal code; Fact repressed by  articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the penal code.

Master MUSQUI Bernard Avocat acting for his customers:

CETELEM; NOT; ATHENA.

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

Although SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ   A acts for criminal acts Ci denounced above, the instigator of these procedures were diligentées by Maître MUSQUI Avocat.

Within sight of the judgement of December 19 2002 having authority of judged thing, in the absence of ground for appeal whose call, Maître MUSQUI dated March 11, 2003 brought an action in front of the President of the Room of shouted by a single act at the three companies is CETELEM, NOT, Athéna banks whereas the latter did not have any more a legal existence since December 2000.

That the facts complained of Maître MUSQUI Bernard Avocat are identical that those of the SCP of ushers PRIAT; COTIN; LOPEZ  having acts as plot.

That Mr LABORIE Andre after complaints lodged with the Toulouse authorities, those  remained unfruitful the public action put moving  by way of action while making deliver a quotation to appear before the correctional court of Toulouse against Master MUSQUI Bernard Avocat

The way of action having the same consequences as an indictment of Mister the Public prosecutor “against being able”

Procedure in front of the correctional court in progress against Master MUSQUI Bernard, the causes always not heard since 2003” by various obstacles put by the parquet floor of Toulouse against Mr André LABORIE acting for the interests of Mister and Madam.

That it cannot exist the regulation of the continuations against Master MUSQUI Avocat.

That these facts are repressed penally by the articles : 441-1 ; 441-2 ; 441-4; 441-5 ; 441-6 of the penal code; Facts repressed by articles 313-1 to 313-3 and 311-12 of the penal code; Fact repressed by article 314-1 to 314-4 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by articles 432-8 of the penal code; Fact repressed by  articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the penal code.

That on the civil level, of many grounds for appeal were committed, those awkward for what took part directly or indirectly in the attempt of the diversion of the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Mr SUCKERS President of the Room of shouted.

Mrs PUISSEGUR Greffière of the room of shouted.

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

To get rid once for all of Mr LABORIE Andre and their council Maître TIGHTENS ROCH acting for the interests of the latter to the title of the jurisdictional assistance and with an aim of diverting by the force the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

In plot; Mr UNDERMINES Michel and Mrs PUISSEGUR by denunciation libelous made available of Mister the Public prosecutor of Toulouse on December 10, 2005 felt sorry for for insult of Mrs PUISSEGUR greffière of the Room of shouted after in its audience September 5, 2005 and to have asked for the challenge of the latter verbally while calling upon which there was a dispute in front of the correctional court in his opposition with the authorization to Mister the Public prosecutor in his date to delivered audience and that of Mister the Prosecutor General in her nearest audience fixed before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse.

That with this audience of September 5 2005 were a present Master FRANCES, Maître BOURRASSET, Maître MUSQUI, Mr LABORIE this last regularly convened by bailiff .

Action premeditated to reject the council of Mr LABORIE André, Maître TIGHTENS ROCH, while continuing by complaint that Mr LABORIE with the reason which it would have perceived unduly the RMI, that of this chief, that there would have been swindle with the jurisdictional assistance.

What is false within sight of the financial standing of separate Mr LABORIE André in fact of Mrs LABORIE Suzette, the latter being the subject of a diversion characterized by the magistrates' court strong money sums on the wages of Mrs LABORIE in violation of the fair labor standards act in its article R 145-13 “of law and order ”

That consequently within sight of these elements Maître TIGHTENS ROCH could continue to defend the interests of Mr LABORIE André to the title of the jurisdictional assistance.

Specifying whereas the facts complained of Mr LABORIE André are inaccurate and cannot exist, Mr LABORIE André was arbitrarily put in detention for one two years duration is of February 14, 2006 to September 14, 2007 without still to date that its various grounds for appeal on the penal continuations are heard in front of a court. (it was judged in violation of all the legal provisions of law and order , article 6-1 of the CEDH and others).

On this insult car-forged by the room of shouted and guaranteed by the parquet floor of Toulouse, a complaint was deposited for denunciation libelous near the Gendarmerie of Orens Saint against his authors during my hearing in January 2006, felt sorry for still to date remained unanswered of the authorities.

Mr SUCKERS President of the Room of shouted.

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

Mr UNDERMINES Michel directly took part to make obstacle with the rights of defense of Mr LABORIE André, returned to the benefit from Master FRANCES Avocate acting for the account of his customer Commerzbank, the latter benefitting from the absence of defense to introduce false elements with the room of shouted and to obtain a judgement of subrogation for purposes of continuations in dated June 29, 2006 seizure of property .

That the judgement of subrogation was registered out of intellectual forgery in writing, recorded at the Clerk's office of the T.G I of Toulouse, denounced with the parts and Mister the Public prosecutor, the whole enrôlé at the clerk's office of the T.G.I OF Toulouse.

(see below course of all the procedure of seizure of property)

That by complicity : These facts are repressed penally by the articles : 441-1; 441-2 ; 441-4 ; 441-5 ; 441-6 of the penal code; Facts repressed by articles 313-1 to 313-3 and 311-12 of the penal code; Fact repressed by article 314-1 to 314-4 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by articles 432-8 of the penal code; Fact repressed by  articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the penal code.

The lawyer FRANCES SCP ; MERCIE; ESPENAN,

acting on behalf of the Commerzbank Bank.

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

Master FRANCES acting for the SCP and the account of his customer Commerzbank in June 2006 opened proceedings of subrogation for purposes to continue the preceding procedure of seizure of property vitiated on the bottom and the form, without debate, without executory title, by forgery and use of forgery as below explained in the procedure of seizure of property, benefitting from the absence of Mr LABORIE André, of legal ignorance  Mrs LABORIE and nonpossibility of being assisted by a lawyer to deposit a statement in dispute.

Master FRANCES acting for the SCP and the account of his customer Commerzbank produced false credits.

Master FRANCES acting for the SCP and the account of his customer Commerzbank produced an assignment mortage holder sullied with not signed nullity of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and registered as a false intellectual, deposited at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse, denounced with the parts and Mister the Public prosecutor of Toulouse.

Master FRANCES acting for the SCP and the account of his customer Commerzbank put forward a stop of the supreme court of appeal which is registered as false intellectuals, recorded at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse denounced with the parts and Mister the Public prosecutor .

Master FRANCES acting for the SCP and the account of his customer Commerzbank drew up a project of distribution for thirds and on behalf of Commerzbank whereas Mister and Mrs LABORIE are not debtor, they rather credit with are seen accounting records brought.

That the will to harm the interests of Mister and Mrs LABORIE is characterized in the writings below and parts to be been worth in its form, in spite of a dispute of this project of distribution in front of the judge of the execution, Maître FRANCES as usual is made approve this project of distribution whereas a procedure in dispute was hanging in front of the judge of the execution and with an only aim of diverting the sum of 260.000 euros at its ends.

That by complicity : These facts are repressed penally by the articles : 441-1; 441-2 ; 441-4 ; 441-5 ; 441-6 of the penal code; Facts repressed by articles 313-1 to 313-3 and 311-12 of the penal code; Fact repressed by article 314-1 to 314-4 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by articles 432-8 of the penal code; Fact repressed by  articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the penal code.

SCP CATUGIER, DUSAN; BOURRASSET, acting for the account of its customers, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS,

limited liability company LTMDB represented by its manager Mr TEULE Laurent, Main CHARAS Notary

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

Whereas Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS become dated December 21, 2006 contractor, this one not being conformed to the posterior obligations and formalities to the adjudication.

That within sight of the action of resolution carried out dated February 9, 2007 for fraud of the procedure of seizure of property whose judgement of adjudication, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS its right of ownership lost.

That  via its council SCP CATUGIER, DUSAN; BOURRASSET diligenté many irregular acts on the form and the bottom, in complicity of limited liability company LTMDB represented by its manager Mr TEULE Laurent.

While misleading by forgery and use of forgery the registrar of mortgages.

While misleading by forgery and use of false Master CHARAS Notary to obtain a change of property by a transfer. (See inscription of false intellectuals regularly deposited at the clerk's office, denounced with the parts and Mister the Public prosecutor).

By misleading the magistrates' court of Toulouse to obtain an ordinance of expulsion which was put in execution whereas Mister and Mrs LABORIE are always owners.

By misleading the magistrates' court of Toulouse while making the point that the judgement of adjudication had been regularly meant the 15 and February 22, 2007 whereas they obtained clerk's office the gross of the judgement of adjudication only on February 27, 2007.

By misleading the magistrates' court while making the point that the publication of the judgement of adjudication was regular dated March 20, 2007 whereas by the action of resolution into dated February 9, 2007, this him Ci could not be to publish on the base of article 750 of the acpc.

(See inscription of false intellectuals regularly deposited at the clerk's office, denounced with the parts and Mister the Public prosecutor).

That limited liability company LTMDB after having obtained by forgery and use of forgery a document of title to date registered out of forgery, carried out another act of kindness whose forgery, a lease of hiring to Mr TEULE to occupy our residence with impunity.

That the latter, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS and its accomplices ordered irregular expulsion on March 27, 2008 with the assistance and the complicity of the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES and BALLUTEAUD, by misleading the prefecture and the gendarmerie of Orens Saint while putting forward decisions of court obtained by forgery and use of forgery.

To see the course of the procedure below.

That by complicity : These facts are repressed penally by the articles : 441-1; 441-2 ; 441-4 ; 441-5 ; 441-6 of the penal code; Facts repressed by articles 313-1 to 313-3 and 311-12 of the penal code; Fact repressed by article 314-1 to 314-4 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by articles 432-8 of the penal code; Fact repressed by  articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the penal code.

The SCP Of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD, acting for the account of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

This SCP of ushers A acts by false intellectuals in concealment of all its irregular acts, included in the inscription of false intellectual deposited at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse, denounced with the parts and Mister the Public prosecutor (see part inscription of forgery).

And to have expelled to us at the request of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS  on March 27, 2008 of our residence with as a preliminary: provided false elements to the Prefecture  of the H.G to obtain  assistance  police force.

That this SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD removed all the pieces of furniture and objects of our residence, act considered of worsened flight.

That by complicity : These facts are repressed penally by the articles : 441-1; 441-2 ; 441-4 ; 441-5 ; 441-6 of the penal code; Facts repressed by articles 313-1 to 313-3 and 311-12 of the penal code; Fact repressed by article 314-1 to 314-4 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by articles 432-8 of the penal code; Fact repressed by  articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the penal code.

On the attack with the action of justice: Fact repressed by:

Article 434-4 of the penal code.

In a time not prescribed by the law the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was the subject of a diversion and a violation of their residence in plot of the people above quoted and of which the offences were raised.

Mr LABORIE André engaged of many civil procedures to dispute the procedure which was done against the interests of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

That the obstacles are permanant with the access to justice by the people continued above, acting to date always in plot to make obstacle with the procedures and not to seek their civil liabilities and to obtain provisional measures on the serious facts raised and undergone by the applicants with the felt sorry for action and against the authors whose.

Requirements of article 6 of the European Convention of safeguard of the human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“Any person is entitled so that its cause is heard equitably, (...) by an independent and impartial court, established by the law, which will decide, either of the disputes on its rights and obligations of civil nature, or of the cogency of any penal charge (...) directed against it ".

Contents of this guarantee of the “equitable” lawsuit is to ensure very justiciable a lawsuit honest and balanced and the first requirement to reach that point is that of a right of access to the judge : any person wishing to bring an action entering the field of application of Convention must have a suitable recourse so that a judge hears it,

The European Court specified that this right of access must be an effective right, this effectivity covering itself two requirements:

Lfirst requirement has is that the jurisdictional recourse recognized by the State leads to a real and sufficient jurisdictional control; the seized court must be qualified in full jurisdiction to be able to slice the business as well in right as in fact;

Lsecond requirement has is that there is a real possibility for the parts of reaching the justice i.e. they do not undergo any obstacle likely to practically prevent them from exerting their right (the stages, being this second requirement were the stop Airey C Ireland in 1979, the stop Belley at the end of 1995 and Eglise the catholic stop of Canée C Greece at the end of 1997), it is as well as economic conditions should not deprive a person of the possibility of seizing a court and for this reason, it is up to the States to ensure this freedom by setting up a system of legal assistance for the most stripped or in the cases where the complexity of the legal reasoning requires it ;

· In the same way a legal obstacle can also make of it the exercise illusory (Geouffre stop of Pradelle of December 16, 1992)(3).

General principles of the Community legislation

Article 13 convention poses the principle, for the people, of right to an effective recourse in front of a national authority when there are violation of the recognized rights and freedoms, even if this violation is the fact of “people acting in the performance of their official duties".


 Article 14 prohibited any form of discrimination as for the pleasure of these rights and freedoms, discrimination “based in particular on the sex, the race, the color, the language, the religion, the opinions political or all other opinions, the national or social origin, membership of a national minority, fortune, birth or any other situation ".

ON the OBSTCLE WITH the SASINE OF the JUDGE OF the SUMMARY PROCEDURE, AND the JUDGE OF the EXECUTION

Whereas there is a disorder obviously characterized with the law and order, Mr LABORIE André acting for the interests of Mister and Madam and for the legal community, are to date with dilatory obstacles so that the causes are not heard in front of a court.

With the pretext which the assignment would be null within sight of article 648 of the ncpc.

However it is not the case, this argumentation raised by the opposing parties and followed its  Presidents is with an only aim which the causes are not intended to make null the assignment and to protect the authors from the facts raised against the culprits of its embezzlements which cannot be disputed within sight of the writings and parts regularly deposited causing objections to Mister and Mrs LABORIE

The case of figure is retained of denial of justice.

ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DIFFERENT ONES  ASSIGNMENTS

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are since March 27, 2008 without fixed residence or they were expelled of their property by the violation of their residence, which cannot be reproached to them to date the latter, consequences of the punishable intrigues of the authors continued above and having taken part in the procedure of seizure of property per forgery and use of forgery and in violation of articles 4; 14-15-16 of the ncpc and article 6-1 and 6-3 of the CEDH of which they are victims still to date.

That the rights of defense are of law and order.

That article 648 of the ncpc must make it possible to identify the parts for this purpose of being able to mean any acts to them.

          That the assignment identifies the parts well.

          That it is possible to mean any act on the base of article 659 of the ncpc.

That various bailiffs could mean various acts with Mister and Mrs LABORIE in their dated March 27, 2008 residence violated as well as many correspondences addressed by the authorities.

Recalling:

Art. 659  (Décr.  NO 89-511 of the 20 juill. 1989)   When the person with whom it act must be meant has neither residence, neither residence, nor place of work known, the bailiff draws up a report where it reports with precision diligences which it achieved to seek the recipient of the act.

 

  The same day or, to later the first next working day, hardly of nullity, the bailiff sends to the recipient, with the last known address, by letter registered with request for notice of receipt, a copy of the official report to which is joined a copy of the act object of the significance.

  The very same day, the bailiff warns the recipient, by simple letter, of the achievement of this formality.

  The provisions of this article are applicable to the significance of an act concerning a legal entity who does not have any more establishment known with the place indicated like registered office by the register commercial and companies.  - V.  art. 693. - Modified Article applicable as from Sept. 15. 1989.

That all contrary requests for the opposing party are once again, that delaying tactics to return inadmissible Mister and Mrs LABORIE to date the latter victims to be heard in front of a court

That all contrary requests are with an only aim with the opposing party of continuing and of confirming the diversion of the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and strong money sums without an executory title and whereas they are themselves guilty and authors “opposing party” of this situation and facts which theirs are reproached.

That all contrary and badly founded disputes of the councils of  opposing parties could be the subject of concealment.

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE are always owner of their residence although they were expelled by many acts of kindnesses carried out by the various authors assigned above in front of Mr. President ruling in summary procedure.

Very briefly recall of the procedure:

To the court of a procedure of seizure of property made by the fraud, in violation of all the rights of defense, by forgery and use of forgery, a judgement of adjudication was given on December 21, 2006 with the profit of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS.

That an action of resolution for fraud of the procedure of seizure of property whose judgement of adjudication was carried out by assignment of the parts before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse into dated February 9, 2007.

That by the action of resolution for fraud, the effects are the same ones as in the procedure of irresponsible bid, the contractor loses his right of ownership and the property returns to seized. “Is Mister and Mrs LABORIE”

That from this action of resolution the judgement of adjudication cannot be published article 750 of the acpc.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS on the base of the article 1599 of the civil code cannot sell a good of which it did not obtain the freehold yet, the sale is null and can give to damages when the purchaser with ignored that the thing was with others.

That within sight of article 2212 of the civil code, the sale is null full, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS did not pay within two month the price of the adjudication.

That within sight of article 2211, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS cannot sell the good.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS cannot claim in a schedule of conditions which made available forever of the parts seized “of law and order” and which could not be the subject of a debate, deprived of all the means of defense, imprisoned Mr LABORIE and that no lawyer intervened to deposit a statement to raise disputes on the bottom and the form of the procedure of seizure of property (reason of the action resolution).

That with the surplus, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not seize the magistrates' court to obtain an ordinance of expulsion by forgery and use of forgery, it makes the point that the dated March 20, 2007 publication is regular whereas on the base of article 750 of the acpc “   of law and order” that the publication could not be done.

That with the surplus, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not seize the magistrates' court to obtain an ordinance of expulsion by forgery and use of forgery, it puts forward which the gross of the judgement of adjudication would have regularly meant on February 15 and on February 22, 2007 then which is pertinamant that it received the assignment in action of resolution on February 9, 2007 and which by the intermediary of its council the gross of the judgement of adjudication obtained only on February 27, 2007.

That the fraud of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS is well carractérisée and undeniable of the opposing parties is with an only aim and for concealment of its intrigues.

These dilictueux acts must be sanctioned and it is the reason of the sasine of Mr. President ruling as regards summary procedure, judge of the obviousness to order provisional measures for in parraliser its effefs.

That it cannot thus be reproached Mister and dislodged Mrs LABORIE of their residence with impunity to the law into dated March 27, 2008 and the demnade Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTER, violation of their residence, to have been constrained to preserve their correspondence to have carried out the transfer of the mail to the postmaster address of Orens Saint and in waiting that provisional measures are taken by the court seized as regards summary procedure and on standby that justice orders their rehabilitation.

That to date Mister and Mrs LABORIE strictly respect diligences of the application of article 648 of the ncpc, in the measurement which no objection can be caused with all and all which would wish to send a simple mail, or in recommended, or any significance of act per bailiff, the law envisaging in such a case the application of article 659 of the ncpc and like above mentioned.

The opposing parties cannot be prevailed of a legal situation for which they are the only persons in charge délictueusement to have délictueusement made it.

That it is pointed out that non the compliance with a rule of law and order prevents the birth of a right and consequently does not allow the acquisition of this right by the flow of time, “preclusion”

The parts with the authority are inadmissible in their demands for the nullity of the regular assignments.

That by these various obstacles with the access to a court on the legal basis of article 648 of the ncpc is inoperative and dilatory “false”, opposite in its application of article 6 and 6-1 of the CEDH 

That by complicity against X : These facts are repressed penally by the articles : 441-1 ; 441-2; 441-4 ; 441-5 ; 441-6 of the penal code; Facts repressed by articles 313-1 with

 

Page 60

 

313-3 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by article 314-1 to 314-4 and 311-12 of the penal code ; Fact repressed by articles 432-8 of the penal code; Fact repressed by  articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the penal code and in its article 434-4 of the penal code.

UNFOLDING OF  PROCEDURE OF SEIZURE IMMOBILIERE MADE BY THE FRAUD

OF WHICH JUDGEMENT Of ADJUDICATION OF December 21, 2006.

The explanations below take again the conclusions regularly deposited before the Court of Appeal in a procedure of revision and for the audience of May 5, 2009 or Mister the Prosecutor General was informed.

INTRODUCTION

Will be analyzed before the Court of Appeal how the fraud has continued by Maître FRANCES acting on behalf of Commerzbank against Mister and Mrs LABORIE in a procedure of seizure of property made during its imprisonment to February 6 2006 at September 14, 2007, deprived of any means of defense to deposit a statement by lawyer to raise the disputes in the procedure.

I/Recalling to the above-named ones

II/Reasons of the petition for review

III/On the admissibility of the petition for review

IV/On the violation of the rights of defense, refusal of Mister the Barristers president, the authorities to obtain a lawyer to deposit a statement.

V/On the nullity of the command of October 20, 2003, time limitation of authority, end not to receive.

VI/On the end not to receive, time limitation of authority of Commerzbank in its procedure of subrogation, Mister and Mrs LABORIE are credit of the latter.

VII/On the posterior procedure of the judgement of adjudication, obtaining an ordinance of expulsion, return of the property to Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

VIII/On the posterior procedure with the ordinance of irregular expulsion of which call

IX/On dated March 27, 2008 irregular expulsion and the absence of grounds for appeal in front of the judge of the execution.

X/On the undergone damages.

XI To the compensation for the undergone damages and the academies measures to take to guarantee the compensation for Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

XII/On the requests at the Court of Appeal. “by these reasons”

I/RECALLING TO THE ABOVE-NAMED ONES :

The petition for review tends to make retract the stop passed in force of judged thing so that it is again ruled in fact and in right within sight of article 593 of the NCPC and the annexed parts obtained subsequently to the procedure made by the council of Commerzbank.

The Court of Appeal is qualified to cancel a judgement of adjudication for violation of the rights of defense article 16 of the ncpc and article 6-1 of the CEDH “of law and order”.

Mr LABORIE acting for the interests of the community was private of lawyer to deposit a statement in dispute of the procedure of seizure of property diligentée by Maître FRANCES acting for the account of his customer Commerzbank

II /Reasons of the petition for review

Mister and Mrs LABORIE form a petition for review to  seen article 595 of the code of civil procedure , knowing that [[l’]]stop of May 21, 2007 N°: RG 07/00984, was returned by false elements produced by the opposing party “Commerzbank”,

Applicants not having been able to put forward the causes of these false legal elements in front of the Course of call, Mr LABORIE Andre held at the Prison of Seysses of February 14, 2006 to March 20, 2007 and then transferred to the prison from Montauban 82000 until September 14, 2007.

Mr LABORIE André was the only one with being able to bring elements to the court, private of parts of procedure and file of seizure of property being in his residence in N° of street of Forging mill 31650 Orens Saint, private of straight of defense.

Mrs LABORIE Suzette which cannot bring any element not knowing procedure of seizure of property and various steps in progress in front of the room of shouted.

It is in this context that a procedure of seizure of property proceeded in violation of any principle of contradiction, without being able to act in front of the room of shouted in its audience of December 21, 2006 to deposit a statement, absence of the schedule of conditions and without to have been able to obtain a lawyer in the procedure by the refusal about lawyers to represent me and for the interests of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

· That the lawyer in this matter is obligatory. “of law and order ”

Preliminary recall:

Sasine of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse per assignment of the dated February 9 parts 2007 and to raise the fraud in obtaining the judgement of adjudication returned on December 21, 2006. “action of resolution of the sale”

· Defraud upstream judgement of adjudication and fraud to the procedure of seizure of property made by the council of Commerzbank.

Decision of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse in its stop of May 21, 2007 to the following reasons:

Refuse the application of cancellation of the judgement of adjudication to the reasons that the judgement of adjudication has a specific nature as it does not constitute a court order slicing a litigation but is limited to the legal observation of a sale on the conditions of the schedule of conditions and on the price determined by the ways of bidding and to considering Mister and Mrs LABORIE did not raise any statement in front of the room of shouted before the adjudication.

Mrs LABORIE Suzette having given to be able to Mr LABORIE André alone to know of it procedure, this last in the incapacity to defend oneself being imprisoned and feet and hands bound, refusal about lawyers to intervene after sasine of Mister the Barristers president about lawyers on and attached  requests.

