Challenge + complaint civil constitution Act

Challenge + complaint civil constitution Act

For:
Mr Lorentz Emeric
Ms. Moreaux Christel
Against NOVELLA MARTINE J. NANTERRE TGI
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE HAS THE CHILDHOOD OF SURESNES
responsible for Mr Oger has the attention of the Dean of magistrates
PLACEMENT of Rambouillet FAMIALIAL 179 191 Av Joliot Curie
Responsible Mr Francis Painot 92020 Nanterre CEDEX
Act of recusal of the judge child Novella Martine and complaint
AR n ° ……………………… Copy serra apply also to the Court of appeal of Versailles and copy to the European Court of human rights
Act 344
of the code of civil procedure
"The application for recusal is formed by Act submitted to the Secretariat of the Court to which belongs the judge or statement which is recorded by the Secretary in a minutes."
The request must indicate with precision the grounds for the challenge and be barely of estoppel,
Accompanied by parts to justify it.
He and issued the demande.» receipt
The application for recusal presented before even the planned debates on the same day before Ms. Novella judge of children in the terms of articles 345 and 346 of the CPC , the Secretary communicates to the judge the copy of the application for recusal is the object, and the judge of the children will have to abstain until it has been held on the challenge.
*****
Thus grounds for recusal based on the lack of impartiality of the judge child Ms. Novella
*****
For memory
According to the jurisprudence of the courts of appeal and the Court of Cassation, the requirement of impartiality must be assessed
objectively, that is - not necessarily by the attitude effective of the person but of the perception that the litigant may legitimately have a risk of impartiality (for example, CA Toulouse, 24 November 1999: juris - data no. 1999-111 850).
…./....
This application for recusal is thus based on article 6 §1 of the European convention
safeguard the rights of man and fundamental freedoms, and the application of this article
by the Court of cassation:
« … Article 341, which provides eight causes of recusal, depleting not necessarily the requirement
Impartiality required of any jurisdiction (case sensitive.) First target. After, on 28 April 1988: lawyer - data number
1998-00 1864: J ICP I, 1998, 4,1132. Breaks 2 th civ, April 4, 2001: Juris-Data No. 2001-009209.
CA Douai, April 27, 2000; "juris - Data No. 2000-143687".
The Court of appeal from Bourge (CA Bourges, March 2001: Juris-Data No. 2001-15 4161) says it:
« ...It is common ground that the provisions of section 341 of the new code of civil procedure are
"limiting and there instead of taking into account the provisions of article 6 §1 of the European convention for the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights, which ensures that any litigant right to have his case reviewed by an impartial tribunal."
****
Introductory note :
"It will be limine reported because of the actions of custodian services:"family placement of Rambouillet and social assistance to childhood of Suresnes"including Mr Francis Painot" is responsible for the service
the family de Rambouillet and Mr placement "Olivier Ogier" is responsible for social assistance
the children of Suresnes, all links and contacts between the Lorentz children and their parents Mr Lorentz and to
Mrs Moreau, are completely prevented and destroyed, and children are severely manipulated psychologically and alienate against parents.
Yet the decision of the judge child, dated January 21, 2011. granting of access rights
to Mr Lorentz and Mrs. Moreau, but by the actions of custodian services, access is never took place.
****
More serious still , the head of the family placement of Rambouillet "Mr Francis Painot" and the head of social assistance to childhood of Suresnes "Mr Ogier have on several occasions knowingly prevented any contact without providing any explanation despite repeated requests from Mr Lorentz and".
Mrs Moreau.Custodial services benefit even from this total cut-off between parents for
completely manipulated and exploit children, placing them in a situation of insanity
and strengthening them irrational panic fears to exclude parents. It is deviance very serious services keeper instead of working to restore the link, working to destroy it and to punish Mr Lorentz and
Mrs Moreau who decided to appeal the judgment, and to involve the European Court and challenge the method in these institutions.
…/..
In this situation to an extreme gravity, Mrs. Moreau Christel and Mr Lorentz Emeric have a
Very inadequate consultation of the record, note that disparaging allegations see slanderous were carried out against them, and against other person of their entourage.
.
****
These charges are false and are launched to disqualify the MOM and dad
in their role of mother and father, and to disqualify their entourage to help update the institutional deviancies of justice and custodial services. Placement for reasons of substance,
That could be said in social reports gibberish and false writing, and Mrs. Moreau and Mr Lorentz "Claims" the rights to their children, we currently believe to see challenge placement for substantive reasons, and because if they have experienced a difficult period of the dismissal of Mr Lorentz.
But the current abuse of settlements "family placement of Rambouillet from social assistance to childhood of Suresnes" prevent the mother and father to restore links
with their children, but instead aims to destroy any relationship and therefore any link.
****
As it will be referred to it, these so-called social, services received by decision of Ms. j. Novella
an illegal delegation of powers of the judge and his services took advantage to cut the relationship between children and parents without apathetic j. and strengthened the power of social assistance to childhood.