Under these conditions the Court of Appeal was to intervene to make cease “this disorder with the law and order”  the use of false intellectuals whose court had been already seized before on difficulties related to a command of October 20, 2003 irregularly delivered and irregularly published “contentious never distinct” and opposite with the contents of the decision of May 21, 2007 without wanting some to check of it the exactitude and only on the statements of the opposing party without hearing Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

The applicant one with the seizure of property “Commerzbank” by collusion and fraud to have obtained a judgement of subrogation whereas the latter cannot hold any credit against Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

It will be analyzed and shown that all the procedure of seizure of property, taken again by Commerzbank by a judgement of subrogation obtained on June 29, 2006 is sullied with nullity on the base of article 715 ANCPC.

That the procedure of seizure of property whose made the Mister object and Mrs LABORIE relates to the old procedure and founded with the continuation of the continuation with Commerzbank on the base of a command of October 20, 2003.

That this command of October 20, 2003 is sullied with nullity on the base of article 715 of the ACPC and for the reasons which will be shown below.

That consequently within sight of article 2215 of the civil code, the adjudication being able that to be made that after a judgment final in last spring or passed in force of judged thing.

The Court of Appeal is qualified concerning the fraud of the procedure in seizure of property for obstacle with the rights of defense “of law and order ” and to cancel the procedure until the sale by judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006, Mister and Mrs LABORIE are credit of Commerzbank.

III/On the admissibility of the petition for review :

The FRAUD article 595 of the NCPC

Art. 595 The petition for review is open only for one of the following causes:

  1. If it appears, after the judgement, that the decision was surprised by the fraud of the part to the profit of which it was returned;

  2. If, since the judgement, it were recovered decisive parts which had been retained by the fact of another part;

  3. If it were judged on recognized parts or judicially declared false since the judgement;

  4. If it were judged on certificates, testimonys or oaths judicially declared false since the judgement.

  In all these cases, the recourse is admissible only if its author could not, without fault of its share, to put forward the cause which he calls upon before the decision did not pass in force of judged thing.

Jurisprudences.

_  1. The enumeration made by the text of the causes is exhaustive. Paris,   13 janv. 1978: D. 1978. IR. 412, obs. Julien.  

_  2. The applicant, without fault of his share, must have had no possibility to put forward the cause, before the decision acquired force of judged thing. Civ. 2E,  March 21, 1979:   D. 1979. IR. 482, obs. Julien; RTD civ. 1979. 674, obs. Perrot   March 17, 1983: Gas. Stake. 1983. 2. Side. 227, obs. Guinchard   Paris,   Sept. 14. 2000: D. 2000. IR. 269. Comp.: Civ. 2E,  9 juill. 1986: Gas. Stake. 1986. 2. Side. 255   Versailles,   Dec 20 1988: D. 1989. Somm. 183, obs. Julien.   ... And it is to the applicant that it rests to be the proof of this impossibility. Civ. 2E,  March 10, 1988: Bull. civ. II, NO 63.  

_  A.  DEFRAUD.

_  3. The cause envisaged by art. 595 is the fraud and not the personal fraud. Civ. 2E,  21 juill. 1980:   Bull. civ. II, NO 190; Gas. Stake. 1981. 1. 154, Viatte note; RTD civ. 1981. 456, obs. Perrot.  

_  4. To mislead the judge constitutes a fraud. It is thus lies. Douai,   June 23, 1976: Gas. Stake. 1977. 1. 90.   ... Reserve. Ploughshare  Apr 29 1969: Bull. civ. V, NO 282  (extraordinary procedure against judgment) Paris,   June 11, 1982: Gas. Stake. 1982. 2. 562.   ... Operations. Civ. 2E,  16 juill. 1976: Bull. civ. II, NO 245.   … Omission of any mention relating to a natural child in a procedure of change of marriage settlement. Paris,   Oct 31 1996: D. 1997. 251, Even note,  and on appeal, Civ. 1Re,  5 janv. 1999:     préc. note 1 S. art. 594.   But the silence observed by the husband on his love life does not constitute a fraud likely to involve the revision of the judgement of divorce pronounced with the wrongs of his wife. Civ. 2E,  24 janv. 1996:   Procédures 1996. Com. 73, obs. Perrot.  

_  4 (a). Only a fraudulent act the silence kept by a part on facts disputed by the other part can constitute or of which it is asked to him to return account (other than the silence of a part on facts which are not reproached to him and on which no explanation is required of him). Toulouse,   1er juill. 2003: Cah. jurispr. Aquitaine 2003, NO 3, p. 628.  

_  5. The use of forged coins, well that causes distinct, can also be an element of the fraud. Civ. 2E,  Oct 22 1981: Gas. Stake. 1982. 1. Side. 107.   Thus, being a judgement of adoption intervened whereas at the day of the presentation of the request the applicant was deceased, if the absence of denunciation to the Parquet floor by the adoptee of the death of adopting and the act noting it is not enough to characterize the fraud of the adoptee, the revelation of this act corresponds in any case to the covering of a decisive part who had been retained by the fact of the adoptee and constitutes a case of opening of the petition for review, envisaged to art. 595. Versailles,   Nov 22 2001: BICC 2002, NO 778.  

_  6. The fraud supposes the intention to mislead. Dijon,   Apr 6 1976: JCP 1977. II. 18648, note J. A.; RTD civ. 1977. 590, obs. Norman.  

_  7. The fraud must have been decisive. Civ. 2E, March 17, 1983: Gas. Stake. 1983. 2. Side. 227.  

_  8. The courts dealing with the substance of a case appreciate the fraud supremely. Civ. 2E,  21 juill. 1980:   Bull. civ. II, NO 190; Gas. Stake. 1981. 1. 154, Viatte note   Civ. 2E, 12 févr. 2004:   Bull. civ. II, nO 64; D. 2004. IR. 736; Rev. arb. 2004. 359, Rivier note; JCP 2004. I. 179, NO 5, obs. Fancy; Gas. Stake. 13 March 15, 2005, p. 23, obs. of Rusquec.   For an example of fraud of a petitioning husband in divorce, having hidden, all at the same time, with its wife the existence of the procedure diligentée in its opposition and the court the address to which this one could be joined for the needs for the authority, V. TGI Paris,   March 23 2004: AJ fam. 2004. 456, obs. David. 

_  B.  RETENTION OF PARTS.

_  9. The part must be voluntarily retained by the gaining part. Civ. 2E,  Apr 28 1980: Bull. civ. II, NO 93   3 juill. 1985:   Bull. civ. II, NO 135; D. 1986. IR. 228, obs. Julien; Gas. Stake. 1986. 1. Somm. 91, obs. Guinchard and Moussa.   ... Or by a third provided that the gaining part were accessory. Civ. 2E,  3 févr. 1982: Gas. Stake. 1982. 2. 620, Viatte note.   On the voluntary character of the retention, V. Paris,   June 11, 1982: Gaz. Stake. 1982. 2. 562.   A will recovered subsequently to the decision whose revision is continued cannot be regarded as having been the subject of a retention within the meaning of art. 595, since it is not pled that this part was voluntarily retained. Civ. 1Re,  12 juill. 1994:   Bull. civ. I, NO 254.  

_  10. The part must be decisive, in this direction which there must be a strong probability that its knowledge by the judge would have led this one to make a different decision. Amiens,   2 juill. 1979: D. 1979. IR. 540; JCP 1980. IV. 232   Civ. 2E,  Oct 2 1985: JCP 1985. IV. 354.  

 

_  C.  FORGED COINS.

_  11. The forged coin must have been decisive. Ploughshare  Dec 10 1980: Gas. Stake. 1981. 1. Side. 134.  

_  12. The recognition of falseness is understood by the consent of the part which in made use. Civ. 3E,  Dec 13 1989: D. 1990. IR. 19.

_  13. The destruction abroad of a judgement cannot be compared to a legal declaration of forgery. Civ. 1Re,  Nov 12 1986: JCP 1987. IV. 29; Rev. crit. DIP 1987. 750, Kessedjian note.  

_  14. The forgery must be established the petition for review before and cannot be the subject of an incident of forgery in front of the judge of the revision. Civ. 1Re,  May 28, 1980: Bull. civ. I, NO 161   Civ. 2e,  17 févr. 1983: Bull. civ. II, NO 41.    

IV / Sur la violation des droits de défense,

refusal of the authorities to obtain a lawyer to deposit a statement.

Produced parts justifying the obstacles with the rights of defense of all the procedure of seizure of property in front of the room of shouted and the magistrates' court of Toulouse

 concerning the request for expulsion of the opposing party.

I/ On August 27, 2006 sasine of Mr. President to the room of shouted to defer the audience to end that a lawyer is named to deposit a statement.

II/ On August 27, 2006 sasine of SCP FRANCES and others to put an end to the procedure of seizure of property for absence of right of defense.

III/ Felt sorry for on August 27, 2006 with Mister the Senior of the examining magistrates for seizure iirégulière and obstacle with the rights of defense.

IV/ On September 4 2006 sasine of Mr Gilbert COUSTEAU President of the T.G.I of Toulouse to raise the difficulty of obtaining a lawyer and requires of jurisdictional assistance, remained unanswered.

V/ Ask on September 13, 2006 of the assistance to deposit a statement with Maître TIGHTENS ROCH lawyer in Toulouse.

VI/ Refusal of Master TIGHTENS ROCH by mail of September 22, 2006 to deposit a statement.

VII/ On September 24 2006 sasine of Mr PASCAL Clement Ministre for justice for difficulty in the procedure of seizure of property and obsatcles with the rights of defense.

VIII/ On September 24 2006 sasine of Mr DAVOST Prosecutor General for difficulty in the procedure of seizure of property and for obsatcles with the rights of defense.

IX/ October first, 2006 sasine of Mister the Barristers president to the order of lawyers of Toulouse for the appointment of a lawyer to deposit a statement.

X/ Information of Mr. President of the Room of shouted of the difficulties in obtaining a lawyer to deposit a statement and on October 11, 2006.

XI/ Refusal of Mister the Barristers president to name a lawyer to deposit a statement in its mail of October 25, 2006.

XII/ Sasine of Mr PAUL dated March 17, 2007 Michel to put an end to the procedure in front of the magistrates' court of Toulouse for lack of means to the defense of our interests.

XIII/ On April 28 2007 sasine of Mister the Barristers president to be assisted of a lawyer in, procedure of expulsion and for the audience of May 21, 2007 in front of the magistrates' court .

XIV/ On April 28, 2007 sasine of Mrs Aude CARASSOU  to inform it that I wished present and to be assisted by a lawyer and that in the configuration or I was, without defense and means which it seizes what of right so that the lawsuit is equitable.

XV/ Fax of the Prison of dated May 11, 2007 MONTAUBAN asking the presence in front of the court in its audience of May 21, 2007.

XVI/ Refusal of the order of lawyers of Toulouse by mail of May 21, 2007 to take the defense of my intérrêts in front of the magistrates' court of Toulouse.

XII/ Sasine on May 24 2007 of Master LAÎC Avocate in Toulouse to take my defense.

XVIII/ Refusal  of Master LAÎC Lawyer to intervene for the defense of our interests by mail of May 31.

V /On the nullity of the command of October 20, 2003, time limitation of authority,

 end not to receive.

V/1/ RECALL OF THE FACTS AND THE PROCEDURE.

The companies PAYMENTS NOT, CETELEM, ATHENA BANKS, continued the seizure of property of a building pertaining to Mr André LABORIE and Mrs Suzette PAGES his wife, located at Saint-Orens of Gameville (31.650), 2 rue de la Forge, following command for this purpose delivered to Mr André LABORIE, on October 22, 1999 and published in the Land Registry of Toulouse, volume 99 S n°27, on December 21, 1999.

That it was delivered on September 24, 2002, a command for purposes of seizure of property in Suzette PAGES and in the absence of Mr LABORIE André, in violation of all the legal provisions .

According to saying deposited on November 4, 2002, the creditors request the extension of the command of October 22, 1999 because of the procedures in progress in principle of the credit.

Husbands LABORIE supported in front of the room of shouted the nullity of the procedure of seizure of property; they also disputed the existence of the credits in particular because of the procedures of dispute in progress as well as penal complaints deposited against the creditors.

By judgement before saying right of November 28, 2002, the Court invited the parts to be explained contradictorily on the application of articles 674-688-715 of the Code of civil procedure old.

The Court had noted of effect, on the one hand that the schedule of conditions had not been deposited in the 40 days of the publication of the command delivered with Mr André LABORTE on October 22, 1999 carried out on December 21, 1999 and this in infringement in article 688 of the Code of civil procedure old.

Moreover, the Court noted that it was not justified publication of the command delivered on September 24, 2002 with Mrs Suzette PAGES.

After reopening of the debates, it was noted the forfeiture of the continuation on committed seizure of property with meeting of Mr André LABORIE and that that committed against Mrs Suzette PAGES is not worth not seized.

Le 19 décembre 2002, le Tribunal, statuant publiquement, en matière d'incident de saisie immobilière et en dernier ressort, a constaté la déchéance de la poursuite sur saisie immobilière engagée par les Sociétés PAIEMENT PASS, CETELEM, ATHENA BANQUE à l'encontre de Monsieur André LABORIE suivant commandement du 22 octobre 1999 publié le 21 décembre 1999 à la conservation des hypothèques de Toulouse volume 1999 S numéro 27.

The Court also ordered the radiation of the procedure of seizure of property, ordered the replevin of the command of seizure published in the Land Registry of Toulouse on December 21, 1999 and said that in the absence of publication of the delivered command with Mrs LABORIE on September 24, 2002, the Room of Shouted is not validly seized.

By request deposited at the clerk's office on March 11, 2003, companies CETELEM, ATHENA BANKS, PAYMENT NOT S asked via their council, the reopening of the debates to the reasons that the second original of September 24, 2002 with mention of publicity was turned over to the prosecuting lawyer on January 23, 2003 as in fact faith the postal seal and that for the resumption of the seizure, and to avoid a refusal to publish which will be necessarily opposed during the three years of the publication of the command referred to above, it is necessary with the Judge of the Room of Shouted to note the forfeiture of the procedure initiated in the opposition and to order the radiation of this publication made in TOULOUSE (3eme office) on October 2, 2002, volume 202 S n°14, faute de quoi aucune autre poursuite ne pourra être utilement reprise pendant une nouvelle période de 3 ans.

That this request of March 11, 2003 is null and not avenue was written for the account of these three companies whose one Athéna company banks which did not have any more a legal existence since  December 2000, erased with the register commercial and companies.

That within sight of the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal of dated May 16, 2006 Toulouse, this one confirms the legal inexistence of the Athéna company banks since December 2000 implying the nullity of all the procedural documents. (enclosure) of which capacity in seizure of property of September 9, 2002.

That the judgement obtained on this request of March 11, 2003 is not avenue.

That these three companies CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA bank succumb in  their action for forfeiture and are private to deliver a new command for one three years duration is until December 19, 2005.

However, in spite of this forfeiture, on September 5, 2003, a new command for purposes of seizure of property was delivered at the request of companies CETELEM, ATHENA BANKS and SA PAYMENTS not having elected residence in the DRIVEN cabinet of Master WHO.

Mr André LABORIE and Mrs Suzette PAGES assigned in front of the Judge of the Execution to raise the end not to receive and the nullity of the command for purposes of seizure of property while basing itself on nonthe existence of the company Athéna Banque and on the bottom of the requests.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE saw themselves refused their applications in dispute, they formed call of the decision.

That the Court of Appeal made right to nullity of the command of September 5, 2003 by the stop of May 16 2006  for nonthe existence of the company Athéna Banks and all the acts y contiguous to the procedure.

That by the stop of the Court of Appeal of dated May 16, 2006 Toulouse, the judgement of December 19, 2002 returned by the room of shouted with executory force ordering the forfeiture of the procedure of seizure of property consequently forfeiture to deliver a new command for one three years duration.

If the continuations were to be taken again, those could not be taken again not before December 19 2005.

That consequently the command of October 20, 2003 cannot be which occurred on behalf of companies CETELEM, NOT, AGF, more especially as company AGF with the RCS indicated on the command, this company does not have any more a legal existence since February 13 2003 erased with the register commercial and companies of PARIS.

That the command of October 20, 2003 is null, and cannot be published in the Land Registry.

That consequently the room of shouted was irregularly seized and that all the posterior acts with the judgement of December 19, 2002 are null automatically until December 19 2005.

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE disputed the command of October 20, 2003 by assignment of the parts in front of the judge of the execution, or they are seen refused their founded applications.

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE by their Maître council TIGHTEN ROCH Avocat deposited a statement in dispute of the form of the procedure and on the bottom of the irregular requests founded on credits whose judgement alleged were never meant on the base of article 503 of the ncpc and within the time of article 478 of the ncpc.

This statement regularly deposited was rejected and various incidental decisions have were returned, they did everything the object of a call.

That within sight of these disputes by recourse made of Mister and Mrs LABORIE before the Court of Appeal, the room of shouted represented by its president in his audience of May 27, 2004, suspended the continuations in seizure of property. (herewith judgement of May 27, 2004)

That since December 19, 2002 and within sight of the request of March 11, 2003 sullied with nullity by the end not to receive company Athéna banks in its single act at the three companies, of the nullity of the command of September 5, 2003 and these contiguous acts consequently implying the nullity of the command of October 20, 2003 and of its contiguous irregular acts.

The council of these three companies did not make any posterior act at December 19, 2005 to make deliver a new command for purposes of seizure of property and within two year on the base of article 386 of the ncpc, there is time limitation of authority.

That within sight of all these elements, the command of October 20, 2003 cannot exist juridically, of this fact it cannot be published, it cannot be proceeded to the necessary formalities these irregularities are sanctioned by article 715 of the acpc.

 

That the fraud is characterized in the procedure of seizure of property diligentée by Maître MUSQUI for the account of its three customers.

· That there is in more time limitation of authority on the base of article 386 of the ncpc.

That Maître FRANCES Acting on behalf of Commerzbank cannot be prevailed of the irregular command of October 20, 2003 to require subrogation of the continuations for purposes of seizure of property and to withdraw of it from all the obligations procedure, in a new other and schedule of conditions that it obliges it.

How this one acting on behalf of Commerzbank, was to make deliver a command for purposes of seizure of property and justify of a liquid some and exigible credit, which it did not do!! and to respect the deposit of a summation schedule of conditions , to take note and others of them.

That all these formalities miss .

VI /On the end not to receive, time limitation of authority of Commerzbank in its procedure of subrogation.

INCOMPETANCE OF the TOULOUSE JURISDICTION by the stop of the supreme court of appeal returned on October 4, 2000

IN SA SASINE OF THE ROOM OF THE CRIEES.

CASSATION Dispossession effect of the jurisdiction having ruled.

LEGIFRANCE November 22, 2005 N° (herewith)

The judge whose decision is broken is, by the effect of the stop of cassation, deprived of full right of the business. This rule is of law and order and its non-observance must be raised of office by the judge.

Commerzbank is not creditor of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, the latter are not debtor: (herewith countable state):

ON THE ALLEGED CREDIT OF THE COMMERZBANK

Commerzbank cannot be creditor of Mister and Mrs LABORIE within sight of the writings below and enclosures .

END NOT TO RECEIVE COMMERZBANK

Time limitation of authority for purposes of seizure of property article 386 of the ncpc.

Phase N° I

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were continued in front of the room of shouted in 1996 by Commerzbank.

Commerzbank could not be creditor of Mister and Mrs LABORIE to see form of mortage state to the Land Registry, the capital having to be refunded in 2012 by an insurance LOYD.

 

Page 70

 

That Commerzbank is not creditor of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, herewith of the countable state on the statements of account provided after the stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse March 16, 1998.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were not even with the current which there was a notarial act of assignment mortage holder not signed.

Mr LABORIE André in took note only of this notarial act in a procedure of appeal in cancellation of the judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006, while it was imprisoned, notarial act not signed parts being consequently sullied with nullity. “false in public writing deposited at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse and denounced to the parts”

Recall of the preceding procedure made by Commerzbank:

Commerzbank made continue in seizure of property in 1996 Mister and Mrs LABORIE in front of the room of shouted

That in 1996 Mister and Mrs LABORIE were represented by a lawyer who knew nothing as regards seizure of property there, and even less Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

That two judgements were given condemning Mister and Mrs LABORIE whereas the assignment mortage holder was null and that the capital was to be refunded by an insurance the LOYD in 2012 and not by Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

That these two judgements were never meant to put them in execution on the base of article 503 of the ncpc and within the time of article 478 of the ncpc, these judgements are non which occurred. 

Phase N° II

By declaration of May 15, 1997 Mister and Mrs LABORIE raised call of these two judgements.

Consequently these two judgements are not executory, they were never meant.

1- Judgement of September 5, 1996.

2- Judgement of March 13, 1997.

For nondistinct disputes, “a new lawyer intervened in the procedure of LAIC Maître appeal”.

The Court of Appeal on March 16, 1998 cancelled the loan against the Bank Commerzbank, stop of the Court of Appeal executory and having authority of the final decision. For violation of the rules of law and order in accordance with the law applicable to the moment of the contract.

Phase III Commerzbank formed an appeal in cassation.

That a judgment of the supreme court of appeal was handed down on October 4, 2000 contradictorily with the applicant of the capacity “Commerzbank” and by defect in the opposition to Mister and Mrs LABORIE, breaking the stop of March 16, 1998 and returning the procedure on the jurisdiction of Bordeaux.

· PS : That this stop makes the following observation, no contradictory procedure, absence of lawyer and refusal of the jurisdictional assistance. ” violation of articles 6; 6-1; 6-3; 13 of the CEDH.

That this stop is the object to date of “false in public writing deposited at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse and denounced to the parts”

The decision is contrary with the application of the law at the time of the contract, the new law applied to start from 1996 in its decision  is not retroactive with the contract carried out in 1992.

Although the stop of the supreme court of appeal is registered as false intellectuals, recorded with the T.G.I of Toulouse and denounced to the parts with the authority, Mister the Prosecutor general and Mister the First President meadows the supreme court of appeal. (herewith part with the file)

Observations on the Jurisdiction of reference. Starting point of the time of sasine

The four months deadline fixed by article 1034 of the Code of civil procedure is of law and order .

It starts to run as of the notification by the clerk's office of the decision of cassation between parts without being able to be prolonged by the effect of one second notification, with the initiative of the appealing one, even if this notification intervened within the time opened by the preceding one (Case. 2nd civ., Apr 3 2003 : N° Juris-dated 2003-018470; Bull. civ. 2003, II, n° 91).

That the stop  was contradictory for the applicant : that is to say Commerzbank and that the time to act before the Court of Appeal of reference on the base of article 1034 was 4 months under penalty of preclusion.

That the judgment was handed down by defect against Mister and Mrs LABORIE, that this stop to put it in execution had on the base of article 503 of the NCPC being notified by significance of bailiff on the base of article 658 of the NCPC at the request of Commerzbank with Mister and Mrs LABORIE and within the time prescribes in article 478 of the ncpc.

Times to act of Commerzbank :

The parts are held to approach the court concerning reference within four month envisaged in article 1034 of the new code of civil procedure and in that of two years envisaged in article 386 of the same code under penalty of time limitation of the authority.

The judgment delivered contradictorily against the commerzbank, the latter was to approach the court concerning reference of the prononé sound, this which did not make.

That after cassation of a stop the authority of call continues in front of the jurisdiction of reference that in the case of a stop of cassation pronounced contradictorily, the time of time limitation runs as from the stop and not of its significance.

That this stop of October 4, 2000 returned by defect against Mister and Mrs LABORIE was to be meant by the Commerzbank Bank within 4 month and at the latest within the time prescribes in its article 478 of the ncpc and on the base of article 503 of the ncpc to put it in execution to allow Mister and Mrs LABORIE the sasine of the Court of Appeal of reference.

That article 478 is not applicable to a judgment of the supreme court of appeal contradictorily handed down but applicable to a judgment delivered by defect, which is the case in the species in the opposition to Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

By its deficiency, within sight of article 478 of the ncpc, Commerzbank is not avenue in its execution of the stop of October 4 returned by the supreme court of appeal irregularly meant June 5, 2001.

That this stop of October 4, 2000 was contradictory to the applicant of the appeal “Commerzbank”, and was to also approach the court concerning reference.

Time of article 1034 of the new code of civil procedure :

The court of reference must be seized before the expiry of a four months deadline as from the notification of the judgment of cassation handed down made with the part contradictorily.

In the procedures with obligatory representation, the notification with lawyer of the part, if it does not make run the time, is at least a precondition necessary, hardly of nullity of the notification to the part, and mention of the achievement of this formality must be carried in the formal notification intended for the part (article 678 of the new code of civil procedure).

Mister and Mrs LABORIE had an obstacle to obtain a lawyer with the title of the jurisdictional assistance before the supreme court of appeal violation to an effective recourse and with the jurisdictional assistance.

That there was not consequently a notification with lawyer.

The notification is made at the request of the diligent part and, in this case, the time also runs against itself.

It however was judged, on the assumption where the stop of the Supreme court of appeal had been notified with certain parts but not with others, which the four months deadline had not started to run to meeting of the part which had notified the stop (Corn., December 17 2003, appeal n° 00-22.414).

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were private to take note of the stop of cassation of October 4, 2000 returned by defect within 4 month of that Ci by the absence of significance at the request of Commerzbank article 1034 of the ncpc, of this fact which cannot approach the court concerning reference.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were private to take note of the stop of October 4, 2000 within 6 month applicable to the commerzbank article 478 of the ncpc to put forward the setting in execution on the base of article 503 of the ncpc, of this rechef, not being able to approach the court concerning reference.

On the irregular significance of June 5, 2001.

When well even it is except time of article 478 of the ncpc, this significance is against article 1034 of the ncpc.

That this irregular significance made available forever of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and for reasons Ci afterwards:

No letter or transit advice note was left to inform of the passage of the usher: article 658 of the NCPC.

Article 658 of the ncpc :  2. When the usher gives copy of an act in town hall, the deposit of a transit advice note and the sending of a simple letter are hardly required of nullity, as well as the mention of these formalities in the original of the act. Civ. 2E,  Dec 10 1975: Bull. civ. II, NO 265  Nov 26 1986: JCP 1987. IV. 43.  Even solution in the case of a significance not with anybody, but in residence. Com.  Apr 14 1992:   Bull. civ. IV, NO 162. 

Commerzbank cannot put forward in its execution a stop of the supreme court of appeal of October 4, 2000 calling into question the stop of March 16, 1998, the significance of this stop being irregular on the form, was not meant in the person of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and like specifies it the act of usher of June 5, 2001 or the act was only deposited in town hall and violation of the texts, articles 653 to 658 of the NCPC.

The only obligation which weighs on the bailiff is to make an attempt at significance to anybody while going to his residence of the recipient: to represent themselves in the residence or to present themselves instead of work ( CA Toulouse, June 29 1994: N° 046293 Juris-dated ).

–

The bailiff can be satisfied with a simple printed pre mention noting that the significance with nobody had proven to be impossible, without carrying out all the operations of checks, in order to concretely show this impossibility which must result from the act itself (CA Aix Provence, 19 seven 1990: N°051896 Juris-dated. - Cass.2ème  civ, June 16, 1993: Bull. civ.ll, N°213. - Ca Toulouse, April 3 .1995: N° 042629 Juris-dated).

The bailiff must bring the proof that the act arrived well to its recipient.

The official report must precisely mention the diligences achieved by the bailiff to seek the recipient of the act (Civ. 2ème, November 3, 1993, Bull. civ. II. N°312, JCP, 1994, IV. 24).

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were private to seize the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux wine so that is discussed the disputes raised before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse, on the bottom and the form of the procedure and the credit even of Commerzbank, the assignment mortage holder, and the guarantee by the insurance life DEUTSCHE LLYOD.

On the significance in town hall, the obligations of the usher, under penalty of nullity of the acts.

Jurisprudence is rigorous with regard to diligences to which the bailiff is held to carry out a significance with anybody.

A significance can be made in town hall only if none the people aimed to article 655 of the nouveua code of civil procedure could or wanted to receive the act ( Case, 2ème civ, Nov 19, 1998: Juris- Dated N° 1998-004426).

If nobody can or does not want receive the copy of the act and if it results from the checks made by the bailiff that the recipient remains well with the address indicated, the copy must be given in town hall (CPC, art. 656 ).

The mentions which the bailiff indicates on the act relating to the checks that it carries out, are taken until inscription of forgery (CA Aix Provence, June 17, 1996: N° 045132 Juris-dated)

The first condition of validity significance made “in town hall” .est thus the refusal or impossibility, for the people enumerated by article 655 of the New Code of civil procedure, to receive the copy of the act (CA bets, Nov. 7, 1986: GAS. Stake 1987,1, p.209, M.Renard note).

The second condition is the certainty which the recipient of the act remains well with the address indicated in this act. The bailiff must carry out all useful research ( Case. 2ème civ, June 26, 1974 and others….).

The services of the town hall do not assume the obligation to send the act to the recipient: they must only preserve the copy during a three months deadline, and are then discharged (NCPC, art, al.4)

The significance with anybody makes it possible to acquire the certainty that the interested party had effective knowledge of the act, the bailiff giving the copy to him in clean hands. It thus constitutes the mode of significance of principle, that article 654, subparagraph 1, of the New Code of civil procedure makes compulsory:  « the significance must be made with anybody ». It is only if it proves to be impossible that the bailiff can try to resort to other methods  (NCPC, art. 655, Al 1).

The only obligation which weighs on the bailiff is to make an attempt at significance to anybody while going to his residence of the recipient: to represent themselves in the residence or to present themselves instead of work ( CA Toulouse, June 29 1994: N° 046293 Juris-dated ).

The official report must precisely mention the diligences achieved by the bailiff to seek the recipient of the act (Civ. 2ème, November 3, 1993, Bull. civ. II. N°312, JCP, 1994, IV. 24).

The significance must be of any regular obviousness in the form; if the act is cancelled for some cause that it is the time does not run  (V. CA  Paris, 3 juill. 1980 : Gas. Stake. 1980, 2, p. 698. - CA  Bordeaux, 1st juill. 1982 : D. 1984, inf. rep. p. 238, obs. P. Julien. - V. also Case. 2nd civ., 17 févr. 1983 : Gas. Stake. 1983, 1, side. jurispr. p. 170, obs. S. Guinchard. - Case. 1st civ., 16 janv. 1985 : Bull. civ. I, n° 24; JCP 1985GIV, 118).

The notification:

When the notification is made by letter registered with request for notice of receipt,

 as it is the most frequent case, the Supreme court of appeal estimates that the notification is validly made with nobody but if the notice of receipt is signed by the recipient ( Cass.2ème civ.27 May 1988: Bull.civ.ll, N°125; RTD civ.1988, p. 573).

If the letter registered were not given in hand specific to the recipient, and in the absence of covered notice of receipt of the signature of the recipient, the notification is null ( Case. So., May 4, 1993: Bull.civ. lV, N° 124; D. 1993, inf.rap.p.133; JCP 1993, ED. G, IV, 1680; Gaz.Pal.1993, 2, pan.jurispr.p.284): it could not in no case to be worth significance “in residence” (Cass.3ème civ, Dec 14 .1994: Bull. 1996.1, pan.jurispr.p.115).

Article 670 new code of civil procedure specifies that the notification is made famous with anybody when the recipient signs the notice of receipt.

Jurisprudence is shown very rigorous on the application of this principle, and it does not hesitate to cancel any judgement returned following a convocation notified by the postal way which would have been turned over with the mention “not claimed”.

CONSEQUENCE OF THE NOTIFICATION

Art. 478. NCPC - The judgement given by defect or the judgement considered contradictory with the only reason which it is likely of call is nonwhich occurred if it were not notified in the six months of its date.

In the absence of notification, any measurement of execution is null, that it is about a seizure attribution ......  (CA Paris, 8th CH., 5 juill. 1995 : N° 022189 Juris-dated) or from a procedure of direct payment  (CA  Rouen, 1st CH., 5 févr. 1992 : N° 041309 Juris-dated).

Under the terms of article 478 of the New Code of civil procedure, the judgement given by defect or the judgement considered contradictory with the only reason which it is likely of call  (Case. 2nd civ., June 1, 1988: Bull. civ. I, n° 133; D. 1989, somm. p. 180, obs. P. Julien) that is to say declared nonwhich occurred if it were not notified in the six months of its date (Mr. Sevestre-Régnier, Some decisions on the judgements non which occurred: Bull. CH. Solicitors, 1991, n° 118, p. 46).

Thus, the defect of notification of the decision within this time deprives gaining it of the possibility of putting it at execution (NR. Fricero, nullity in deprived legal right, thesis Nice 1979, p. 449 S., n° 343 S.).

That this irregular significance caused well objections to the rights of defense of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, does not have allowed the latter to take note of the act of  4 October 2000 returned by the supreme court of appeal and base of article 1034 private to seize the Court of Appeal of reference and to make put forward :

Irregularity of the judgement on the form and the bottom of the credits requested by Commerzbank.

To raise the fraud by an assignment mortage holder sullied with nullity.

To raise that the capital having to be refunded in 2012 by an insurance of which it y forever have forfeiture of this one  that is to say the LOYD.

For violation of the law 1979 protecting the consumer.

That within sight of the violation of article 658 of the NCPC it y has nullity of the significance.

That the stop of October 4, 2000 in the absence of its application of article 503 of the NCPC, this one cannot be put in execution except time of article 478 of the ncpc, it is nonwhich occurred.

That of this fact the stop of the Court of Appeal always has authority of force of thing judged by the absence to have put in execution the stop of October 4, 2000 by the violation of article 503 of the ncpc put in execution nonin conformity in its article 658 of the ncpc “of law and order ”.

By the fact of the voluntary deficiency of Commerzbank of approaching in the 4 months the court concerning reference and by the violation of article 503 of the NCPC cannot claim itself of the two judgements “of which call” in front of the room of shouted whose bottom and form are still not distinct before the Court of Appeal.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are not responsible for the deficiency of Commerzbank not to have achieved any diligence in the two years;  this simple fact there is time limitation of authority on the base of article 386 of the NCPC to the continuations of seizure of property .

That Commerzbank had the possibility of seizing the Court of Appeal of reference, that by its deficiency it is responsible regulation procedure, time limitation of authority on the base of article 386 of the ncpc.

Commerzbank did not diligenté any act during two years of the judgment delivered dated October 4, 2000.

Commerzbank made obstacle with Mister and Mrs LABORIE by the absence of regular significance within four month so that the latter approach the court concerning reference.

That the stop of cassation returned by defect, not meant by Commerzbank within the legal times with Mister and Mrs LABORIE, returning on the jurisdiction of reference, deprives the latter to rule, which causes an important objection to Mister and Mrs LABORIE in their rights of defense.

More especially as since the two judgements whose call in 1997, Commerzbank did not carry out any act of continuation to put forward any liquid some and exigible credit, the affection mortage holder being sullied with nullity.

The two judgements whose call were not always meant to Mister and Mrs LABORIE, recognize in the stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse dated March 16, 1998, therefore nonexecutory and nonwhich occurred on the base of articles 478; 503 of the ncpc.

That consequently Commerzbank which succumbs by its legal deficiency cannot be prevailed of any evidence of indebtedness valid, some and exigible.

On the base of article 388 of the ncpc, Mister and Mrs LABORIE are founded to ask for the time limitation of continuations at the end of seizure of property in the procedure of which they were the object during the detention of private Mr LABORIE of all the means of defense , violation of article 4; 16 of the ncpc and article 6-1 of the CEDH.

That by this procedure vitiated on the bottom and the form of the procedure, the fraud of this one must be retained and Commerzbank must be débouté in all its requests unfounded and based on any valid executory title and any liquid some and exigible credit.

Commerzbank could not obtain any judgement of dated June 29, 2006 subrogation,  returned and obtained in violation of all the legal provisions, by forgery and use of forgery benefitting from arbitrary detention from Mr LABORIE Andre to obtain court of the favorable decisions, Mr LABORIE private Andre of lawyer, the jurisdictional assistance, income and its Mrs and means of defense LABORIE in her despair only, violation of article 4; 16 of the ncpc and article 6-1 of the CEDH.

EXECUTORY TITLE: jurisprudence NOTARIAL ACT.

In the same way, a notarial act mentioning a loan with conventional mortgage does not note a liquid and exigible credit; seizing thus does not justify executory title (CA Douai, Nov 9 .1995: Juris- Dated N° 051309. Also judged that the simple photocopy of the act of ready authenticated cannot represent the executory title required (CA Versaille, 1er CH, September 13, 1996: Juris- Dated N° 043643). (enclosure)

I/has) On the absence of a notarial act of the COMMERZBANK

Commerzbank is prevailed of an assignment mortage holder of March 2, 1992 to put forward of a credit in the opposition to Mister and Mrs LABORIE, this act is to date registered out of forgery in public writings  of our share, act carried in our knowledge only in 2007 and in a procedure before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse. (Joined Part Ci  ).

That this notarial act is not signed of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and when well even it is made mention that a procuration was given to an agent, this one is not produced with the act itself to check its contents of it and more especially as it produced forever of mortage project of assignment signed of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Consequently : on the nullity of the notarial act, causes  to withdraw the authentic and executory character to him.

I/has) 1/On the absence of an unquestionable liquid credit is exigible from the COMMERZBANK

By stop of March 16, 1998 the Court of Appeal of Toulouse cancelled the loan contracted between husbands LABORIE and following Commerzbank offers dated January 16, 1992 and for violation of the public rules of orders, cancelling the procedure of sale on seizure of property . (joined part Ci N° 2)

I/ has) 2 On the refunding of the capital borrowed from the commerzbank.

Although the mortage deed is sullied with nullity, this one indicates well that the capital must be refunded in only once, by means of the funds coming from the capitalization of an insurance lives subscribed at the DEUTSCHE LLYOD, duration of the loan 20 years, that is to say in the year 2012.

The borrowed capital was sum of 647.357 frank that is to say 98.688 euros (enclosure).

The sum paid with husbands LABORIE by Commerzbank  was sum of 590.000 frank, that is to say 89944 euros. (joined part Ci  ).

It y forever have forfeiture of payment of premium produced by Commerzbank managing of our bank account and with the profit of DEUTSCHE LLYOD, the amount of the premium of insurance being of 549 DM (specifying that the DM was with 3.40 frank) that is to say into frank the sum of 1866 frank, that is to say to date 284.47 euros.

Commerzbank was in possession of the sum approximately of 405.824 frank that is to say the sum of 61867.47 euros at the date  judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse March 16, 1998 to ensure the payment of the premiums DEUTSCHE LLYOD let us be poured by Mister and Mrs LABORIE. ( joined parts Ci statement of account ).

Commerzbank ensuring the management of our bank account open in its books had sufficiently and so far the sum necessary to ensure the premium to be poured with A insurance life DEUTSCHE LLYOD and for 217 monthly instalments whose first was on March 31, 1992. , that is to say for one 18 years duration.

Calculation of the number of expiries : 61867, 47 euros/284,47 euros = 217,17 expiries.

That is to say: from March 31, 1992 + 18 years = until the year 2010.

Commerzbank is foreclosed in its action against Mister and Mrs LABORIE who are not debtor of Commerzbank to date and until 2012 or the capital must be refunded in its totality by the insurance life DEUTSCHE LLYOD.

COUNTABLE STATE PRESENTS BY:

Mister and Mrs LABORIE who are rather credit of

THE COMMERZBANK

READY RELEASING: 590.000 Fr

BON++++

COUNTABLE STATE OF the SUMS WHICH HAD BY the COMMERZBANK with Mister and Mrs LABORIE following the cancellation of the loan by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse on March 16, 1998 for violation of the law of July 13, 1979 “Of law and order ”

ZONE a: Sums paid on the account of Mister and Mrs LABORIE in Commerzbank: Maybe by credit transfer

Maybe by levy on a French account

Maybe by bank check

With

B

C

D

E

F

Sums paid into frank on the account

Date

Credit amount

Interest 8.4% year

That is to say: 0.70% monthly magazine

Total amount

Unpaid return

6933.41

31/03/92

6.933,41

30/04/92

48.53

6.981,94

6903.03

30/04/92

13.884,97

30/05/92

97.19

13.982,16

6863.7

29/05/92

20.845,86

30/06/92

145.92

20.991,78

6875.22

30/06/92

27.867,00

30/07/92

195.06

28.062,06

6875.22

30/07/92

34.937,28

30/08/92

244.56

35.181,84

6891.41

03/08/92

42.073,25

30/09/92

294.51

42.367,76

6936.94

30/08/92

49.304,47

30/10/92

345.36

49.649,83

6964.07

30/09/92

56.613,9

30/11/92

396.29

57.010,19

6949.88

30/10/92

63.960,07

30/12/92

447.72

64.407,79

6893.73

02/12/92

71.301,52

30/01/93

499.11

71.800,63

6994.99

28/12/92

78.795,62

30/02/93

551.56

79.347,18

6933.41

30/01/93

86.280,59

30/03/93

603.96

86.884,55

6942.82

26/02/93

93.827,37

30/04/93

656.79

94.484,16

6933.41

29/03/93

101.417, 57

30/05/93

709.92

102.127, 49

6917.02

04/05/93

109.044, 51

30/06/93

763.31

109.807, 82

6900.7

02/06/93

116.708, 52

30/07/93

816.95

117.525, 47

6898.38

06/07/93

124.423, 85

30/08/93

870.96

125.294, 81

6945.17

04/08/93

132.239, 98

 

Page 80

 

30/09/93

925.67

133.165, 65

7128.94

01/09/93

140.294, 59

30/10/93

982.06

141.276, 65

6945.17

08/09/93

148.221, 17

30/11/93

1037.54

149.258, 71

7146.36

30/09/93

156.405, 07

30/12/93

1094.83

157.499, 90

4737.73

28/09/93

162.237, 63

30/01/94

1135.66

163.373, 29

7146.36

18/10/93

170.519, 65

30/02/94

1193.63

171.713, 28

6644.65

02/11/93

178.357, 93

30/03/94

1248.5

179.606, 43

7146.36

23/11/93

186.752, 79

30/04/94

1307.26

188.060, 05

7146.36

23/11/93

195.206, 41

30/05/94

1366.44

196.572, 85

6701.94

23/11/93

203.274, 79

30/06/94

1422.92

204.697, 71

7104.2

30/11/93

211.801, 91

30/07/94

1482.61

213.284, 52

6736.9

03/12/93

220.021, 42

30/08/94

1540.14

221.561, 56

7104.2

16/12/93

228.665, 76

30/09/94

1600.66

230.266, 42

6830.6

03/01/94

237.097, 02

30/10/94

1659.67

238.756, 69

7004.67

02/02/94

245.761, 36

30/11/94

1720.32

247.481, 68

6844.64

22/02/94

254.326, 32

30/12/94

1780.28

256.106, 60

7004.67

01/03/94

263.111, 27

30/01/95

1841.77

264.953, 04

7045.36

25/03/94

271.998,4

30/02/95

1903.98

273.902, 38

7045.36

08/04/94

280.947, 74

30/03/95

1966.63

282.914, 37

7069.52

27/04/94

289.983, 89

30/04/95

2029.88

292.013, 77

7069.52

19/05/94

299.083, 29

30/06/95

2093.58

301.176, 87

7064.07

30/05/94

308.240, 94

7059.84

30/06/94

315.300, 78

12/07/94

308.240, 94

-7064.67

14/07/94

301.176, 87

-7059.84

30/07/95

2108.23

303.285, 10

7052.59

30/07/94

310.337, 69

30/08/95

2172.36

312.510, 05

29544.64

08/08/94

342.054, 69

30/09/95

2394.38

344.449, 07

09/08/94

337.396, 48

337.396, 48

-7052.59

7064.67

30/08/94

344.461, 15

344.461, 15

19/09/94

337.396, 48

337.396, 48

-7064.67

16/09/94

330.391, 81

330.391, 81

-7004.67

7042.95

30/09/94

337.434, 76

337.434, 76

14/10/94

330.391, 81

330.391, 81

-7042.95

7067.1

26/10/94

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

7084.09

02/12/94

344.543, 00

344.543, 00

20/12/94

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7084.09

7084.09

30/12/94

344.543, 00

344.543, 00

17/01/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7084.09

7106.07

31/01/95

344.564, 98

344.564, 98

22/02/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7106.07

7150.43

06/03/95

344.609, 34

344.609, 34

7261.26

28/03/95

351.870, 60

351.870, 60

31/03/95

344.720, 17

344.720, 17

-7150.43

13/04/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7261.26

7268.17

28/04/95

344.727, 08

344.727, 08

12/05/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7268.17

7367.67

31/05/95

344.826, 58

344.826, 58

19/06/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7367.67

7223.09

29/06/95

344.682, 00

344.682, 00

21/07/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7223.09

7162.86

31/07/95

344.621, 77

344.621, 77

11/08/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7162.86

7064.67

30/08/95

344.523, 58

344.523, 58

19/09/95

337.458, 91

337.458, 91

-7064.67

22/11/95

330.391.81

330.391.81

-7067.10

Refunded Total sum either the sum of 330.391, 81 frank

dated November 22, 1995

On March 16, 1998 the Court of Appeal cancelled the procedure of seizure of property under the terms of cancellation of the loan and for violation of the law of July 13, 1979, (stop having force of force of judged thing), “executory”

Capital at the disposal of Commerzbank and the property of Mister and dated November 22, 1995 Mrs LABORIE. that is to say the sum of 330.391, 81 to raise of a rate annual of 8.50 % the year,

Commerzbank being losing by the cancellation of the loan.

DATE: years: With:

CAPITAL

Interests with 8,50% per annum

Credit balance

22/12/1996

330.391, 81

28.083,3

358.475, 11

22/12/1997

358.475, 11

30.470,38

388.945, 49

22/12/1998

388.945, 49

33.060,36

422.005, 85

22/12/1999

422.005, 85

35.870,49

457.876, 34

22/12/2000

457.876, 34

38.919,48

496.795, 82

22/12/2001

496.795, 82

42.227,64

539.023, 46

22/12/2002

539.023, 46

45.816,99

584.840, 45

22/12/2003

584.840, 45

49.711,43

634.551, 88

22/12/2004

634.551, 88

53.936,90

688.488, 78

22/12/2005

688.488, 78

58.521,54

747.010, 32

22/12/2006

747.010, 32

63.495,87

810.506, 19

22/12/2007

810.506, 19

68.893,02

879.399, 21

22/12/2008

879.399, 21

74.748,93

954.148, 14

That at the day of L adjudication of December 21 2006, Mister and Mrs LABORIE were credit in Commerzbank of the sum of: 810.506, 19 frank and for a sum due of 590.000 frank, Assembling resolved loan.

Commerzbank must on 22 /12/2008 with Mister and Mrs LABORIE

The sum of:

954.148.14 frank - 590.000 frank = 364.148 frank, that is to say the sum from 50.364, 61 euros

Bank COMMERZBANK cannot be creditor of Mister and Mrs LABORIE to initiate a procedure of seizure of property in their opposition and to make sell their property in his audience of adjudication of December 21, 2006.

The stop of the Court of Appeal having force of judged thing was executory, Commerzbank being in possession at the closing date of the sum of 330.391, 81 frank is the sum from 50.364, 61 euros with the profit of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, was to establish the accounts between the parts.

Commerzbank did not achieve any act to regularize the reinstallation of the parts.

Commerzbank did not achieve any act to continue to preserve the insurance life LLOYD refunding the capital in only once is in 2012 bearing damages with Mister and Mrs LABORIE and under the only responsibility of Commerzbank.

That Commerzbank benefitted so far from the versed sums that is to say “to see countable card the sum of 400.000 frank is 60.975, 61 euros” at the closing date of the Court of Appeal and while knowing that the capital must be refunded by the LLOYD in only once in 2012.

That insurance LLOYD managed by Commerzbank is two independent elements.

That the interests on the capital are cancelled by the nullity of the dated March 16, 1998 loan, judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse.

That by the stop of the Court of Appeal of March 16, 1996, the interests poured with twists are with the credit of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

That these sums are generating interests like above “ in its summary table”.

The assignment mortage holder of March 2, 1992 of Commerzbank by the stop of the Court of Appeal of March 16, 1998 is not avenue and was to be erased by Commerzbank with the Land Registry of Toulouse.

The assignment mortage holder of March 2, 1992 of Commerzbank (inscription of false intellectual deposited at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse and denounced with the parts)

Commerzbank did not achieve any legal document to make suspend the execution of the stop of the Court of Appeal of March 16, 1998 in front of Mister the First President of the Court of Appeal.

The appeal in cassation at the request of Commerzbank is not suspensive stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse of March 16, 1998.

Commerzbank did not achieve any diligence in the two deducted years to produce any credit the sums already paid by Mister and Mrs LABORIE “ Preclusion”, time limitation of authority article 386 of the ncpc.

Commerzbank  forever made mean the two judgements of first authority of which it was débouté before the Court of Appeal in its procedure of seizure of property and ordering the nullity of the loan and the handing-over in the Contracting State initial of, absence of significance of these two judgements in the six months article 478 of the ncpc recognized in the judgment of the Court of March 16, 1998 and without no dispute by Commerzbank in front of a court of jurisdiction being carried.

In the absence of significance on the base of article 478 of the ncpc within six month , the two judgements are nonwhich occurred in their execution.

That of all these facts Commerzbank does not have any legal basis to require any right to the opposition to Mister and Mrs LABORIE, even less to initiate a procedure of seizure of property without a liquid some and exigible evidence of indebtedness.

That Commerzbank cannot put forward a stop of the supreme court of appeal of October 4, 2000.

I/In its contents: false intellectual

II/In its diligences of Commerzbank

That Commerzbank cannot put forward an authentic assignment of March 2, 1992.

I/In its contents: false intellectual.

II/ In its form :

ON   ACTION MENEE BY the COMMERZBANK

Commerzbank, not having any act of valid assignment mortage.

That alleged with its action is sullied with nullity for forgery in public writing.

Commerzbank not having any liquid some and exigible credit, was to be déchue of its requests in front of the room of shouted and to date must be déchue in front of the judge with the orders.

The Court of Appeal of Toulouse cancelled the loan Commerzbank by stop of March 16, 1998 and for obvious violation of the law of July 13, 1979. “of law and order”

Commerzbank did not have any enabling to make loans on the French territory. (of law and order)

The stop of the supreme court of appeal is without object because this last forever  summer meant with the person of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and as the verbal lawsuit of the usher attests it, time limitation of authority on the base of article 386 of the ncpc

A doubt exists on this stop of the supreme court of appeal bus with seen  obvious violations of the law of July 13, 1979, must also involve the nullity of the contract of prê.

Reason of the inscription as a false intellectual of the stop of September 4, 2000 returned by the supreme court of appeal.

Herewith, stop of the supreme court of appeal of July 20 1994.

The Court of Appeal, whose stop was broken, had:

Refused to apply any sanction relating to the forfeiture of the right to the interests by indicating that the offers of loan comprised a table weakening the amount of the expiries agreed upon for each year of refunding as well as the total amount of the loans, the annual interest rate, the total number of the expiries and the real total cost of the credit offered with the precision which the amortization table had been provided with the realization of the loan;

Also, on account of the principle, isolated the request for nullity of the loan indicating that the law of July 13, 1979 envisaged a specific and exclusive sanction which is the optional forfeiture total or partial of the right to the interests.

On these two points, the cassation intervened.

Initially, the supreme court of appeal judges that the bill book of depreciation must be joined to the preliminary offer and must specify for each expiry the share of the damping of the capital compared to that covering the interests.

Of the chief of the violation of this only provision, the Supreme court of appeal pronounced the revocation of the trust deed indicating that the name respect of the provisions of law and order of the law of July 13, 1979 must be sanctioned not only by the forfeiture of the right to the interests but still by the nullity of the trust deed.

By this stop, the Supreme court of appeal explicitly poses the principle of the coexistence of the two sanctions.

Thus, the Supreme court of appeal seems to have stuck to the letter of the text which lays out that the lender “could” be deposed right to the interests.

This provision was interpreted until now like the recognition of the capacity of the judge to apply or not the sanction according to the gravity of the noted failure but becomes now, according to the interpretation which in gave by the Supreme court of appeal, an option offered in favour of nullity..

That consequently by the evidence above brought and the various statements of account joined to the procedure of revision, parts to the knowledge of the commerzbank and Frances Master, this one cannot deny them.

That consequently this one acts délictueusement within sight of its unfounded requests and whose borrowed amount is to be refunded only in 2012 by an insurance the LLOYD whose the latter forever trained the forfeiture of the contract in measurement that the sums allotted to the commerzbank made it possible to audit the expiries.

The commerzbank within sight of the notarial act is not credit of a qulconque credit towards Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

ON  JUDGEMENT OF SUBROGATION OF June 29  2006

INSCRIPTION OF FALSE INTELLECTUAL

Commerzbank before the Court of Appeal and the room of shouted made the point that it had obtained a regular judgement of subrogation and which was creditor of Mister and Mrs LABORIE to continue the seizure of property then what is not the case.

However after many research, it will be shown that this judgement is sullied with nullity as much on the bottom that on the form.

An inscription of false was deposited on July 8, 2008 at the Clerk's office of the Court of Bankruptcy of Toulouse, denounced with the parts and denounced with Mister the Public prosecutor Michel SERVANT by act of bailiff and denounces enrôlée at the clerk's office of the Court of Bankruptcy of Toulouse on August 5 2008.

And for the following reasons:

MEANS CALL UPON TO ESTABLISH THE FORGERY

Characterizing the fraud of the seizure of property.

Recall:

The false intellectual comprise any material falsification a posteriori act, no intervention on the instrumentum. It consists for the writer of the notarial act, which is necessarily a public officer, to state facts or to bring back inaccurate declarations.

Notarial acts : Acts of notary, bailiff, registrar, of judge, of the clerk.

Art. 457.du NCPC - The judgement with the conclusive force of a notarial act.

Mentions carried by the judge in his decision on the subject of the declarations of the parts that it collected itself and of which it gave notice are taken until inscription of forgery (Case. ploughshare, Apr 20 1950 : D. 1951, somm. p. 64 ; S. 1951, 1, 93; RTD civ. 1951, p. 429, obs. P. Raynaud. - For given the act of a legal consent,  CA Amiens, 1st juill. 1991 : N° 043760 Juris-dated).

On the gravity of the false intellectual:

Art.441-4. penal code - The false clerk in a public writing or authenticates or in a recording ordered by the public authority is punished ten years of imprisonment and 150 000 € of fine.

The use of the forgery mentioned with the subparagraph which precedes is punished same sorrows.

The sorrows are changed at fifteen years of criminal reclusion and 225 000 € of fine when the forgery or the use of forgery is made by a person agent of the public authority or responsible for a mission of public utility acting in the exercise of its functions or its mission.

Admissibility:

If the fact can be accused penally, but place did not give yet to continuations, the civil judge can receive the demand for inscription of forgery and can rule on this request ( Case. req., March 5, 1867: DP 1868, 1, p. 70).

MEANS IN RIGHT AND

HOLLOW Mr gave a judgement of subrogation on June 29, 2006 in public sitting to the profit of Commerzbank which cannot be creditor and relating to a subrogation in seizure of property , judgement given in violation of articles 14; 15 ; 16 of the NCPC, Mister and nonadvised Mrs LABORIE of the procedure made in their contrary opposition with an equitable lawsuit within the meaning of article 6 to the CEDH, not being able of this fact of respecting any debate, concealing by the absence of defense, the false acts.

HOLLOW Mr knew and was conscious that the room of shouted could not be seized regularly by command of October 20, 2003, it was in possession of all the parts of the procedure by the schedule of conditions deposited at the clerk's office of the room of shouted, specifying that it forever communicated to Mister and Mrs LABORIE as the law imposes it.

The drafting of the judgement is a false intellectual in all his drafting.

Mr Cave knew that it could not be delivered by Commerzbank a summation to continue the continuations at companies CETELEM, ATHENA and NOT by a single act.

HOLLOW Mr knew that it could not be carried out one denounces regular these three banks in Commerzbank by a single act knowing that company ATHENA did not have any more a legal existence since December 1999.

Mr UNDERMINES had taken note well of the stop of May 16, 2006 returned by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse cancelling the command of September 5, 2003 and of his effects. » “to be able in seizure of property of September 9, 2002”

HOLLOW Mr recognizes that the continuation of the continuations in seizure of property is of course the base of command of October 20, 2003, for Mr UNDERMINES regularly published on October 31, 2003 and still for HOLLOW Mr who disputed forever by Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

The false intellectual is well established in the judgement that with returned Mr on June 29, 2003 UNDERMINES

The damages are very important, Mister and Mrs LABORIE found themselves stripped of their property, expelled of their main home and without fixed residence to leave March 27, 2008; consequences of the judgement of June 29, 2006 argued by Mr UNDERMINES Michel this last while using of forgery and use of forgery and by concealing false act to make right to Commerzbank which cannot have any right to make us sell our main home.

To date and following the HOLLOW consequences of Mr Michel judges execution with the Court of Bankruptcy of Toulouse, using of forgery and use of forgery and concealing them in these writings in the judgement of June 29, 2006, its contrary argumentation with the reality of the acts existing constitute by its terms a false intellectual, forgery in public writing.

That all the posterior acts rising from the judgement of June 29, 2006 are consequently null full.

FOR MORE EXPLANATION OF the FRAUD.

COMMAND OF October 20, 2003

Out of matter of seizure of property concerning the fundamental base of the continuations command of October 20, 2003.

With the Precondition of a seizure of property it is of law and order that is complied with the rules of procedures under penalty of nullity of article 715 of the ANCPC.

Under the old mode before the ordinance of April 21, 2006.

Art. 715 (Repealed by  Ord. NO 2006-461 of the 21 avr. 2006;    Décr.  NO 59-89 of the 7 janv. 1959)   “Times envisaged in articles 673, 674, 688, 689, 690, 692, 694, paragraphs 2 and 3, (Repealed by  Décr.  NO 2002-77 of the 11 janv. 2002,  art. 11)  “696, 699,”  702, 703, paragraphs 4 and 5, 704, paragraphs 1er and 2, 705, 706, 708 to 711 are hardly prescribed forfeiture.

 

Page 90

However in the species those were not respected in its articles 673; 674 ; 688 ; 689 ; 690 ; 692 ; 694.

ON the EXECUTORY ABSENCE OF TITLE.

It is necessary that there is a liquid some and exigible credit, that the judgement or the judgements acquired the force of the judged authority.

That on the requests of the command of October 20, 2003, the titles cannot have acquired the authority of judged thing, by impossibility of seizing the grounds for appeal.

The decisions never have on the base of article 503 of the NCPC were meant with their person and as it is recognized in the acts of significance only in town hall by verbal lawsuit taken again by only of the crosses, is prohibited and sullied with nullity by a constant jurisprudence.

Art. 503 The judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified, unless the execution is not voluntary.

.  Principle. The judgements, even last in force of judged thing, cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being regularly notified, unless the execution is not voluntary. Civ. 2E,  29 janv. 2004:   Bull. civ. II, NO 33; JCP 2004. IV. 1562; Gas. Stake. 13 March 15, 2005, p. 21, obs. of Rusquec.  - V. also Civ. 2E, Dec 18 2003:   D. 2004. Somm. 1496, obs. Taormina. The decisions of the CIVI do not escape this principle. Civ. 2E,  June 16, 2005:   Bull. civ. II, NO 155; JCP 2005. IV. 2757.

The mentions related to the original of an act of significance as for its date and to the diligences achieved by the bailiff are taken until inscription of forgery (2nd Civ., April 2, 1990, Bull. 1990, II, n° 72, appeal n° 89-10.933; November 20, 1991, Bull. 1991, II, n° 314, appeal n° 90-15.591; 2nd Civ., June 30, 1993, Bull. 1993, II, n° 237, appeal n° 91-19.189; mixed room, October 6 2006, Bull. 2006, CH. mixed, n° 8, appeal n° 04-17.070), even if it is about pre-printed mentions (2nd Civ., November 23, 2000, new, appeal n° 99-15.233; 2nd Civ., January 31, 2002, new, appeal n° 00-18.183; 2nd Civ., September 21, 2005, new, appeal n° 04-16.112; 2nd Civ., March 29, 2006, new, appeal n° 04-17.946).

If the judge can estimate that the crosses affixed in the boxes of the headings of the pre-printed mentions do not reveal precise and concrete diligences sufficient, it cannot, in revenge, to call into question the reality of the investigations that the instrumentary usher affirmed to have carried out.

By the significance absence on the base of article 503 of the NCPC the alleged judgements of credits in the command are not executory.

“Juris-sorter”

The significance must be declared null because of the attack carried to the rights of defense  (TGI  Paris, Dec 20 1972 : D. 1973, p. 204 ; JCP 1973GII, 6263, obs. J.A. ; RTD civ. 1973, p. 168, note P. Raynaud).

· Violation of article 673 of the ANCPC

ON the CAPACITY ABSENCE

With the Precondition of a seizure of property it is of law and order that is complied with the rules of procedures under penalty of nullity of article 715 of the ANCPC.

The capacity by a common act produces in seizure of property for the command of October 20 is that of September 9, 2002 to the profit of CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA Banque.

The latter not having more existence legal since December 1999 and confirmed by the stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse returned on May 16, 2006 cancelling its preceding command of September 5, 2003 (stop of May 16, 2006).

· Violation of article 673 of the ANCPC.

This irregularity involves the nullity of the command delivered on October 20, 2003 in its entirety, since the prosecuting creditors represented consequently legal entity and having given only one special capacity delivered only one command and that such a single act intended for the publication is indivisible by its nature.

ON the NULLITY OF the COMMAND of October 20, 203 ARTCLE 648 NCPC.

Art. 648 Any act of bailiff indicates, independently of the mentions prescribed in addition:

  These mentions are hardly prescribed nullity.

In the species :

On the command of October 20 2003 is mentioned Company AGF Banque under the denomination with the RCS: N° B 572.199.461 whose registered office is in Saint Denis 164, street Ambroise Croisat.

(Attached KBIS).

Under this registration AGF is erased since February 13, 2003.

At this address this company does not correspond to N° registration above.

The company with the references above is not identifiable and carries damage to Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

This irregularity makes necessarily objection to the defendant who is private possibility of making regularly mean with the applicant the procedural documents that it achieves as well as the returned decisions.

Art. 117 Irregularities of bottom affecting constitute the validity of the act:

**

The command of seizure of property of October 20, 2003 is a writ who is subjected to the provisions of articles 648 and following of the new code of civil procedure.

Is thus sullied with a basic regularity for defect of capacity within the meaning of article 117 of the new code of civil procedure, the act delivered in the name of a company A.G.F with the references above erased since February 13, 2003.

This irregularity involves the nullity of the command delivered on October 20, 2003 in its entirety.

ON THE DEFECT OF PUBLICATION

Command of October 20, 2003

With the Precondition of the sasine of the room of shouted: it is of law and order that is complied with the rules of procedures under penalty of nullity of article 715 of the ANCPC.

         Art. 674 (Repealed by  Ord. NO 2006-461 of Apr 21 2006)    (Décr.  NO 59-89 of the 7 janv. 1959)   The command is worth seized of the goods which were indicated to start from its publication to the office of the mortgages of the situation of the goods.

  The states on this formality could not be necessary of the registrar of mortgages before twenty days passed since the date of the command.

_  2.  Time of publication of the command. The forfeiture is incurred in the absence of damage. Civ. 2E, May 28, 1984: Gas. Stake. 1984. 2. Side. 317, obs. Minnow.   On the need for reiterating the command, V. Com.  15 juill. 1987: Gas. Stake. 1988. 1. Somm. 155, obs. Minnow.   Comp.: Com.  Nov 25 1997:   Procedures 1998. Com. 43, obs. Croze.  

_  (à). The proof, with the load of the creditor, the respect of the time of publication, can result only from the document drawn up by the Land Registry. Civ. 2E,  Oct 16 2003:   Bull. civ. II, NO 314; JCP 2004. IV. 2914; Gas. Stake. 21-22 juill. 2004, p. 33, obs. Brenner.  

Who begins again: The states of publication of the command for purposes of seizure of property hardly cannot forfeiture necessary being of the registrar of mortgages before 20 days passed since the date of this command.

Civ.2- March 12, 1997 CASSATION WITHOUT REFERENCE.

CONSEQUENCES:

Under the old procedure of seizure of property whose, makes the Mister object and Mrs LABORIE, the room of shouted cannot thus be approached by the command concerning October 20, 2003.

Only the room of shouted can be seized by a notarial act “mortgages conventional” .valide, which is not the case, the act of March 2, 1992 is registered as a false intellectual. (herewith part)

Only the room of shouted can be seized that by a command at the end of seizure of property regular on the form and the bottom and regularly published.

In the species, the room of shouted cannot be seized by the command of October 20, 2003

That the procedure of subrogation in its judgement of June 29, 2006, founded on the command of October 20, 2003 is automatically sullied the vice basic one and with form.

The fraud is still characterized once.

Defraud even more serious on the delivery of the command of October 20, 2003 by forgery and use of forgery of the act introduces on March 11, 2003.

This new command of October 20, 2003 could not be renewed within sight of the elements which I take again and for the account of CETELEM; NOT; ATHENA.

Capacity absence validates in seizure of property “of law and order”.  Article 673 ancpc

Absence of credits liquidate some and exigible by the regular absence of significances from the various judgements, depriving of the grounds for appeal of Mister and Mrs LABORIE. Article 673 of the ancpc

Absence of regular significance of the evidences of indebtedness claimed by within two year, “time limitation of authority”, violation of the article 503 of the NCPC.

Forfeiture procedure of seizure of property against CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA by judgement of December 19, 2002.

Prohibition to deliver a new command by the judgement cancelling the procedure of seizure of property returned on December 19, 2002. (herewith)

(Fraud) Nullity of the request by a common act of March 11, 2003 on behalf of the CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA and to obtain the right to deliver a new command, or else, no other continuation could usefully be taken again for new a 3 years period. (joined request Ci).

 Athéna Banks not having any legal existence since December 1999.

· Confirmation by the stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse into dated May 16, 2006.

That consequently: Nullity of the decision of April 15, 2003 ordering the extension of the publication for one three years duration following the introductory request of March 11, 2003 sullied with nullity by a common act, the company Athéna bank did not have any more an existence legal since December 1999 and confirmed by the stop of the Court of Appeal returned on May 16, 2006.

Nullity of the acts for basic irregularity

Art. 117 Irregularities of bottom affecting constitute the validity of the act:

  The defect of be party capacity to legal proceedings;

  The defect of being able of a part or a person appearing in the lawsuit as representative either of a legal entity, or of a person reached of an incapacity of exercise;

  The defect of capacity or being able of a person ensuring the representation of a part in justice.

Is thus sullied with a basic regularity in its entirety act and for defect of capacity within the meaning of article 117 of the new code of civil procedure, the request of March 6, 2003 “recorded on March 11, 2003” for account CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA.

That consequently the incidental judgement of May 15, 2003 for the account of CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA is sullied with nullity.

That the last valid act is that of December 19, 2002 giving forfeiture of seizure of property and not disputed by the way of call which was opened with the opposing parties.

Although an irregular publication was made on September 24, 2002 for one 3 years duration is until September 24, 2005, by the forfeiture of the seizure of property made and confirmed by the judgement of December 19, 2002 and the nullity of the request of March 11, 2003 involving of right nullity of the incidental judgement of May 15 2003, that no extension of publication being able to exist with the Land Registry seizing the room of shouted for the account of CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA.

That consequently the room of shouted not being able to be seized by the command of October 20, 2003 and its irregular publication, this command of October 20, 2003 cannot juridically be used as a basis for the continuations to order a judgement of subrogation in dated June 29, 2006 Commerzbank.

ON the IREGULARITE OF RIGHT AND BASIC OF  THE REQUEST FOR SUBROGATION BY  THE COMMERZBANK.

Commerzbank could not make deliver a request for subrogation of procedure of seizure of property on the base of the command of October 20, 2003, this last being null and not being able to seize the room of shouted.

That this request was made by a summation at company CETELEM, NOT, ATHENA and one denounces by these last as confirmed by the judgement of subrogation of June 29, 2006.

With) On the summation :

This one was done by a single act at company CETELEM, NOT and ATHENA banks as it is confirmed in the judgement of subrogation returned on June 29, 2006.

That this summation is sullied with nullity, the company Athéna bank does not exist any more since December 1999 (stop of May 16, 2006).

B) On denounces :

This denounces was carried out  by a single act at company CETELEM, NOT and ATHENA banks as it is confirmed in the judgement of subrogation returned on June 29, 2006.

That this denounces is sullied with nullity, the company Athéna bank does not exist any more since December 1999 (stop of May 16, 2006).

These two acts are thus sullied with a basic regularity in its entirety act and for defect of capacity within the meaning of article 117 of the new code of civil procedure of company ATHENA.

That consequently subrogation is impossible on the base of the continuations of the command of October 20, 2003.

Commerzbank was to continue Mister and Mrs LABORIE to make mean command at the end of seizure of property by respecting the articles: 673, 674, 688, 689, 690, 692, 694 of old code of civil procedure under penalty of forfeiture of article 715 of the ANCPC.

However in the species the formality “of law and order ”  were not respected in its articles 673; 674; 688 ; 689 ; 690 ; 692 ; 694 of the ancpc.

Art. 715 (Repealed by  Ord. NO 2006-461 of the 21 avr. 2006;    Décr.  NO 59-89 of the 7 janv. 1959)   “Times envisaged in articles 673, 674, 688, 689, 690, 692, 694, paragraphs 2 and 3, (Repealed by  Décr.  NO 2002-77 of the 11 janv. 2002,  art. 11)  “696, 699,”  702, 703, paragraphs 4 and 5, 704, paragraphs 1er and 2, 705, 706, 708 to 711 are hardly prescribed forfeiture.

· Absence of notification with seized by the deposit of the schedule of conditions .

-  Commerzbank must be déchue procedure of seizure of property seizing the room of shouted by the judgement of subrogation.

ON THE NULLITY OF THE ACTS OF SIGNIFICANCES

I/On the judgement of subrogation of June 29, 2006 by Commerzbank.

Mr LABORIE André was held temporarily of February 14, 2006 until September 14, 2007, Prison of SEYSSES and Montauban.

That the significance at the prison of SEYSSES is null carrying damage with the rights of defense of Mr LABORIE André and for the account of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

“Juris-sorter”

The significance must be declared null because of the attack carried to the rights of defense  (TGI  Paris, Dec 20 1972 : D. 1973, p. 204 ; JCP 1973GII, 6263, obs. J.A. ; RTD civ. 1973, p. 168, note P. Raynaud).

The decree n° 2005-1678 of December 28, 2005, come into effect on March 1, 2006,

In the same way, the significance of an act is null provided that the applicant voluntarily left the bailiff in the ignorance of the true address of the recipient and has, in a malicious way, makes mean this act in place of which it knows that the recipient is owner but where it does not reside (2nd Civ., December 21, 2000, Bull. 2000, II, n° 178, appeal n° 99-13.218).

Article 648 of the NCPC jurisprudence: of law and order ”

12. The residence means place of the principal establishment of the interested party and not of a simple place of provisional imprisonment in a prison. TGI Paris,   May 12, 1993: Rev. door. 1993. 1185.  

That consequently the act was not made available of Mr LABORIE André regularly by bailiff by a regular significance  in accordance with the law, a forgery in writing mentioning appears that Mr LABORIE André refused to receive the act.

The act was only communicated by simple mail.

Supreme court of appeal  specified  that this communication did not make mail the time of recourse open to the recipient. The communication is not worth notification, so that the ordinance can always be struck of a recourse. (Cassation. COM, July 4, 1997 (N° 97-21.324, N° 1517 D).

That within sight of article 503 of the NCPC: the setting pursuant to the judgement of subrogation is null of full right.

Art. 503 The judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified.

.  Principle. The judgements, even last in force of judged thing, cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being regularly notified, unless the execution is not voluntary. Civ. 2E,  29 janv. 2004:   Bull. civ. II, NO 33; JCP 2004. IV. 1562; Gas. Stake. 13 March 15, 2005, p. 21, obs. of Rusquec.  - V. also Civ. 2E,  Dec 18 2003:   D. 2004. Somm. 1496, obs. Taormina. The decisions of the CIVI do not escape this principle. Civ. 2E,  June 16, 2005:   Bull. civ. II, NO 155; JCP 2005. IV. 2757.

In the species the procedure is vitiated on the form, the judgement of subrogation was not notified in accordance with article 503 of the NCPC, it cannot be used as base with the continuations of seizures of property.

Consequence the reference with the audience of October 26, 2006 is null, the room of shouted cannot validly seized once being yet.

In its audience by judgement of October 26, 2006, this last rising from the judgement of June 29, 2006 is automatically consequently null, not being able to return the sale in front of the room of shouted for December 21, 2006.

That the judgement of October 26 2006 although it is already null, cannot be put in execution without a regular significance on the base of article 503 of the NCPC.

That the made significance of this judgement of October 26, 2006 null, intervened by bailiff on November 16, 2006, specifying that I could form a further appeal in the two months.

Once again the room of shouted then which summer beforehand seized irregularly was to respect the time of the grounds for appeal and not being able to fix the date of audience of the auction sale on December 21, 2006.

No communication of the schedule of conditions to the seized parts.

On the base of article 715 of the ancpc “of law and order” the forfeiture of all the procedure of seizure of property is incurred against Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Art. 715 (Repealed by  Ord. NO 2006-461 of the 21 avr. 2006;    Décr.  NO 59-89 of the 7 janv. 1959)   “Times envisaged in articles 673, 674, 688, 689, 690, 692, 694, paragraphs 2 and 3, (Repealed by  Décr.  NO 2002-77 of the 11 janv. 2002,  art. 11)  “696, 699,”  702, 703, paragraphs 4 and 5, 704, paragraphs 1er and 2, 705, 706, 708 to 711 are hardly prescribed forfeiture. The formalities prescribed by the same articles will be sanctioned by nullity only if the irregularity caused to cause an injury with the interests of the parts in question.”

  

 

 FORFEITURES.

_  1. The forfeiture which art provides. 715, for the non-observance of the deadlines which it enumerates, is incurred even in the absence of damage. Civ. 2E,  Nov 28 1979:   Bull. civ. II, NO 279; D. 1980. IR. 152, obs. Julien; Gas. Stake. 1980. 2. 192, note J. V.; JCP 1980. II. 19471, note R. Martin   March 12, 1980: D. 1980. IR. 328   Oct. 2. 1980: D. 1981. IR. 152, obs. Julien   Nov 25 1981: D. 1982. IR. 228; Bull. civ. II, NO 202   Nov 24 1982: D. 1983. IR. 422, obs. Julien   May 28, 1984: D. 1985. IR. 54   Oct 29 1986:   Bull. civ. II, NO 153   May 16, 1990:   Bull. civ. II, NO 94; D. 1990. Somm. 349, obs. Julien; Gas. Stake. 1990. 2. Somm. 628, obs. Minnow.  

That the adjudication was indeed obtained by a dated December 21, 2006 fraud characterized since the beginning by obtaining the judgement of subrogation based on false information legal given and profiting that Mr LABORIE André who cannot act in the rights of defense of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, deprived of the assistance of a lawyer after sasine of Mister the Barristers president and to deposit a statement.

That this situation made by the councils of the parts was indeed premeditated with an unquestionable collusion of the part and room of shouted, au préalable to draw aside Mr LABORIE of any legal debate in front of the room of shouted of Toulouse saw itself continued on December 5, 2005 of an insult by calumny with an only aim  and in all peace to despoil by forgery and use of false intellectuals the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

The intention of this fraud is characterized by the various mails sent to Mr. President of the Room of shouted bringing to him to its attention by registered letter difficulties of this file and various grounds for appeal formed amongst other things against the judgement of subrogation of which an appeal in cassation  on August 17, 2006 before the date of audience of October 26 2006 was formed, request remained unanswered.

The intention of this fraud is characterized by nonthe respect of the times of recourse against the decision of October 26 “ the appeal in cassation ” or judges it shouted was to check if the significance had been regularly to operate to make right to defense of the opposing party to deposit a statement.

Specifying in more than the significances being already irregular on the place of detention carrying objections to the rights of defense but even more by the deadlines of grounds for appeal not respected.

This procedure of seizure of property was indeed premeditated in a context quite particular by forgery and use of false intellectuals and bearing objections to the rights of defense of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

It was initiated in collusion “ Fraud” SCP Frances lawyer and others. , having attended by calumny the denunciation of the insult by Mr SUCKERS Michel President of the Room of shouted and these lawyers “MUSQUI, FRANCES” in his complaint of December 5, 2005 with Mister the Public prosecutor for facts which would have proceeded on October 6, 2005 or I present and was regularly convened. “That a complaint  was deposited with the Gendarmerie of saint Orens on January 18, 2006 against Michel Mr SUCKERS for libelous denunciation in his mail of December 5, 2005”.

The intention to harm of Mr SUCKERS  Michel is real by the refusal to respect the various exerted grounds for appeal , by nonthe compliance with the rules of civil procedures and to check the various acts.

The intention to harm of Mr SUCKERS  Michel is real, this one was to be off-set in the business with seen complaint which it deposited by calumny against Mr LABORIE dated December 10 André  2005 for insult.

It cannot be consequently a judge and part.

The impartiality of Mr SUCKERS is established.

Violation of article 6; 6-1, 6-3 of the CEDH, the lawsuit was not equitable between the parts.

The fraud is established by the evidence brought.

CONCLUSION: THE PERFECT FRAUD EAST.

The fraud is characterized by the violation of the legal provisions and in the writings and evidence brought in the authority before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse.

In its stop of May 21, 2007 whose revision is required for new elements obtained subsequently to the returned decision and proving that the judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006 was indeed obtained by a procedure of seizure of property carried out by the fraud.

The fraud is characterized by an investigation which I made diligenter near the contractor, before December 15, 2006.

By the parts obtained subsequently to my arbitrary detention.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS was selected before the audience of adjudication depriving of this fact of another contracting person going.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS who is a person of approximately of  80 years, having by its past and its occupation a relation very brought closer with the law firm Frances and others. , was solicited and chosen in advance as contractor.

Explanation: (after its conversation) Mrs CHATTERS

Its lawyer would have put it in confidence :

It is a business!!! , Mrs LABORIE is ready to leave, Mister is in prison, the son does not live there!! , there is no problem!!!

They returned in force on November 19, 2006 in our residence with 30 people to visit it, it was selected and it paid this house for her small son.

 

Page 100

 

The small son maintains the wish to keep it this house “Mr TEULE Laurent”

This last called before the adjudication that nothing is suspensive and that it already convened the companies for work top, for the estimates.

Violation of the residence of Mister and dated November 19, 2006 Mrs LABORIE.

To penetrate in the residence and the framework of a procedure of seizure of property with auction sale, must as a preliminary be ordered an ordinance on request authorizing the visit of the residence and opposable to the parts by significance of act to anybody of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

However Mr LABORIE André once again was not informed of this ordinance New vice of procedure!!

Causing objection to Mister and Mrs LABORIE  not being able to make retract the ordinance returned within the necessary times and on the only request of the opposing party.

In this context Court of Appeal “in the open lawsuit in revision” must reform the stop of May 21 2007 and rule in right within sight of the characterized fraud “means of defense not respected” of law and order and not only within sight of the only title of adjudication and by taking again to bottom of the assignment of the petition for review of which Mister and Mrs LABORIE  explain unfolding with proof with the supports and legal of the Fraud established during the procedure of seizure of property to obtain the auction sale of our main home recognized by the judgement of adjudication returned on December 21, 2006 and ^par these conclusions completive.

That the damages are very important.

VII /On the posterior procedure of the judgement of adjudication, obtaining an irregular ordinance of expulsion.

UNDER THESE CONDITIONS ABOVE OF FRAUD:

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS became contractor in her audience of December 21, 2006 and that a judgement was given, of the obligations of law and order impose themselves.

(Posterior Formalities necessary for the execution of the judgement.

This stage within sight of obtaining the judgement of dated December 21, 2006 adjudication, is applicable the decree of July 27, 2006 N° 2006-936 of July 27, 2006 to the 1er January 2007 and of the ordinance of April 21, 2006

On the application of the decree of July 27, 2006 N° 2006-936 of July 27, 2006 and the ordinance of April 21, 2006 to the 1er January 2007 of which immediate application.

Art. 2 of the civil code :

- The law lays out only for the future; it does not have a retroactive effect.

_  A.  PRINCIPLE GENERAL OF NON-RETROACTIVITY OF THE LAWS.

_  1.  Character of law and order. The rule of non-retroactivity  laws is of law and order and can be raised of office by the judge. Civ. 3E,  21 janv. 1971: JCP 1971. II. 16776, note Level.  

_  11.  Applications: procedural documents . If a new law applies immediate, it cannot, without retroactivity, to reach the effects of the legal situation definitively carried out before. Com.  Oct 9 1984: Bull. civ. IV, NO 258.  - Even smell: Crim.  June 18, 1975: Gas. Stake. 1975. 2. 661.   The immediate application of a new law is without effect on the validity of the procedural documents achieved according to the law then in force. Com.  27 janv. 1998: Bull. civ. IV, NO 46.  

Source Juris-Sorter 2008:

The judgement of adjudication does not rule on a litigation. It is restricted to note either that the biddings were received and that strongest and closing bid having been carried by such part, this one was declared contractor, or that no bidding not having been carried, continuing it was declared contractor for the setting at price. This judgement is thus, by its nature, a kind of “official report” of judicial document. Such was the formula employed, formerly, by the Supreme court of appeal (Case. req., 18 févr. 1846 : DP 1846, 1, p. 134). It qualifies it today, of “legal contract” (Case. 2nd civ., 6 janv. 1966 : Bull. civ. II, n° 1. - March 5, 1970: Bull. civ. II, n° 81. - Oct 20 1970 ; Bull. civ. II, n° 287. - 4 févr. 1976 : Bull. civ. II, n° 35. - 19 janv. 1977 : Gas. Stake. 1977, 2, 455 Viatte note. - June 9, 1982: Rev. ushers 1984, 341 note D. Heel. - 16 juill. 1987 : Rev. ushers 1988, 1619, note D. Heel. - Oct 20 1993 : JCP G 1993, IV, n° 2685).

 The qualification of contract involves this consequence that, like any contract, it can be cancelled, in particular for vice assent. Thus, it was judged that the contractor, whose assent was vitiated because of an error on a substantial quality of the thing in consequence of inaccurate mentions in the schedule of conditions , was founded to ask in justice for the nullity of adjudication (TGI Charleville, 8 févr. 1980 : D. 1980, inf. rep. p. 488).

The judgement of adjudication obtained on December 21, 2006 is not a legal situation definitively carried out “perfect” knowing that this one is subjected to formalities of law and order, by various posterior legal documents to put in execution the judgement.

Légifrance guides Légistique (herewith in part)

A situation is qualified like made up in measurement or it is juridically “ perfect”, i.e. definitively fixed before the intervention of the new rule.

In the absence of situation made up, it is judged, in revenche, that the new rules of procedure apply to the enseble preparatory procedures with notes which were not taken at the date on which they come into effect.

That consequently the decree of July 27, 2006 N° 2006-936 of July 27, 2006 is applicable to the 1er January 2007 with the postérieuses formalities necessary for the execution of the judgement of adjudication. (herewith jurisclassor sources).

On obtaining the executory Gross

So that is to mean the judgement  of adjudication, it is necessary to obtain the executory gross,

That the executory gross of the judgement is obtained that on document in proof of payment of the adjudication, the ordinary expenses and the extraordinary expenses, the latter within 20 day according to the base of article 713 of the acpc.

Article 101 Decree n°2006-936 of July 27, 2006

Any person who continues the reiteration of the biddings makes issue by the clerk's office a certificate noting that the contractor did not justify consignment of the price or payment of the expenses taxed within deadline the 20 days.

The person who continues the reiteration of the biddings made mean the certificate with seized, with the contractor and, the case falling due, with the creditor having requested the sale.

In addition to the mentions prescribed for the acts of bailiff, the significance made with the purchaser comprises, hardly nullity:

1° summation to have to pay the price and the expenses of the sale within eight day;

2° the recall of the provisions of the second subparagraph of article 2212 of the civil code and articles 7, 83, 86, 102, 103 and 106 of this decree.

City by:

Decree 2006-936 2006-07-27 art. 7, art. 83, art. 86, art. 102, art. 103, art. 106
Civil code - art. 2212 (M)

That consequently consignment of the price or the payment of the expenses taxed and law and order within deadline the 20 days.

On the payment of the adjudication.

That the judgement of adjudication must be paid within two month at the date that this one was returned article 83 decree of July 27, 2006 N° 2006-936 of July 27, 2006 applicable to the 1er January 2007.

Article 83 : consignment of the price to which the contractor is held pursuant to article 2212 of the civil code must be operated within two month as from the date of final adjudication, hardly of reiteration of the biddings. At the end of this period , the selling price is automatically increased interests at the statutory rate until the complete consignment of the price.

Article 2212 of the civil code

Modified by Schedule n°2006-461 of April 21, 2006 - art. 2 JORF April 22, 2006 into force at the latest on January 1, 2007

In the absence of consignment of the price and payment of the expenses, the sale is automatically solved.

The failing contractor is held with the payment of the difference between his bidding and the resale price, if this one is less. It cannot claim with the repetition of the sums which it discharged.

FOOT-NOTE: Schedule 2006-461 2006-04-21 art. 23 : The present ordinance will come into effect at the date of the entry into force of the decree in Council of State envisaged at article 23 and, at the latest, on January 1, 2007.

City by:

Decree n°2006-936 of July 27, 2006 - art. 101 (V)
Decree n°2006-936 of July 27, 2006 - art. 83 (V)

On the publication of the judgement of adjudication.

That the judgement of adjudication must be published in the Land Registry:

Source juris-sorter 2008 idem that precedent.

· If the judgement of adjudication were struck of call the time of court publication of the day of the stop which confirms the judgement or which declares the call nonadmissible (Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. cit., n° 195-196, text and note 2). If the nullity of the adjudication were required, the time court of the day of the judgement, or the stop in the event of call, which declares the adjudication valid (Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. and loc. cit.).

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE raised call of the judgement of adjudication “for fraud in the procedure of seizure of property per assignment dated February 9, 2007, act meant with the parts and denounced with Sir, Madam the clerk in chief with the T.G.I of Toulouse.

Configuration or is Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS become contractor on December 21 2006, the latter not being able to be owner,

That all the posterior acts with the judgement of adjudications are null for the means of right called upon below and Ci above.

 

On non the property of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS,

implying of this fact the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE

Mister and Mrs LABORIE raised call of obtaining the judgement of dated December 21 adjudication 2006 and to ask of it for the resolution for fraud before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse per assignment of February 9, 2007 meant by bailiff and denounced to the clerk's office of the Court of Bankruptcy of Toulouse.

That the clerk in chief, could not make deliver the executory gross and make publish the judgement of adjudication article 750 of the acpc.

· Action in call of resolution for fraud of all the procedure of seizure of property.

That was during an action at regular law  to leave February 9, 2007.

Recall: a sale on irresponsible bid produces same the effects as an action of resolution of sale and results thus in to make return the good sold in the inheritance of the debtor.

That the supreme court of appeal in its stop of July 19, 1982 N° 81-13625 published in the bulletin, indicates that the resale on irresponsible bid has the same effects as an action of resolution of the sale. .( attached text légifrance)

That the action in irresponsible bid very removes right of ownership of the contractor fol encherissor, of the principal contractor.

That the supreme court of appeal in its stop of January 14, 2004 N° 01-11716, indicates: waited until the rights of the contractor overbidder were solved by the decision of resale on irresponsible bid and that graft handing-over on sale on irresponsible bid and the final adjudication, the building was the property of seized. .( attached text légifrance)

That this stop of January 14 2004 N° 01-11716 is included in the juris- sorter in these terms:

· That enters the action of the handing-over on sale on irresponsible bid and the final adjudication, the building is the property of seized. ( attached text légifrance)

That it can be disputed only with seen action by assignment of February 9, 2007, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS does not have any right of ownership as long as the Court of Appeal did not rule on this legal action.

That in good even as the Court of Appeal ruled dated May 21, 2007, the formalities of publication having to be done within two month were not made.

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE are always well owner of their good constituting their residence, and that Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS was private of any act near:

· Land Registry in its irregular publication of the dated March 20, 2007 judgement,

· In its transfer of our property at company LTMDB on April 5 2007 and on June 6, 2007 article 2211 of the civil code.

· In the sasine of the magistrates' court on March 22, 2007 to obtain an ordinance of expulsion.

· In its request for dated March 27, 2008 expulsion of their property.

Reason for which the contractor, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not publish the judgement of adjudication article 750 of the dated March 20, 2007 acpc:

On the obligations of the contractor which would have being achieved in the absence of the assignment in call for fraud of obtaining the judgement of adjudication:

That to take advantage of a right, “ the setting pursuant to the judgement of adjudication”.

Mrs CHATTERS was to respect posterior formalities with the judgement of adjudication to obtain the transfer of property.

Although Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS lost her property by the action of resolution, it not carried out obligation to make publish the judgement of adjudication in the two months of its date (and in the event of call in the two months of the confirmative stop), not carried out the payment in the twenty days of the ordinary expenses of continuation or the extraordinary expenses, not carried out the payment of the price or the interests of the price to their current liability is two months after the judgement of adjudication.

That within sight of article 2212 of the civil code, the sale is automatically solved.

 

These formalities are three and will be analyzed one by one:

I/On the significance of the judgement of adjudication

On the base of article 503 of the NCPC, the judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified and within 6 months under sorrow to be nonwhich occurred on the base of article 478 of the ncpc

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS become contractor was to obtain the judgement with its executory gross to make it mean after payment.

That this formality could not be made by the action of dated February 9, 2007 committed resolution.

That the executory gross of the judgement is obtained that on document in proof of payment of the adjudication, the ordinary expenses and the extraordinary expenses within 20 day according to the base of article 713 of the acpc.

That it is carried to the debate a interpellative summation by Maître FERRAN bailiff, with the order of lawyers, with the representative of the CARPA of saying to which date was consigned the rising sum of 260.000 euros of the adjudication, and the ordinary and extraordinary expenses.

That it was answered the usher and attached summation, that the consignment of the sum of 260.000 euros was versed on April 12, 2007 and that the expenses are not consigned to the order of lawyers.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS had two months to regulate the amount of the adjudication at the date of December 21, 2006 either at February 22, 2007 and 20 days to justify the consignment of the expenses to until January 12, 2007 obtain the executory gross of the judgement of adjudication or .

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS did not achieve its obligations of law and order.

That within sight of article 2212 of the civil code, the non-payment of the consignment of the price and the payment of the ordinary expenses and extraordinary: the sale is solved of full right.

That within sight of the article 2212 of the civil code Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS cannot claim with being owner, the sale is automatically solved, our property would have; although there is a dispute on the bottom and the form procedure being resold with the biddings allowing to deposit a statement in dispute.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not consequently mean the judgement of adjudication within sight of non the possibility of obtaining the executory gross of the judgement of adjudication by the lack of payment within 20 day of the expenses and the amount of the adjudication and by the loss of its right of ownership returned to seized by the action of resolution committed on February 9, 2007 by assignment made to the parts before the Court of Appeal.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS still did not mean to put it in execution, this significance being impossible in this context is impossible still to date on the base of article 478 of the ncpc and within sight of article 2212 of the civil code, the sale is automatically solved

On the base of article 478 of the ncpc, the judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006 non which occurred, is not meant within six month.

That it is pointed out that non the compliance with a rule of law and order prevents the birth of a right and consequently does not allow the acquisition of this right by the flow of time, “preclusion”

In spite of nonthe compliance with a rule of law and order, Mrs CHATTERS made establish by Maître FRANCES prosecuting Avocate of Commerzbank a certificate of kindness on 13 February 2007 to obtain the gross of the judgement of adjudication while carrying it to the knowledge of the clerk's office of the room of shouted which would have received the sum of 7910,10 euros relating to the amount of the expenses of the sale, including the right proportional, in addition to the price of adjudication.

It gives receipt Maître FRANCES of it that the latter perceived the sum of 7910,10 euros.

That the time of deposit is exceeded on the base of article 713 of the acpc.

II/On the publication of the judgement of adjudication

Mr LABORIE by the absence of significance of the judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006 asked for this said judgement to the clerk's office of the room of shouted, the latter was communicated to him by simple mail of the clerk's office.

That the communication by the clerk's office is not worth notification nor significance by Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS.

Dice the awareness per Mr LABORIE Andre of this judgement and for the account of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, Maître MALET Franck Avoué at the Court of Appeal of Toulouse formed a call by assignment at the request of Mr LABORIE, meant with Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, at the Commerzbank Bank, Mr Madam the Clerk in chief with the T.G.I of Toulouse on February 9, 2007 and for to raise the fraud in all the procedure of seizure of property.

That within sight of the texts of laws and the souces Juris-Sorter, article 750 of the acpc, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTER could not publish the judgement of adjudication any more as long as the Court of Appeal had not handed down its judgment on the call in cancellation of this one.

That the council of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, its lawyer cannot replace a decision remaining to be returned by the Court of Appeal, this last having to comply with the rules of procedure.

Juris-sorter source.

· If the judgement of adjudication were struck of call the time of court publication of the day of the stop which confirms the judgement or which declares the call nonadmissible (Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. cit., n° 195-196, text and note 2). If the nullity of the adjudication were required, the time court of the day of the judgement, or the stop in the event of call, which declares the adjudication valid (Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. and loc. cit.).

That by, fraud, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTER made publish the judgement of adjudication irregularly, whereas the property had returned to seized following the action of resolution committed before the Court of Appeal and by assignment of the parts.

That consequently no publication could be made on behalf of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS as well as clerk's office of the T.G.I of dated March 20, 2007 Toulouse.

· The judgment of the Court of Appeal was handed down on May 21, 2007.

Art. 750 (Repealed by  Ord. NO 2006-461 of the 21 avr. 2006)    (Décr.  NO 59-89 of the 7 janv. 1959)   “The contractor is held to make publish in the office of the mortgages the judgement of adjudication in the two months of his date, and, in the event of call, in the two months of the confirmative stop, under penalty of resale on irresponsible bid.

  “Seizing It, in about eight after the publication, and, with its defect, after this time”, the diligent creditor, the seized part or the contractor, at the clerk's office the state of the inscriptions deposits, requires the opening of the official report of order, and, if it is necessary, the appointment of a judge-police chief.

  This nomination is made by the president, with the continuation of the requisition registered by the prosecutor on the register of the adjudications held to this end at the clerk's office of the court.  -  Pr.   657  , 658  , 733 S. ;  Civ.  2481.  - On the entry into force of Ord. NO 2006-461 of Apr 21 2006, V.  note S. art. 749.

Consequence:

In the absence of payment and of publication;  the transfer of property cannot be established.

Par l’action en résolution en date du 9 février 2007, the transfer of property cannot be established, the property returned to seized. “with Mister and Mrs LABORIE”

Source  Juris- Sorter:

· The judgement of adjudication does not have as an aim to declare a right preexistent, but to operate a transfer of property (Square and Chauveau, COp. cit., quest. 2397. - Garsonnet and Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. cit., n° 432. - Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. cit., n° 207, p. 192). It is thus necessary to publish it in the office of the Land Registry.

III/On the mention in margin of the publication

That consequently this mention cannot exist, within sight of article 2212 of the civil code and in the absence of publication on the base of article 750 of the ncpc “the sale is null full” and within sight of the action of resolution.

On the transfer of property

That the transfer of property which cannot be established of Mister and Mrs LABORIE with Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS within sight of nonthe payment of the adjudication and the expenses within the deadlines envisaged by the law, that consequently within sight of article 2212 of the civil code, the sale is null full, and within sight of the action of resolution in progress.

The sale being null of full right, Mister and Mrs LABORIE are always owner although the opposing parties, the contractor elected their council has to establish legal documents no one and no one of effects.

On the right to act of Mr LABORIE and for the account of Mister and Madam.

Mr LABORIE is founded to seize the Court of Appeal so that it is ordered the nullity of the procedure of seizure of property whose its judgement of adjudication and so that it is ordered to put an end to a disorder with the law and order, in parraliser its effects fraudulent handling make by Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, the latter having yielded our main home, our property at a company préconstituée with his/her small son, Mr TEULE Laurent managing this known as company LTMDB recorded with the RC of Toulouse.

Article 2211 of the civil code specify that in the absence of payment within 2 month, temporarily restricted the right of ownership of the contractor to hold of the deferred payment ; before this payment the contractor cannot have the good, i.e. to yield it.

The fraud which cannot be disputed by the opposing parties which is as follows:

Whereas Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS not being able to be owner for the facts called upon above and begun again:

· Absence in the 20 days to justify payments to obtain the executory gross.

· Absence of significance of the judgement of adjudication.

· Impossibility of publishing this judgement of adjudication following the call formed on February 9, 2007.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS put forward an inaccurate legal situation with her notary:

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS has dated April 5, 2007 in front of notary Maître last CHARAS a sale contract of the good obtained by adjudication of December 21, 2006 under the suspensive clause and in waiting of the stop of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse ruling on the call in cancellation of the judgement of adjudication then which could not be owner.

That in this act it puts forward by forgery that the judgement of adjudication was published on March 20, 2007 then within sight of the text above, the publication cannot exist by the call of the judgement of dated February 9, 2007 adjudication.

That the fraud is well carractérisée Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, it had the intention deliberated to carry damage to Mister and Mrs LABORIE because it was recognized by the act that there was revocation proceedings by an assignment in call and for the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication for fraud.

That the property was become again with seized.

The fraud is even carractérisée bus within sight of article 2212 of the civil code, the sale is null of full right is that of this fact Mrs Of ARAUJO whom cannot be owner cannot resell or dilligenter any act article 2211 of the civil code, on the good of which is always owner Mister and safe Mrs LABORIE in the only punishable case of their détouner their property; what is the case.

 

Page 110

The fraud is carractérisée even because no one cannot be unaware of the law, the publication not being able to intervene as long as the Court of Appeal did not hand down its judgment.

The intention is encotre carractérisée as well as the established offence of diversion of good, the breach of trust and the swindle to seize the property Mister and Mrs LABORIE because under irregular private signature with fact the object of a final sale by front Maître CHARAS notary on June 6, 2007 whereas this stop was put in execution without significance on the base of article 503 of the ncpc, significance made subsequently to the judgment delivered May 21, 2007 as many Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS of the Commerzbank Bank.

That this stop of May 21, 2007 is the subject of a petition for review before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse for the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication as well as a procedure in front of the court dealing with the substance of a case seized by two judgement returned by the judge of the execution.

That within sight of the fraud carracterized in the procedure of seizure of property, deprived of right of defense to deposit a statement, obligatorily the act of adjudication will be reformed and the parts will be put at the same state as with paravant, the restitution of the property and the repair of all the damages.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS on the base of the article 1599 of the civil code cannot sell a good of which it did not obtain the freehold yet, the sale is null and can give to damages when the purchaser with ignored that the thing was with others.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS & Mr TEULE Laurent small son of the latter and manager of limited liability company LTMDB deliberately made available of their notary Maître CHARAS of false information inducing this last in the acts which it wrote and to date constitutive false intellectuals. (inscription of forgeries deposited to the T.G.I of Toulouse and denounced with the part and Mr Paul Michel Public prosecutor ).

Act deliberated on 5 April 2007, published in the Land Registry of Toulouse on May 22, 2007 whereas the judgement of adjudication could not be published yet by the call in progress and the nullity of the sale on the base of article 2212 of the civil code.

Act deliberated Madam Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS & Mr TEULE dated June 6, 2007 Laurent carrying out the suspensive clause whereas the first act of April 5, 2007 is null of full right for the reasons called upon above and included in the inscription of false intellectuals of the act of Master CHARAS notary in Toulouse regularly introduced in front of the T.G.I of Toulouse on July 8, 2008.

Act deliberated Mrs On ARAUJO wife CHATTERS & Mr TEULE Laurent, this last having written for its account and under cover of its company LTMDB a legal document; a lease of hiring on 1er May 2008 to occupy with impunity the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE after having made them expel irregularly into dated March 27, 2008.

Act deliberated to have concunément and in complicity while Mr LABORIE private of his means of defense , imprisoned without a lawyer intervening and after Mister the Barristers president is called by it as well as the authorities seized provided above to the magistrates' court of Toulouse of false elements to obtain an ordinance of expulsion on 1er June 2007 whereas the requêrante Madam of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not be owner and could not yield our property. . (inscription of forgeries deposited to the T.G.I of Toulouse and denounced with the parts and Mr Paul Michel Public prosecutor).

On the nullity of the notarial acts.

That an inscription of false intellectuals was deposited at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse, denounced with Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, with Mr TEULE Laurent managing of limited liability company LTMDB, with Mister & Madam the Clerk in chief like with Mister the Prosecutor of the Republic. (to date remained without answer)

CONSEQUENCES OF THE SALE BY THE FRAUD

OF OUR MAIN HOME

 (ordinance of expulsion on 1er June 2007).

Although Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS obtained a judgement of adjudication on December 21, 2006 for the sum of 260.000 euros whereas the judgement of subrogation was struck of a ground for appeal “appeal in cassation” and which remained unanswered still to date.

Whereas the sale is null of full right within sight of the elements above and within sight of article 2212 of the civil code and consequence of article 2211 of the civil code.

Whereas Madam, Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS lost her property by the action of resolution of the sale made by assignment of the dated February 9, 2007 parts and as explained above, violation of article 750 of the ncpc

Mrs Of ARAUJO  took the initiative to seize the magistrates' court of Toulouse to obtain an ordinance of expulsion while carrying false elements with the court.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS took in more the initiative and under her only responsibility the setting in execution for the ordinance of expulsion obtained by the fraud the 1er June 2007 “ of which call” that is to say on March 27, 2008.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS because of many damages by the procedure of made irregular expulsion on March 27, 2008.

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE are founded to ask the Court that be cancelled the ordinance of expulsion of the 1er June 2007 “of which call”.

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE are founded to ask for repair of the various undergone damages.

That Mister and Mrs LABORIE are founded to request rehabilitation from their residence as well as all their pieces of furniture and objects.

The various points will be analyzed:

I/ Firstly : The end not to receive request of Mrs CHATTERS in front of the judge of the magistrates' court

II  Secondly: How was obtained the ordinance of expulsion the 1er June 2007.

III/Thirdly: How was held the procedure subsequently to the ordinance of expulsion.

IV  Fourthly: How was held the procedure of dated March 27, 2008 expulsion.

V/Fifthly: On the various undergone damages.

VI/Sixièmement: On the request for rehabilitation in the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE as well as the pieces of furniture and objects.

VII/Septièmement: To the compensation for the undergone damages and the academies measures to take to guarantee the compensation for Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

I/On the end not to receive request for expulsion in front of the T.I

The judge in first authority would have to raise the end not to receive request for expulsion of Mister and Mrs LABORIE “law and order” the public Ministry having been informed before the audience of the request for appearance of Mr LABORIE Andre representing Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

No contradiction in front of the magistrates' court,

Violation of articles 14; 15 ; 16 of the CPC & 6-1 of the CEDH:

Art. 14. - Null part cannot be judged without to be heard or called.

Art. 15. - The parts must be made known mutually in good time the means in fact on which they melt their claims, elements of proof that they produce and means of right which they call upon, so that each one is capable to organize its défense.$

Art. 16 (EC have, Oct 12 1979, Gathering of new lawyers of France and A.  : Rec. EC, p. 371  ; D. n° 76-714, 29 juill. 1976, art. 1st; D. n° 81-500, May 12, 1981, art. 6 ) . - The judge must, in all circumstances, to remark and observe itself the principle of contradiction. It cannot retain, in its decision, the called upon means, explanations and documents or products by the parts that if those were capable to discuss it contradictorily.

Mr LABORIE Andre imprisoned and representing by an appeal Mrs LABORIE Suzette with his audience of May 11 2007, Mr LABORIE could not appear, not extracted before the court in spite of his request with the public prosecutor and the president court “ both per letter registered” , could not be explained contradictorily on the procedure of expulsion, “ violation of article 6 of the CEDH, violation of articles 14; 15; 16 of the code of civil procedure of law and order” and in dispute of the basic procedure “judgement of adjudication of 21 /12/2006 obtained” as much on the form that on the bottom, this last  obtained by the fraud.

Council of STATE returned October 29, 2007:

Article 1351 of the civil code : . Judgement of adjudication. The decision which ruled on no contentious incident and was restricted to report the course of the biddings  and to declare contracting  the last encherissor is not likely to acquire res judicata  .

Civ. 2nd, 13 févr. 1985: Bull. civ. II, No 35.

Mr LABORIE Andre, before the audience of December 21, 2006 had raised disputes “Incidental dispute” with Mr. President of the room of shouted in registered letter, informing it of the hanging grounds for appeal in all the procedure in progress and as explained in the assignment for October 10, 2007. ( joined Ci).

Not only the judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006 is not likely to acquire res judicata, but cannot be put in execution without respecting the posterior formalities with the judgement.

But even less the judgement of June 1, 2007 based on an irregular procedure on the bottom and the form and must be cancelled by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse obtained on forgery and use of forgery.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS did not have the right to act in front of the dated March 9 magistrates' court 2007 without to have paid the adjudication, without to have published the regularly opposable judgement of adjudication to the thirds, without to have meant the gross of the judgement  of adjudication after having paid it.

In the species, dated March 9 2007, the transfer of property was not established by the absence of publication.

In the species, dated March 9 2007, the payment of the adjudication was not carried out to obtain the executory gross.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS had lost the right of ownership by the action of resolution on February 9, 2007.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were consequently on March 9, 2007 always owner of their main home located at N° 2 rue de la Forge and still to date by the deficiency of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS not to have carried out the posterior formalities with the judgement of adjudication.

Within sight of the elements above in its article 2212 of the ncpc, the sale is null full.

By the action of resolution into dated February 9, 2007, Mrs Of ARAUJO lost the property.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS cannot bring false element to the court in the absence of an unspecified debate to obtain a favorable decision.

Within sight of articles 122 to 125 of the NCPC, in its request for expulsion introduced in front of TI by Mrs Suzette Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS,  end to receive “of law and order ” must be accomodated by the court.

Considering  articles 122 to 125 of the NCPC, end not to receive request for expulsion to the profit of Mrs CHATTERS must be ordered by the court for violation of the fundamental rules of right.

Art. 122. - Constitutes an end not-to receive any means which tends to make declare the adversary inadmissible in its request, without examination at the bottom, for defect of right to act, the such defect of quality, the defect of interest, the regulation, the time préfix, the judged thing.

Art. 123. - The ends not-to receive can be proposed in any event, except the possibility for the judge of condemning to damage interests those which would have abstained from, in a dilatory intention, to raise them earlier.

Art. 124. - The ends not-to receive must be accomodated without that which calls upon them having to justify of an objection and while at the same time the inadmissibility would not result from any provision express.

Art. 125 (D. n° 79-941, Nov. 7. 1979, art. 5 and 16). - The ends not-to receive must be recorded of office when they have a character of law and order, in particular when they result from the non-observance of the deadlines in which must be exerted or the absence grounds for appeal of opening of a ground for appeal .

The court must cancel the ordinance of expulsion of the 1er June within sight of the legal provisions Ci not respected below and to condemn the applicant one to damage  and interests with the damage of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

How was obtained the ordinance of expulsion the 1er June 2007.

That this procedure was made whereas Mr LABORIE André was in prison without any means of denying oneself in violation articles 14; 15 ; 16 of the NCPC and as in the procedure of seizure of property, the whole in violation of article 6-1 of the European convention of the human right, nonequitable lawsuit.

Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS was the contractor of our main home by judgement of the room of shouted of Toulouse returned on December 21, 2006.

Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS well which is a contractor and in spite of the disputes raised by writ of summons on February 9, 2007 before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse to require the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication obtained by the fraud, had posterior necessary formalities with the act of adjudication to put forward some the freehold and to put in execution the judgement of adjudication.

As reported above, Mister and Mrs LABORIE Are always owner by the action of resolution committed before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse per assignment of February 9, 2007

The posterior obligations and necessary formalities with the act of adjudication are three:

- Significance of the judgement of adjudication,

- Publication of the judgement,

- Mention of the judgement in margin of the publication of the command.

Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS did not respect any of these formalities.

· That in the absence of significance of judgement of adjudication.

· That in the absence of a regular publication.

· That in the absence of judgement in margin of the publication of the command is in the species that of October 20, 2003 being null of right by its irregular publication not respecting deadline the 20 days (stop 703 of the supreme court of appeal of March 12, 1997, nullity of the procedure of publication) and of the room of shouted.

That consequently Mrs Of AUROJO Suzette wife CHATTERS cannot claim to be owner of our residence to ask for by assignment of March 9, 2007 the expulsion of Mister and Mrs LABORIE in front of the magistrates' court ruling as regards summary procedure, formalities preliminary not being accomplished and not being able accomplished to to be seen explanations below.

Au préalable of the sasine of the magistrates' court.

a) Significance of the judgement of adjudication article 503 of the NCPC.

The contractor must make mean the gross of the judgement of adjudication of December 21 within 20 day .

That the Gross of the judgement of adjudication cannot be obtained from the clerk that after the price of the adjudication is paid by the contractor.

However the adjudication was paid only by Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS on April 11, 2007 as attests it conclusions of its council the lawyer SCP CATUGIER- DUSAN- BOURRASSET. And confirmed by the interpellative request of the SCP of usher FERRAN with, Toulouse auprès of the CARPA.

That consequently on March 9, 2007 it could not seize the magistrates' court to obtain an ordinance of expulsion.

Specifying that under articles 678 and 693 of the New Code of Civil procedure when the representation of the parts is obligatory “in the species in front of the room of shouted”, the decision must be notified to the representative beforehand, or else notification is null.

(stop of the supreme court of appeal of December 6, 1978 N° 77-12-650 chair petitioning CAZAL DELVOLVE; defendant CONSOLO.

That this judgement of adjudication was not meant regularly within 20 day and still always not meant as much to Mr LABORIE André as with Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

Article 503 of the NCPC: The judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified, unless the execution is not voluntary.

  In the event of execution with only seen minute, the presentation of this one is worth notification.

_  4.  Expulsion. The notification of a judgement of adjudication must be preliminary to its execution by ordinance of summary procedure. Civ. 2E,  1er March 1995:   Bull. civ. II, NO 62.   … Consequently, the regularization of the procedure by posterior significance of the judgement is not possible any more. Civ. 2E,  Apr 11 1986: Bull. civ. II, NO 50; Gas. Stake. 1986. 2. Somm. 424, obs. Minnow.   Can make to the object of an expulsion the subtenant holding his right of occupation of the tenant, whose expulsion was ordered and to which the ordinance of summary procedure was meant. Civ. 3E,  Nov 30 2005: D. 2006. IR. 99; JCP 2005. IV. 3797; Procedures 2006. Com. 28, obs. Perrot; Dr. and proc. 2006. 152, obs. Salati.

Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS seized the magistrates' court to obtain our expulsion in violation of the three rules above, a judgement whose call was formed on the decision of the 1er June 2007.

The cancellation of the judgement of subrogation will have necessarily for consequence the nullity of the later procedure which is only the continuation, and this until the judgement of adjudication inclusively  (Case. 2nd civ., Dec 21 1966 : Bull. civ. II, n° 982).

b) On the publication of the judgement of adjudication:

Recalling that the transfer of property must be done by an opposable regular publication with the thirds.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not  to put in execution the judgement of adjudication without publishing the judgement as a preliminary so that it is opposable with the third.

Violation of article 750 of the ncpc

The publication was made on March 20, 2007 except time, deadline 2 months maximum is on February 21, 2007.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS carried false elements to make publish the judgement of adjudication on March 20 2007 except time, the time being two months at the date of the judgement of adjudication so that it is opposable with the thirds, filing proceedings of irresponsible bid on the base of article 716 of the ANCPC.

That consequently Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not seize the magistrates' court on March 9, 2007 to obtain an ordinance of expulsion.

Still more serious, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS did not make the point that a call on the judgement of adjudication was during front the Court of Appeal of Toulouse by assignment of February 9, 2007.

That within sight of the call, the publication could not be made as long as the Court of Appeal did not hand down the judgment, the latter intervened on May 21, 2007 and it is only within sight of one regular publication that the judgement of adjudication is opposable with the thirds.

Juris-sorter source. Article 750 of the ncpc.

· If the judgement of adjudication were struck of call the time of court publication of the day of the stop which confirms the judgement or which declares the call nonadmissible (Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. cit., n° 195-196, text and note 2). If the nullity of the adjudication were required, the time court of the day of the judgement, or the stop in the event of call, which declares the adjudication valid (Cézar-Daughter-in-law, COp. and loc. cit.).

That consequently, the judgement of adjudication could not be opposable with the thirds before the court decides.

Recalling that Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS was assigned on February 9, 2007 in call on the judgement of adjudication returned on December 21, 2007.

(Certificate of call of Acknowledged Master MALET).

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS put forward an inaccurate legal situation “constitutive of forgery and use of false intellectuals”  not having satisfied the three posterior necessary formalities with the dated December 21, 2006 adjudication.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not claim herself to be owner as long as the necessary formalities were not accomplished and that the judgement of adjudication could not be opposable with the thirds.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not thus seize the dated March 9, 2007 magistrates' court to obtain an ordinance of expulsion.

That consequently the ordinance returned in violation of any debate violation of article 14; 15 ; 16 of the NCPC, 6-1 of the CEDH and by false information carried in front of the court ruling as regards summary procedure with an only aim of obtaining a favorable decision will be purely cancelled by the Court of Appeal of Toulousedont call schedules of the 1er June 2007.

Still more serious on the punishable intrigues Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS during the irregular sasine of the magistrates' court.

Whereas Mister and Mrs LABORIE were were always owner like above mentioned

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS has to yield the good obtained by dated April 5, 2007 adjudication to limited liability company LTMDB represented by her manager Mr TEULE Laurent, this last not being that the small son of Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS.

This transfer could not be done because the latter could not have obtained to the gross of the judgement on April 5 2007 Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS had still not paid the amount of adjudication which only intervened on April 11, 2007.

It is only after payment of the adjudication that the gross can be delivered.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not have carried out the transfer of property by a dated April 5, 2007 regular publication, was in hand a procedure of call in cancellation on the judgement of adjudication.

It is only after one opposable regular publication with the thirds that Mrs Of ARAUJO could be owner and of course after having discharged price of the adjudication.

In the species on March 9 2007 no formality was accomplished.

That the publication could be made only subsequently to the stop of the Court of Appeal returned on May 21 2007 and after significance on the base of article 503 of the NCPC.

 

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS and the COMMERZBANK was assigned before the Court of Appeal on February 9, 2007 and to obtain the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication.

Other embezzlements in front of notary were only made to divert purely and simply by forgery and use of false intellectual the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and to cause another legal difficulty to restore the main home with Mister and Mrs LABORIE during the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication which is of right by the basic act to the continuations, “judgement of subrogation of June 29, 2006, this last registered voter as a false intellectual on July 8, 2008”

That consequently Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS made use of false intellectuals while bringing a legal situation distorts to obtain a right in front of notary and to make establish a dated April 5, 2007 notarial act and on June 6, 2007 between it and limited liability company LTMDB.

That the sale between the parts constitutes a false intellectual on behalf of the notary and between Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS and the limited liability company: LTMDB.

· An inscription of false was recorded at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse on the notarial act of April 5 and June 6, 2007.

 On the course of the procedure subsequently to the ordinance

of expulsion of the 1er June 2007.

In which configuration the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD put in execution at the request of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS this known as ordinance of the 1er June 2007 of which call on June 11, 2007.

FORGERY & USE OF BLANK DOORS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PREFECTURE OF THE H.G.

The SCP of ushers could not be unaware of of a call carried out on June 11, 2007 and to raise the irregularity in the form and at the bottom of this ordinance, only the Court of Appeal is seized by the founded good of the procedure. And to make retract the ordinance of June 1 2007.

The SCP of ushers was informed by mail recommended of this difficulty of form and basic of the procedure of expulsion.

The SCP of ushers was informed by mail recommended of the difficulty of the procedure of seizure of property on the form and the bottom having led to a judgement of adjudication thus that to the sasine of the Magistrates' court to require our expulsion.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could not be prevailed of the ordinance of the 1er June 2007 to order expulsion of Mister and dated March 27 Mrs LABORIE 2008 and within sight of the deficiency of its customer Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS begun again explanations of right above.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could not compensate our residence by an irregular expulsion, the latter made use of false intellectuals.

On the Significance of ordinance of summary procedure of the 1er June 2007 is into dated June 13, 2007 with Mr LABORIE.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

This significance by the SCP of ushers DELHOM; RIAUCOUX; PEYRAUD with Montauban is irregular and null, not having made it possible by assignment to ask for the cancellation of the provisional execution private of means of defense held the prison of Montauban, significance having attacked the rights of defense of Mr LABORIE André.

 

Page 120

 

“Juris-sorter”

The significance must be declared null because of the attack carried to the rights of defense  (TGI  Paris, Dec 20 1972 : D. 1973, p. 204 ; JCP 1973GII, 6263, obs. J.A. ; RTD civ. 1973, p. 168, note P. Raynaud).

The act reporting the regular significance by the SCP of ushers DELHOM; RIAUCOUX; PEYRAUD with Montauban is a false intellectual.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD with fact use of forgery act of significance delivered by the SCP of ushers DELHOM; RIAUCOUX; PEYRAUD with Montauban.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD indicates in its conclusions that the significance to Mr LABORIE André is irregular, what constitutes a false intellectual with an only aim of obtaining a decision of court favorable and prejudicial with Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Within sight of article 503 of the NCPC: The judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified.

The significance having itself to be regular without being able to attack the interest of defense, SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could not be prevailed of an irregular significance.

That consequently the ordinance of the 1er June 2008 ordering expulsion by the absence of a regular significance could not be put in execution by the SCP of usher Garrigues & Balluteaud.

On the Significance of ordinance of dated June 14, 2007 summary procedure to Mrs LABORIE.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD puts forward in its conclusions a false intellectual while asserting that it would have made available on June 14, 2007 of Mrs LABORIE Suzette and by significance the ordinance returned on 1er June.

However with the reading of the act, the verbal lawsuit of significance reports impossibility of finding Mrs LABORIE Suzette in her residence.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD mentions that it would have left a transit advice note without bringing the least proof of it.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD mentions which would have sent the letter envisaged by article 658 of the NCPC, without bringing the least proof of it.

That it should be considered that the significance is irregular, the act was not made available of Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could have deposited the act in town hall, the latter does not bring any proof of deposit.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could have sent the act by registered letter, the latter does not bring any proof of any sending and any proof of withdrawal signed Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

At the end of article 654 of the NCPC the significance must be made with anybody, the act of SCP GARRIGUES & BALUTEAUD does not specify the diligences made by the bailiff so meaning the act with Mrs LABORIE Suzette. “SCP GARRIGUES & BALUTEAUD could not be unaware of and seek its place of work”. and to remake a new attempt to meet Mrs LABORIE in her residence.

Mrs LABORIE Suzette was private to take note of the ordinance of returned expulsion the 1er June 2007 and to seize a council of it to ask of it to the provisional suspension Mister the First President of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse per assignment.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALUTEAUD carried unquestionable damage to the rights of the defense of Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

“Juris-sorter”

The significance must be declared null because of the attack carried to the rights of defense  (TGI  Paris, Dec 20 1972 : D. 1973, p. 204 ; JCP 1973GII, 6263, obs. J.A. ; RTD civ. 1973, p. 168, note P. Raynaud).

Within sight of article 503 of the NCPC: The judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified.

The significance having itself to be regular without being able to attack the interest of defense, SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could not be prevailed of an irregular significance.

That consequently the ordinance of the 1er June 2008 ordering expulsion by the absence of a regular significance could not be put in execution by the SCP of ushers Garrigues & Balluteaud.

On the command to leave the places meant on June 29, 2007 with Mr LABORIE.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

This significance by the SCP of ushers DELHOM; RIAUCOUX; PEYRAUD with Montauban is irregular and null, not having made it possible by assignment to make opposition by assignment in front of the judge of the execution and to raise the end not to receive and the nullity of this command “irregular significance of the ordinance of expulsion and bottom of the procedure” Mr LABORIE private André of means of defense held at the prison of Montauban, significance having attacked the rights of defense of Mr LABORIE André.

“Juris-sorter”

The significance must be declared null because of the attack carried to the rights of defense  (TGI  Paris, Dec 20 1972 : D. 1973, p. 204 ; JCP 1973GII, 6263, obs. J.A. ; RTD civ. 1973, p. 168, note P. Raynaud).

The act reporting the regular significance by the SCP of ushers DELHOM; RIAUCOUX; PEYRAUD with Montauban is a false intellectual.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD with fact use of forgery act of significance delivered by the SCP of ushers DELHOM; RIAUCOUX; PEYRAUD with Montauban.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD indicates in its conclusions that the significance to Mr LABORIE André is regular, what constitutes a false intellectual with an only aim of obtaining a decision of court favorable and prejudicial with Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Within sight of article 503 of the NCPC: The judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified.

The significance having itself to be regular without being able to attack the interest of defense, SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could not be prevailed of an irregular significance.

That consequently the command to leave the places by the absence of a regular significance could not be put in execution by the SCP of usher Garrigues & Balluteaud.

Command to leave the places meant with Mrs LABORIE Suzette

July 3, 2007.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD puts forward in its conclusions a false intellectual while asserting that it would have made available on July 3, 2007 of Mrs LABORIE Suzette and by significance of a command to leave the places.

However with the reading of the act, the verbal lawsuit of significance reports impossibility of finding Mrs LABORIE Suzette in her residence.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD mentions that it would have left a transit advice note without bringing the least proof of it.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD mentions which would have sent the letter envisaged by article 658 of the NCPC, without bringing the least proof of it.

That it should be considered that the significance is irregular, the act was not made available of Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could have deposited the act in town hall, the latter does not bring any proof of deposit.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could have sent the act by registered letter, the latter does not bring any proof of any sending and any proof of withdrawal signed Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

At the end of article 654 of the NCPC the significance must be made with anybody, the act of SCP GARRIGUES & BALUTEAUD does not specify the diligences made by the bailiff so meaning the act with Mrs LABORIE Suzette. “SCP GARRIGUES & BALUTEAUD could not be unaware of and seek its place of work” and to remake a new attempt to meet Mrs LABORIE in her residence.

Mrs LABORIE Suzette was private to take note of the command to leave the places and to seize a council of it to ask for the procedure to be followed “not having allowed to make opposition by assignment in front of the judge of the execution and to raise of it the end not to receive and the nullity of this command “ irregular significance of the ordinance of expulsion and bottom of the procedure”

SCP GARRIGUES & BALUTEAUD carried unquestionable damage to the rights of the defense of Mrs LABORIE Suzette.

“Juris-sorter”

The significance must be declared null because of the attack carried to the rights of defense  (TGI  Paris, Dec 20 1972 : D. 1973, p. 204 ; JCP 1973GII, 6263, obs. J.A. ; RTD civ. 1973, p. 168, note P. Raynaud).

Within sight of article 503 of the NCPC: The judgements cannot be carried out against those to which they are opposite only after their being notified.

The significance having itself to be regular without being able to attack the interest of defense, SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD could not be prevailed of an irregular significance.

That consequently the command to leave the places of July 3, 2007 by the absence of a regular significance could not be put in execution by the SCP of usher Garrigues & Balluteaud.

Registered letter addressed on July 5, 2007 by SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD to the Prefect of the High Garonne.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD seized Mister the Prefect of the High Garonne by false intellectuals in its mail of September 5, 2007 and while making use of false intellectuals concerning the inaccurate acts of significances and to make the point that it regularly delivered acts with Mister and Mrs LABORIE then as explained above these significances are null.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD seized Mister the Prefect of the High Garonne by false intellectuals in its mail of September 5, 2007 by making believe in Mister the Prefect that all the procedure upstream regular and was not disputed whereas there was a call on the ordinance of expulsion and that the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES  & BALLUTEAUD was informed by registered letter of Mr LABORIE André of the difficulties of procedure as much on the bottom that on the form.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD was to oppose to the parts with the authority the communication of the various procedural documents, the latter carried once again damage to Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

These false intellectuals were to harm the interests of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

On the letter of SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD with

Mister the director of the DASS.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD informed Mister the Departmental Director of the medical and social action in using of false intellectual, and while indicating which made deliver regular commands with Mister and Mrs LABORIE then like above explained, these commands as the various acts upstream are sullied all with nullity.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD was to oppose to the parts with the authority the communication of the various procedural documents, the latter carried once again damage to Mister and Mrs LABORIE

On the verbal lawsuit of attempt at dated September 17, 2007 expulsion meant to Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD carried out a verbal lawsuit of September 17, 2007  of attempt at expulsion whereas as a preliminary it could not exist any valid command to leave the places, not meant with Mrs LABORIE Suzette as explained above and meant irregularly by false intellectual with private Mr LABORIE of his rights of defense.

In a procedure of expulsion must be to be as a preliminary meant regularly command to leave the places and like Ci explained above, no command was regularly meant and even less on the use of false intellectuals begun again by acts sullied with false intellectuals and as mentioned above.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD makes permanently use of false intellectuals to create by the continuation another of them to obtain court orders carrying damages with Mister and Mrs LABORIE and with an only aim of irregularly expelling Mister and Mrs LABORIE of their residence.

The verbal lawsuit written on September 17 by SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD is a new intellectual forgery, ever communicated with Mr LABORIE André and Mrs LABORIE dated September 17, 2007 Suzette and following days.

This false intellectual of September 17, 2007 of SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD is characterized by their own document. “How Mr LABORIE André can you it receive  the verbal lawsuit of dated September 17, 2007 significance in copy whereas on this date there of the 17 it would have been present at its residence for an attempt at expulsion” that this verbal lawsuit could not be written.

More especially as it is mentioned on the verbal lawsuit of September 17, 2007 of an attempt at expulsion and that Mr LABORIE is currently at the prison of Montauban.

That this act concerns well Mrs LABORIE Suzette and not Mr LABORIE in this dated September 17, 2007 and that so this act was well premeditated in my absence to want to expel us our residence whereas I for them was imprisoned in Montauban as reports it the verbal lawsuit, the alleged act was to be opposable with Mr LABORIE André.

The false intellectual is characterized, it given forever me any act for the account of Mrs LABORIE Suzette and none act for Mr LABORIE Andre into dated September 17, 2007.

The SCP of ushers could not give the verbal lawsuit written on September 17, 2007 on data processing  with Mr LABORIE,  not knowing that Mr LABORIE was in his residence and as it is confirmed by the verbal lawsuit of attempt at expulsion on September 17, 2007.

Once again the SCP of bailiff GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD acts deliberately and as justified by a mail below of Master BOURRASSET, it should be badgered without slackening Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

PS: Mister and Mrs LABORIE reserve the right to take action pursuant of these writings auprès competent authorities.

Verbal lawsuit of requisition of the dated October 11, 2007 police force.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

Once again, the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD continues his eagerness on Mister and Mrs LABORIE by false intellectuals and use of false intellectuals as above begun again and made available of Mister the Prefect of the High Garonne to see itself allotted a decision to be assisted police force to expel us our residence and in violation of all the procedure, the judge of the execution was not seized by the SCP of bailiffs on the alleged incident of September 17, 2007.

SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD carries only to the knowledge of the Prefect by use of false intellectuals the ordinance of summary procedure returned on June first, 2007 without making the point that there is a ground for appeal the call and disputes serious on the procedure of adjudication and the procedure of expulsion.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD makes available of the Prefect by use of false intellectuals that the significances of this ordinance were regularly meant whereas it knows pertinently that those could not be regularly meant like explained above.

“Juris-sorter”

· The significance must be declared null because of the attack carried to the rights of defense  (TGI  Paris, Dec 20 1972 : D. 1973, p. 204 ; JCP 1973GII, 6263, obs. J.A. ; RTD civ. 1973, p. 168, note P. Raynaud).

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD makes available of the Prefect by use of false intellectuals that the significances of the command to leave the places were carried out whereas it knows that these commands are irregular in the form and on the bottom.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD makes available of the Prefect by use of false intellectuals whom it drew up a verbal lawsuit of expulsion whereas this last cannot exist regularly within sight of the elements above.

That the requests formulated in its verbal lawsuit addressed to the prefecture by use of false intellectual is with an only aim of harming the interests of Mister and Mrs LABORIE to obtain to a decision of Mister the Prefect.

That this verbal lawsuit must be opposable with the parts with the authority, the SCP of usher took care well not to mean it with Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

That this verbal lawsuit meant with Mister the Prefect, cannot moreover be admissible by Mr Bruno PAGNAC “administrative agent ” this last which cannot replace Mister the Prefect, person in charge for the decision which must be made.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD uses and misuses all its capacities by false intellectuals and use of false intellectuals to continue this eagerness without slackening in the opposition to Mister and Mrs LABORIE and to induce in error and to put in door at forgery a whole administration and legal institution.

On the letter of the Prefect of the High dated January 8, 2008 Garonne.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

This decision was to be opposable with the parts, the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD was to bring it to our attention to take advantage of our rights, this one making that the use of false intellectuals products by this known as SCP of ushers, this one must be taken for false intellectuals by the use of false intellectuals.

Once again the SCP of ushers carried unquestionable and undeniable damages to Mister and Mrs LABORIE GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD like to Mister the Prefect of the High Garonne.

On the letter of the lawyer SCP

CATUGIER; DUSAN; BOURRASSET in date of June 20, 2007

Consequently : false intellectuals.

This mail addressed to the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES BALLUTEAUD, engages only the civil and penal liability for the latter to make use of the ordinance of expulsion that Mr LABORIE registered voter as a false intellectualS and for the account of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and of the use of false intellectuals of this lawyer company “for eminently dilatory call;  while putting forward the regularity of the significances” whereas those Ci irregular like are explained above thus of the existence of an unquestionable irregularity the vice one of procedure of seizure of property like reported below in the introductory assignment and terms included in the present conclusions in reply.

On the fax of Master BOURRASSET to SCP GARRIGUES BALLUTEAUD

Into dated March 11, 2008.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

The intrigues punishable and considered criminals by the irregular expulsion made by the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES BALLUTEAUD, cannot be denied of the latter, grateful that a request for abuse of power was deposited against the decision of the prefecture, terms produces with the lawyer CATUGIER SCP - DUSAN - BOURRASSET.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES BALLUTEAUD could not once again act to seize the police force in the measurement which the decision of the prefecture was tackled in front of the administrative court of Toulouse.

It cannot be reproached Mr LABORIE André for acting as justice on the base of articles 30 and 31 of the code of civil procedure to defend their common interests.

     For the adversary, the action is the right to discuss the cogency of this claim.

The civil and penal liability is engaged by SCP for ushers GARRIGUES BALLUTEAUD having acted at the request of Mrs For ARAUJO wife CHATTERS “false intellectual repressed by article 441-4 of the penal code.

On the verbal lawsuit of requisition of the dated March 14, 2008 police force.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES BALLUTEAUD  made use of false intellectuals by drawing up a verbal lawsuit to obtain the presence of the gendarmerie of Saint Orens de Gameville and by producing three parts which cannot have any authority of thing judged by the various seized grounds for appeal.

The SCP of ushers GARRIGUES BALLUTEAUD  took care well not to inform the gendarmerie which there were hanging grounds for appeal and only aim of carrying damage to Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Only parts taken to form its requests with the Prefecture:

The SCP of usher GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD deprived once again Mister and Mrs LABORIE to take note of it.

 « Resort in front of the administrative court of Toulouse ”  dated January 18, 2008 on the decision of December 27, 2007 of the prefecture addressed to Mister and Mrs LABORIE ordering expulsion but not that of January 8, 2008.

On the verbal lawsuit of expulsion on 27, 28, and March 31, 2008

at the request of Mrs CHATTERS.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

SCP  GARRIGUES & BALUTEAUD bailiffs could not act by the preceding acts constitutive of false intellectuals and of her uses, Mrs CHATTERS could not claim herself owner in the absence of a regular publication of the judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006 and even less limited liability company LTMDB by transfer of our dated April 5, 2007 residence per notarial act, this act constitutes a false intellectual

This verbal lawsuit constitutes a false intellectual in his contents, Mister and Mrs LABORIE never gave the order and the authorization to remove the pieces of furniture and objects, them to deposit in the warehouse mentioned in the act, Mister and Mrs LABORIE disputed the regularity of this dated March 27 and following expulsion and as it is confirmed by the complaint deposited this same day with the gendarmerie of Orens Saint.

This verbal lawsuit constitutes a false intellectual in its contents, all the pieces of furniture and object were not registered in the verbal lawsuit, these pieces of furniture and objects were diverted by the SCP of usher GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD under the pretext of a procedure of regular expulsion.

This verbal lawsuit is illegible, does not allow Mister and Mrs LABORIE to inventory the pieces of furniture and object precisely removed without our authorization and under the orders of SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD.

If the procedure of expulsion were regular, the SCP of ushers GARIGUES & BALLUTEAUD would have to seize in summary procedure within sight of this difficulty by request Mr. President so that it is ordered the removal and the storage of the pieces of furniture and object in a warehouse and not to take by the SCP of usher a warehouse to his suitability and of course if expulsion were regular.

All the acts engaged by the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD with the reason for its constituent Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS are sullied with false intellectuals of the first to the last act.

On the verbal lawsuit, article 659 of the dated April 2, 2008 NCPC.

Consequently : false intellectuals.

Consequence, this lawsuit verbal is a false intellectual, begins again that inaccurate terms and the use of false intellectuals to put forward a regular procedure of expulsion.

On the verbal lawsuit of report established on April 9, 2008

by SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD.

This verbal lawsuit makes well note by these photographs that the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE was indeed plundered by the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & emptied BALLUTEAUD of all its pieces of furniture and objects belonging to Mister and Mrs LABORIE on 27, 28, March 31, 2007.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE INTRIGUES OF THE PREFECTURE OF THE H.G AND TO HAVE MADE USE OF FALSE INTELLECTUALS

IRREGULAR EXPULSION EAST

By the absence of a regular publication of the judgement of adjudication all the posterior acts at the request of Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS are null of effect, the latter can claim of no right of ownership to have asked for the expulsion of Mister and Mrs LABORIE of their residence as much in front of the court of which returned the 1 scheduleser June 2007 and of all the subsequent acts carried out by SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD bailiffs.

DISORDER A the LAW AND ORDER IS CARRACTERISE.

The Prefecture is responsible for the intrigues taken on a basis that Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS made use of forgery to obtain an ordinance of returned expulsion the 1er June 2007, the latter seizing its agent SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD which this last A also made various forgeries and uses of false intellectuals.

The Prefecture of the H.G is responsible for its intrigues and to have given the order to the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALUTEUAUD assisted of the police force the expulsion of Mister and Mrs LABORIE of their main home on March 27, 2008 and on the initial request Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, the latter having misused by forgery and use of forgery a whole administration by the means of her agent SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD.

The responsibility for Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS is fully committed and causing unquestionable injuries with Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

On dated March 27, 2008 irregular expulsion and the absence of grounds for appeal in front of the judge of the execution.

Its unfolding:

 On which legal basis Mister and Mrs LABORIE were expelled on March 27, 2008:

By a decision of the prefecture of the High dated January 8, 2008 Garonne obtained by forgery and uses of forgeries, produced by SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD bailiffs in Toulouse and for its applicant Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS who very lost right of ownership like above reported.

 

Page 130

 

ON the DECISION of January 8, 2008.

The prefecture of the High Garonne returned a decision concerning Mister and Mrs LABORIE “with the pretext that this one would have authority of the final decision” without this one being brought to their attention, mail of January 8, 2008 only carried to the knowledge of SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD bailiffs .

Res judicata in the ordinance obtained the 1 cannot be acquireder June 2007 on forgery and use of forgery of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS because this one depends on a judgement of adjudication which cannot have the authority of the final decision.

That this decision of the prefecture is very serious and prejudicial with Mister and expelled Mrs LABORIE of their dated March 27, 2008 residence, the decision was to be opposable for them.

The prefecture wanted to make executory an ordinance of summary procedure returned by the magistrates' court of Toulouse on 1er June 2007 ordering the expulsion of Mister and Mrs LABORIE of their main home and with the pretext that this one having acquired res judicata.

Prefecture represented by “Mrs Anne Gaëlle BAUDOUIN-CLERC” made use of false intellectuals in his decision of January 8, 2008 and December 27, 2007.

Recall:

That as a preliminary in front of the administrative court of Toulouse a request was hanging on the bottom for abuse of power of the Prefecture and in cancellation of a rental expulsion, on a decision of the returned Prefecture on December 27, 2007 ref.: MT N° 0800266-2 recorded on January 18, 2008.

Deprive Prefecture with an only aim of still carrying damage to Mister and Mrs LABORIE within sight of the ways of facts which followed on March 27, 2008 from there.

How the decision of January 8, 2008 by the prefecture of the H.G was made.

 

False intellectuals were carried with the knowledge of the Prefecture by SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD, the latter having carried an inaccurate legal situation with an only aim of making expel Mister and Mrs LABORIE of their main home.

Mr LABORIE Andre for the account of Mister and Mrs LABORIE had informed the Prefecture on 27 December 2007 and dated January 8, 2008 of the various difficulties of the file by registered letter and fax:

Its unfolding:

On March 27, 2008 at 9 o'clock in the morning  the ringing of the gate resounds, I open the door and I recognize the usher who already came to badger me to expel us our main home whereas it did not hold any valid final title.  Put at the current of the difficulties in this file and the various grounds for appeal in course in front of the Toulouse jurisdiction, it could not be unaware of the various received documents a few days  previously on the difficulty of execution.

I wore a bathrobe, I have say to him: “I will get dressed”. I arise, I will open the gate to him and of course  I note that it was accompanied by approximately  10 gendarmes. I made them all enter; they gave an opinion in the dining room. Immediately I informed them that there were grounds for appeal; they did not want anything to know, as well the usher as the gendarmes, aggressive and almost loans  to embark me, moreover being informed of the situation and the illegality of the procedure of expulsion.

Complicity  gendarmerie is real according to the basic request Mrs CHATTERS Suzette; it covers the punishable intrigues of acting Master GARRIGUES bailiffs at the request of Mrs Suzette CHATTERS whereas the latter could not be owner with the sasine of the magistrates' court of Toulouse to obtain an ordinance of expulsion and by the absence of transfer of property in date of March 9, 2007, transfer of property only which can be carried out by a regular publication with the Land Registry after the court returned its decision on the call of the judgement of adjudication must after May 21, 2007.

Not more is not any more owner by the sale of our main home at company LTMDB, limited liability company with responsibility limited to the capital for 2000 euros whose its registered office is to the 4 Bitet dead end in Toulouse Bat 2 appart 56 31400 TOULOUSE and which sound  manager is Mr TEULE Laurent, the notarial act being registered out of forgery in intellectual writings.

The decision  prefectoral with nullity to have taken a decision for the account of Mrs is sullied CHATTERS Suzette whereas the latter was not any more owner, decision attacked in front of the dated January 18, 2008 administrative court on the bottom and the form for abuse of power as well as the decision of not communicated January 8, 2008 with Mister and Mrs LABORIE and whose is also seized the administrative court of Toulouse E dated August 5, 2008.

The bailiff of SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD in the species Maître GARRIGUES would have to check the real property of the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE remaining in N° 2 rue de la Forge 31650 Saint Orens.

The bailiff of SCP GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD in the species Maître GARRIGUES acted on order of the prefecture and by decision of December 27, 2007, and after this last brought false elements to the prefecture on the real property of our main home.

That in more this prefectoral decision, are an author did not have any valid delegation of signature in date of December 27, 2007.

That expulsion is irregular in the absence of an unspecified regular command of expulsion preliminary meant to the parts.

That many grounds for appeal were in hand and that the court and the court were seized on the irregularity of the act of adjudication returned on December 21, 2006.

While I parlementais with the gendarmes and that they had been previously informed by mail recommended with acknowledgement of delivery  that grounds for appeal had been engaged, “the usher gave the order to remove all the pieces of furniture  and objects  with the removers”.

I tried to telephone lawyers, Préfecture, Ministre for Justice, with a permanent pressure around me and to be taken along fear, “seeing one of the gendarmes putting on the gloves for if required carrying out my arrest”.

I could calm them very with difficulty by folding me with the pressures and not being able anything to make to prevent expulsion.

In first, and, so that I cannot act by documents in proof which I will have been able to provide in front of a court in many businesses, I had all the removed files of the office, a hundred and many papers and legal books, legal, software codes data-processing, all that one can find in an office of personnel and close friend from where the unquestionable damage.

In the house Mrs LABORIE Suzette my wife was although we live separate since many years with each one our private life.

We remained interdependent in front of what occurred without being able anything to make and the gendarmes laughed waited until I take a false step to embark me.

We left, it with a small bag, no time granted to take businesses and or to put them we were in the street without residence!!!

My various calls remained vain, without result, no help of lawyers called, everyone was irresponsible even the prefecture with which I could be connected direct with Mr André under prefect who did not want to stop the procedure of irregular expulsion.

I lowered the arms which cannot anything make and left our residence  with the hands of usher GARRIGUES.

They spent three days to remove all that our main home contained, without same know about what they removed.

We left without anything, plundering of all; destination is saying deposit with BRUGUIERE to the north of Toulouse.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are stripped of all their legal files to take advantage of their rights in front of a court, obstacles with all the procedures in progress, not being able to answer the conclusions and others.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are private their personal effects necessary for their everyday life.

Mrs LABORIE hospital agent who cannot ensure its public utility near the hospitals of Toulouse in disease and without residence fault of financial means from where the unquestionable damage.

We are with the street, without no authority intervenes to put an end to this plundering diligenté by the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES and BALLUTEAUD.

Usher GARRIGUES  even removed on our letter-box our name, diverting of this fact our correspondence whereas Mrs CHATTERS Suzette cannot be owner by her act of adjudication obtained by a procedure of irregular seizure of property while I was in prison.

Procedure of seizure made without debate and only by forgery and use of forgery of the opposing party in agreement with the Toulouse authorities misled by certain lawyers and ushers no means of defense Mr André LABORIE alone with being able to defend the procedure, was in prison without being able to act.

A complaint was deposited with the gendarmerie of Saint Orens the very same day either on March 27, 2008 against the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD, or saying communicated to the parquet floor of Toulouse and the prefecture of Toulouse, still to date remained unanswered.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are in the street, without fixed residence whereas they are owner of their residence located at Saint Orens de Gameville, all the locks were changed by usher GARRIGUES.

Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS responsible with the source for her legal deficiencies and not to have subsequently to the judgement of adjudication “this last attacked in cancellation” carried out regularly the 3 formalities necessary for the transfer of property, must succumb in its requests and must make good the various damage caused with Mister and Mrs LABORIE on the base of article 1382 and 1383 of the civil code.

  On the various undergone damages.

The damages are very important :

Violation of our dated March 27, 2008 residence and by forgery and use of forgery.

It was caused a moral wrong with Mister and Mrs LABORIE to see itself put in the street at the request of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS whereas the latter had not carried out the legal formalities of transfer of property.

It was caused a material loss with Mister and Mrs LABORIE to have diverted to them at the request of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS all the pieces of furniture and object furnishing their residence, removed and stored in a warehouse without the assent of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

The damage compared to the vicinity and the family and all people who know us cannot be disputed.

Our residence was stripped of all its pieces of furniture and object at the request of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are without their business since March 27, 2008.

That the photographs made by the SCP of usher FERRAN in Toulouse by verbal lawsuit is meaning state of the pieces of furniture stored in a warehouse, they were dismounted and partly broken, striped and others…

That it is impossible to check all the pieces of furniture and objects removed in the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE with the Deposit, the verbal lawsuit of the SCP of ushers GARRIGUES & illegible and incomplete BALLUTEAUD on all the pieces of furniture and objects furnishing our residence, 110 m3 were removed and being able only partially to be identified.

Degradation of our integrated kitchen remained and different on the spot…

Degradation of the interior of the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Mrs LABORIE Suzette Hospitalier agent was obliged to put itself in disease, not being able to ensure since March 27, 2008 are work of public agent of the state.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were constrained to seize justice to take advantage of their right, that has a cost.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE were in difficulty to take advantage of their right in justice in many diverted files and still not found

There is a financial loss and material to reinstate ourselves and all the pieces of furniture and objects in the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE in N° 2 rue de la Forge 31650 Saint Orens.

That the total damage is priceless in its reality, it minimum is evaluated with the sum of 150 .000 euros. “ A hundred and fifty thousand euros”.

In the event of dispute of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, the expertise remaining with her load.

Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS is responsible directly for her intrigues near her council, near her agent the SCP of usher GARRIGUES & BALLUTEAUD, auprès of the Prefecture, near the gendarmerie of Orens Saint.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, whereas it did not have the right to approach the judge concerning the summary procedures into dated March 9, 2007 to ask our expulsion, which the right did not have to sell our Property so much which was not entirely owner by a regular publication of the judgement of posterior adjudication to the stop of the Court of Appeal returned on May 21, 2007 like by the payment of its price.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS lost her right of ownership by the action of dated February 9 resolution 2007, procedure always in progress.

That Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, did not have the right to make us expel our residence on March 27, 2008 and put at the place his/her small son Mr TEULE Laurent, manager of limited liability company LTMDB by forgery and use of forgery by acts of kindness.

On rehabilitation in the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE as well as their pieces of furniture and objects and the eviction of any occupant not having neither valid right nor title

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are owner of their residence since 1981 per notarial act, it is only by one judgement of adjudication “ without transfer of property” that one to date claims to occupy their residence in their place by the small son of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, Mr TEULE Laurent and this last having carried out various legal assemblies  not to allow the rehabilitation of Mister and Mrs LABORIE in their residence.

That the notarial act of April 5 2007 is registered out of intellectual forgery in writing, Mrs Of ARAUJO could not sell the good obtained by adjudication without a transfer of property established and without to have still paid the price of the adjudication.

The transfer of property by a regular publication which cannot intervene before May 21, 2007 without counting the grounds for appeal and the significance of the act “decision of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse” following the call of the judgement of adjudication.

Payment of the adjudication on April 11, 2007 per Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, within sight of article 2212 of the civil code , the sale is automatically solved.

Specifying that it is only after payment of the adjudication that the gross of the judgement can be acquired, not front “of law and order”

Specifying that the magistrates' court can be seized only after having obtained the gross of the judgement to make it mean and that the property is certain with Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, which is not the case in the species.

That consequently on March 9, 2007, Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS could not introduce an authority in front of the court in the absence of all its elements of pure right.

That the rehabilitation of Mister and Mrs LABORIE must be ordered by the Court of Appeal following made abusive expulsion at the request of Mrs CHATTERS, this abusive expulsion must be sanctioned and the court must give the parts in the state before March 27, 2008 and that all the expenses of this handing-over in the state are dealt with by Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS, independently of the financial repair of the various undergone damages.

That the eviction of any occupant of the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE is ordered by the Court of Appeal, Mr TEULE Laurent being the small son of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS and being the manager of these two companies; limited liability company OMNI the COUNCIL and limited liability company LTMDB occupying without right nor title by the inscription out of forgery of the notarial act of April 5, 2007 and by the use of its forgeries to also establish for each one of it a lease him without any legal authenticity consequence of the use of false intellectuals.

That the court must order the eviction of any occupant of the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE in N° 2 street of the Forging mill with the assistance of the police force under obligation of 150 euros per days.

To date, the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE in N° 2 rue de la Forge are occupied without right nor title and for the following reasons:

On the property of the building located at N° 2 rue de la Forge

That the transfer of property not being established in accordance with the legal provisions, Mister and Mrs LABORIE are always owner.

That to date the building is occupied without right nor regular title by Mr TEULE Laurent.

That to date the building is occupied without right nor regular title by company LTMDB.

That to date the building is occupied without right nor regular title by company OMNI - the COUNCIL.

Mr TEULE Laurent managing of the two companies mentioned above, the limited liability company: OMNI- THE COUNCIL & THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY: LTMDB.

Limited liability company LTMDB made use of false intellectuals, by its manager Mr TEULE Laurent which is not that the small son of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS to agree to make irregularly establish a notarial act in a false legal configuration of the situation dated April 5, 2007 and finalized on June 6, 2007, the stop of the Court of Appeal “suspensive clause” not yet meant and being informed of all the procedure upstream.

Mr TEULE Laurent with the course a lawsuit which is brought to him in front of the magistrates' court for occupant without right does not titrate there the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE in N° 2 street of Forging mill 31650 Orens Saint, “the latter irregularly expelled on March 27, 2008 ” provided a commercial lease of limited liability company LTMDB.

That this lease is a private forgery in writing using of false intellectuals, “the notarial act registered as false intellectuals” for the reasons above.

That this lease was written by Mr TEULE Laurent with an only aim of putting forward in justice of a right of occupation.

That Mr TEULE Laurent uses in permanence of forgery and use of forgery to occupy the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE

That at the day of the significance of the act of bailiff is on May 27, 2008 for the lawsuit which is open for him in front of the magistrates' court of Toulouse to its opposition, has for the account of its two companies of which he is manager, that is to say dated May 27, 2008 bench a verbal lawsuit of general assembly for the known as companies to make put the seat of each one of her at the residence of which it occupies without right does not titrate there regular and using only of false intellectuals to make establish a right and carrying still more damages during cancellation of the judgement of adjudication so that Mister and Mrs LABORIE cannot recover most quickly their main home.

That limited liability company LTMDB cannot claim to be owner by the notarial act registered out of forgery in dated July 8, 2008 writing intellectual of our residence located at N° 2 street of Forging mill 31650 Orens Saint.

That limited liability company LTMDB cannot make use of a false intellectual to obtain a right to write a lease of hiring to the profit of Mr TEULE Laurent.

That this lease is consequently a forgery in writing deprived to have made use of a false intellectual “notarial act” to take advantage of a right of occupation of the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

That limited liability company LTMDB cannot make establish its registered office in N° 2 rue de la Forge in Saint Orens, the latter not being able to be owner of our main home by the nullity of the notarial act carried out by misrepresentations of the parts.

That limited liability company OMNI the COUNCIL cannot make establish its registered office in N° 2 rue de la Forge in Saint Orens, by an unspecified lease given by the limited liability company LTMDB, the latter not being able to be owner.

Mr TEULE Laurent being the instigator of the various procedures for the account of its two companies, making forgeries and use to put forward of a right for its account and the two companies of which he is the only manager.

Mr TEULE Laurent having revealed in a newspaper of legal advertisement, “THE WAY OF MIDDAY” dated June 5, 2008 subsequently to the delivered assignment on May 27, 2008 two advertisements for the two companies of which he is manager and to make be worth of a regular legal situation whereas it cannot be it and to occupy our main home or we were expelled irregularly and carry us still more damages.

That these forgeries  and uses of false intellectuals were at the request of Mr TEULE Laurent to occupy our residence in N° 2 rue de la Forge 31650 Saint Orens, which carries us damages.

Complaint is thus deposited on July 21, 2008 against Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS and counters Mr TEULE Laurent acting on his behalf and the account of these two companies.

That consequently:

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS in the absence to have obtained the gross of the judgement of adjudication of December 21 2006 by the payment of her amount within 20 days to the day of the sasine of the magistrates' court is on March 9, 2007.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS in the absence to have meant the judgement of adjudication at the day of the sasine of the magistrates' court is on March 9, 2007.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS in the absence to have published the judgement of adjudication at the day of the sasine of the magistrates' court either on March 9, 2007, publication having to be posterior with the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse or dated May 21, 2007.

That by the absence of publication opening opposability with the thirds of the judgement of adjudication, at the day of the sasine of the magistrates' court is on March 9, 2007.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, could not seize on March 9, 2007 the magistrates' court to obtain an ordinance of expulsion and even more without any debate.

The Court of Appeal after checking of the writings of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, must cancel the ordinance of the 1er June 2007 returned by the magistrates' court of Toulouse.

 To the compensation for the undergone damages and the academies measures to take to guarantee the compensation for Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE Andre in addition to rehabilitation in their residence as well as the pieces of furniture and objects furnishing their residence with the load with Mrs Of ARAUJO Suzette wife CHATTERS, ask the court that be ordered with one hundred fifty thousand euros height “150.000 euros” the compensation for the various damages undergone and for irregular and abusive expulsion with serious consequences on the social life for Mister and Mrs LABORIE, expulsion made at the request of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS.

Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS knew that during the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication “whose procedure was in progress on February 9, 2007” Mister and Mrs LABORIE want to recover their main home and which they are always owner in measurement that the formalities necessary posterior to the judgement of adjudications were not regularly accomplished.

Even authorized on a purely provisional basis, execution of a decision of court struck of call “in the species the ordinance of the 1er June 2007” is with the risk and dangers of that which continues it, with load by him to repair, in case of invalidation of the decision, the damage which could be caused by this execution, without that which claiming repair has to show the existence of a fault (3ème CIV; 1er July 1998, N° appeal 96-18930)

Within sight of the bad faith of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS, following the various deficiencies to want to regularize the necessary formalities and with an only aim of obtaining favorable decisions by forgery and use of forgery, to constitute two limited liability companies with his/her small son to divert the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE, there exists a doubt about the compensation by Mrs For ARAUJO wife CHATTERS and his having rights.

With end to guarantee this compensation for pure right on the base of article 1382 and 1383 of the civil code , it is requested the court, the judge of the execution of the section of call that is granted to Mister and Mrs LABORIE a mortgage registration on the goods belonging to Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS and of its having right and to the financial expenses of the latter.

REPAIR OF THE VARIOUS DAMAGES CAUSES.

Damage caused by the procedure of seizure of property diligentée by Commerzbank until the auction sale of December 21, 2006.

Injuries caused by the irregular procedure of expulsion diligentée by Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS

Total of the Commerzbank damages

Commerzbank: 500.000 euros value of our good at the date of the adjudication.

Commerzbank: 150.000 euros, moral wrongs and psychological important.

That it would be inequitable to leave with the load of Mister and Mrs LABORIE the various expenses engaged to have council near lawyer and others, justice having a cost, Mister and Mrs LABORIE as require of the Court of Appeal as the Commerzbank bank be condemned to the sum of 20.000 euros on the base of article 700 of the NCPC to pour with the profit of SCP MALET, Solicitor at the court, the provisions of article 699 NCPC.

Caused injuries  by Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS  and it request of compensation for procedure for irregular expulsion make party of another procedure independent before the Court of Appeal of Toulouse.

ON THE RESTITUTION OF THE PROPERTY

OF MR AND MRS LABORIE.

Mister and Mrs LABORIE are founded to request from the court the restitution of their property in N° 2 street of the Forging mill and the eviction of any occupant without right does not titrate there and assisted police force following the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication of right.

That all the expenses of rules of procedure so that the property is found by Mister and Mrs LABORIE is dealt with by the Commerzbank Bank like all the formalities necessary.

That the fraud is really characterized of Master FRANCES Acting for Commerzbank.

 

Page 140

 

Whereas Commerzbank is not creditor of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Whereas Mister and Mrs LABORIE are  creditors of this one, Maître FRANCES worked out a project of distribution whereas the sale is null full.

That this project of distribution could not be carried out without the sale being perfect and without the publication of the judgement of adjudication being in conformity with article 750 of the acpc.

That the amount required are false and cannot exist towards Commerzbank and all other organizations, by the fraud of the procedure of seizure of property.

That  Maître FRANCES is the instigator with the action, still any valid act of liquid some and exigible credit did not provide for the organizations claimed in its project.

That the fraud is characterized by the amounts required on behalf of third Commerzbank and different.

That the fraud is even characterized bus of the disputes were raised by assignment in front of the judge of the execution and in spite of these disputes Maître FRANCES would have obtained homologation of her project whereas disputes are in hand in front of the judge of the execution alone compétant in its regular sasine by Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

Conclusions : one includes/understands better why it was necessary to carry felt sorry for against Mr LABORIE to draw aside it from any debate and it to put in prison at end that Maître FRANCES acting for Commerzbank can divert with impunity the property of Mister and Mrs LABORIE and in  making obstacle with obtaining a lawyer to deposit a statement within sight of the various produced parts.

That the Court of Appeal must sanction the irregular procedure of seizure of property made on forgery and use of forgery “fraud” without any means of defense of the part concerned violation of articles 4; 14 ; 15 ; 16; ncpc and article 6-1 of the CEDH “of law and order ” and to completely order the repair of the various caused injuries.

 BY THESE REASONS

To reject all contrary and badly founded conclusions of Commerzbank.

To reject all contrary and badly founded conclusions Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS.

Within sight of the forfeiture with the real continuations on the base of article 715 of the ancpc and for violation of the articles: 673, 674, 688, 689, 690, 692, 694 of the old code of civil procedure.

To order the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication of December 21, 2006 obtained by the fraud and all the procedure of seizure of property.

To give the parts to the same state as to the folding screen before the procedure of seizure of property while ordering the restitution of the property to Mister and Mrs LABORIE in N° 2 street of the forging mill to Saint Orens 31650.

On the consequences of the cancellation of the judgement of adjudication:

To order the eviction of any occupant of the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE under obligation of 150 euros per day of delay.

To order that this eviction of any occupant of the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE is assisted police force.

To cancel of right all the acts known to date and posterior to the judgement of adjudication which were carried out by Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS near Master CHARAS Notary in Toulouse and with  the limited liability company LTMDB whose its manager is the only small son of the contractor, Mr TEULE Laurent.

In repair of the various caused injuries and to have tried to divert the fruit of Mister and Mrs LABORIE of a value of 500.000 euros and by forgery and use of forgery, To condemn the Commerzbank bank to pour with Mister and Mrs LABORIE the sum of 500.000 euros

To condemn Commerzbank to pour with Mister and Mrs LABORIE  the sum of 150.000 euros, moral wrongs and psychological important within sight of the consequences of the adjudication.

To condemn Mrs Of ARAUJO 2pouse CHATTERS to pay the sum of 150.000 euros to the damage of Mister and Mrs LABORIE for procedure of irregular expulsion.

To order the expenses of re-establishment of all the formalities necessary near the public services and to give the parts to the same state as to the origin and the load of Commerzbank and to, the load of Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS

To condemn Commerzbank and Mrs Of ARAUJO wife CHATTERS at the expense of the various committed authorities.

To condemn Commerzbank to the sum of 40.000 euros on the base of article 700 of the NCPC to pour with the profit of SCP MALET, Solicitor at the court, the provisions of article 699 NCPC.

Under all reserves of which act:

In waiting of your sasine to put an end to this disorder with the law and order and action to be taken against the authors of which are we victims I remain sincerely yours

Concerning the texts Violated by France in the procedure of seizure of property the Convention of European safeguard of the human rights.

1- Violation of article 6 accesses to a court

2- Violation of article 6-1 right to an equitable lawsuit.

3- Violation of article 6-3 right of defense.

4- Violation of article 7-1 prohibition of the retroactive laws.

5- Violation of article 8; 8-1 ; 8-2 right to the respect of the private life violation of our residence.

6- Violation of article 10; 10-1 freedom of expression

7- Violation of article 13 right to an effective recourse.

8- Violation of article 14 prohibition of discrimination.

9- Violation of article 17 prohibition of the abuse right.

Concerning the protocols.

10- Violation of the protocol N° 1 violation and diversion of our property.

11- Violation of the protocol N° 7 in its article 2 right to a double degree of jurisdiction out of penal matter.

12- Violation of the protocol N° 7 in its article 3D' compensation.

13- Violation of the protocol N° 12 in its article 1, general prohibition of discrimination.

ON THE VARIOUS OBSTACLES OF THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES

TO PUT AN END TO THESE DISORDERS A the LAW AND ORDER

That Mr LABORIE Andre after having carried out all the complaints and complaints during its arbitrary detention of February 14, 2006 to September 17, 2007, all remained without response of the authorities.

At its exit of prison is on September 14, 2007 diligenté many procedures.

In front of the judge of the execution to ask for stay of all executions following the fraud of the seizure of property while bringing all the useful documents in proof.

Refusal to rule on the claims subjected in front of the judge of the execution, this last returned on the court dealing with the substance of a case whereas it was compétant.

That on the court dealing with the substance of a case, this one refuses to rule because the procedure must be made by lawyer.

The jurisdictional assistance was granted to me, no lawyer does not want to take this business and due, not to be turned over against the authors who are the instigators of the procedure of seizure of property and his consequences made by forgery and use of forgery.

That the order of lawyers of Toulouse makes an obstacle permanant with the appointment of a lawyer.

That the judge of the execution was seized and only compétant to hear the causes relating to made irregular expulsion on March 27, 2008.

This one once again goes inefficient not to block the diversion of our property and our irregular expulsion.

That the judge of the execution was seized and only compétant to hear the causes relating to the dispute of a project of distribution carried out by forgery and use of forgery.

This one once again goes inefficient not to block the diversion of our property and our irregular expulsion.

The Court of Appeal of Toulouse refuses to rule in fact and in right on the call of the ordinance of expulsion obtained by the fraud the 1er June 2007, refusing to take my conclusions and parts reporting the opposite of the facts pled by the opposing party .

The president ruling out of matter of summary procedure refuses after several different sasines to order provisional measures to put an end to these various disorders with the law and order exposed with evidence to the support with an only aim of not blocking the diversion of our property and our irregular expulsion.

The president ruling out of matter of summary procedure refuses after sasine of an arbitrary detention of February 14, 2006 at September 14, 2007 to order provisional measures of compensation.

Mister the Public prosecutor seized to many times refuses and classifies all my complaints without continuation.

Madam the Minister for the Justice seized of many times on these various disorders with the law and order of which we are victim remains under silence.

Mister the First President of the Mister and supreme court of appeal the Prosecutor general at this known as court remains under silence following one denounces regular of an inscription of false intellectual on the stop of cassation of September 4, 2000, intellectual forgery recorded regularly at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse and denounced with Mr SERVANT Michel Public prosecutor.

That two requests were deposited in legitimate request for suspicion of all the Toulousaine jurisdiction before the supreme court of appeal, these two requests remained under silence and were never meant by the Court of Appeal of Toulouse on the base of article 666 of the CPC.

That several inscriptions of forgery below were deposited at the clerk's office of the T.G.I of Toulouse, denounced by ushers with the parts and Mr SERVANT Michel Public prosecutor, that this last remainder under silence.

Here is in the configuration or is Mister and Mrs LABORIE on the French territory without no authority intervening and to corroborate, to guarantee the various offences above, victims of a characterized arbitrary detention, victims by the real diversion of their property, victims by a real expulsion of this one being their residence, victims to be without fixed residence and their pieces of furniture and objects on standby that the authorities intervene to put an end to these disorders obviously illicit and to find their property and their rehabilitation, residence occupied without right nor regular title by a third.

That the French authorities refuse to continue the authors of this intellectual crime.

As in the business of OUTREAU.

To date the French state is responsible for its public agents named above for the facts undergone by Mr LABORIE André and his wife, all her family.

And this in violation of the convention of safeguard of the human rights in these articles below once again and of its protocols.

1- Violation of article 5; 5-1 personal freedom.

2- Violation of article 6 accesses to a court

3- Violation of article 6-1 right to an equitable lawsuit.

4- Violation of article 6-3 right of defense.

5- Violation of article 7-1 prohibition of the retroactive laws.

6- Violation of article 8; 8-1 ; 8-2 right to the respect of the private life violation of our residence.

7- Violation of article 10; 10-1 freedom of expression

8- Violation of article 13 right to an effective recourse.

9- Violation of article 14 prohibition of discrimination.

10- Violation of article 17 prohibition of the abuse right.

Concerning the protocols.

11- Violation of the protocol N° 1 violation and diversion of our property.

12- Violation of the protocol N° 7 in its article 2 right to a double degree of jurisdiction out of penal matter.

13- Violation of the protocol N° 7 in its article 3D' compensation.

14- Violation of the protocol in its article 4, right not to be judged or punished twice.

15- Violation of the protocol N° 12 in its article 1, general prohibition of discrimination.

That the damages important are raised above with the course of the writings, evaluated with the total sum of two million euros all confused damages.

V - ANOTHER INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES TREATING

OR HAVING MILKED the BUSINESS.

That it is specified that no other authority Européenne and International is seized in this file of which are victims Mister and Mrs LABORIE of the French authorities under the responsibility of the French state which still to date refuses to intervene to put an end to these various disorders with the law and order and to make restore the property and the residence of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

VI - PARTS ANNEXEES

1- On the various procedural documents former to my arbitrary detention.

2- On consumed arbitrary detention, grounds for appeal always not heard.

3- On the diversion of the property, its expulsion.

4- On the various procedures carried out and permanent obstacles met by the local and national authorities.

I leave at the European court the care to indicate to me for which date and in how much specimens I must  to forward.

VII - DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE

I declare in all conscience and honesty that the information which is reproduced on the present formula of request is exact.

Place: Address N° 2 street of the forging mill

“Mail postmaster address transfer”

31650 Saint Orens France

 PS:

“Currently the mail is transferred postmaster address following the violation from the residence on March 27, 2008” residence currently occupied by a third using from forgery and use of forgery whose Mister the Prosecutor Michel SERVANT is seized by a dated March 6, 2009 complaint to date always remained without answer.

Date : on April 25, 2009

For the interests of Mister and Mrs LABORIE.

                                                                      Mr LABORIE Andre