And when the family placement of Rambouillet and social assistance to childhood of Suresnes exit the words or behaviour of children who have that 12 years; 10; 8; 6 years; 4 years; 3 years; 1ans and 3 months
for this justify this shows in fact that their children Claire; Marie - Laure; Clara; Christophe; Charles; Louis; Amélie and Christian are so manipulated and mounted against their
parents and services custodian that they came to reject: a such finding demonstrates the failure of the action taken, and the failure of services keeper, whose role is, it must be remembered to restore links and not destroy permanently by pressure on the children, who presented the mother and father negatively to then claim that children reject their mother and their father.
The actions of custodian services: "family placement of Rambouillet and social assistance to childhood of Suresnes" are at issue, and this folder it is fundamental that the children judge considers the family placement of Rambouillet and Suresnes as part as another, and is not more law no more credit,
However, as it will the be developed, the Novella children judge Ms. decisions reveal instead custodian services, enjoys a benevolent look of the judge, who until then delegated its prerogatives sovereign.
…/ ..
The balance and impartiality of the debates have thus broken.
In these circumstances, Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz to hear that their cause and that of their children, be tried fairly and with total impartiality, absolutely necessary condition for
the magistrate deems the record, restore the balance and impartiality of the debates, and is not fooled
false and libellous arguments custodial institutions "placement of Rambouillet.
"and Suresnes" to justify their current vile actions.
****
The grounds for recusal of the non-imparcialité of the children Ms. Novella judge are the following:
(1) in the framework of the hearing on 17 January 2011, Ms. children judge Novella did not to Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz who had not power lawyers consulted the record of the educational assistance and respect the fundamental principles of the adversarial,.
For memory:
Under the terms of article 1187 of the code of civil procedure
« ..."The folder can be also consulted on their applications and the days and ' hours laid down by the judge, by the father and the mother, to see up to the eve of the hearing or the audiance.
This text expressly provides that it is the judge of children who fixed the days and the hours of consultation.
Indeed it is the judge and alone that is intended to guarantee effective access to the folder, and this is why the Act entrusts him with this fundamental attribution.
Here, it should be recalled that effective access by parents to record educational assistance, is a fundamental right.
Thus, circular with the main provisions of the Decree of 15 March 2002 reforming the educational assistance procedure, recall that:
"In all cases, it appears useful to provide several timeslots of consultation in the week, 1: 00 am see 2 pm as needed, to ensure sufficient time for consultation".
.
"Object: hearing on 04 October 2010, and January 17, 2011, and inappropriate and insufficient condition for the consultation of the court record of our children.".
We know not the difficulties and lack of justice, but this is not the litigant of the conséquances.
Despite the judge Novella made no provision for access to the folder by Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz
The judge was not even proposed to refer to allow more time for Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz
to prepare the debates.
Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz considers that these facts lead to their detriment, a failure of the judge
to the requirement of impartiality objective.
…/...
Three objectis lead to this reform:
Ms. the Minister of justice reminded yet, with the main provisions of the Decree of the 15 mars2002 reforming educational assistance procedure, that:
« …Respect for the law of the people requires that the adversarial principle is reaffirmed and guaranteed by new rules of procedure. Parents should be able to know the reasons for which they are summoned before a magistrate and prepare their intervention and their defence in full knowledge of the items in the folder.
The Decree of 15 mars2002 changes articles1181 to 1187 and the articles 1193 and 1195 of the new code of civil procedure relating to the educational assistance.
(1) Guarantee the rights of families inform parties throughout the process
(2) Give the parties a direct access to their
(3) strengthen the safeguards for temporary placement... »
Ms. the children judge, Ms. Novella has scheduled a hearing for 2013, at the request of services keeper, on the basis of procedures to the European Court. In summoning parents, namely Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz, and without requiring custodial services comply with the decision taken on 17 January 2011, pending a new decision. It should be recalled that the hearing of January 17, 2011 is applied to the single application of custodians services that are in conflict with the mother and the father of the children, Mrs Moreau, Mr Lorentz.
Indeed, Mrs Moreau, Mr Lorentz were "outlandish" to appeal to all decisions of the judge, and criticized the methods of custodian services recommendations, that since in retaliation made a presentation very disparaging and libelous of Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz.
Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz had right to the worst humiliation and harassment on the part of custodial services and the magistrate in the Court of trial, that prevent them wholly and arbitrarily to see their children despite the decision made by j. children as of January 17, 2011. Witnesses can attest.
****
Madam Justice Novella has accessed at the request of custodian services, including the reports show their willingness to do the job themselves with parents yet, the Act (section 1182 CPC) requires the Court to convene two parents at proceedings of educational assistance. The absence of convocation, the father and mother and especially the fact that Ms. Novella children the same judge did not direct services keeper, before taking any decisions, to respect the decision of 17 January 2011 setting fees for visits to the benefit of Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz, shows that it is obvious Novella judge to before even hearing of January 17, 2011 debatesalready marry theses presented by defamatory and untrue custodian services reports.
The hearing which was scheduled on 04 October 2010, without convening the father and mother, had no other purpose than to put parents in a weak position, to said false, derogatory and strife of custodian services.
Parents consider that these facts lead to their detriment, a failure of the judge to the requirement of objective impartiality.
****
(3) Justice of the children, Ms. Novella has in its previous decision to 17 January 2011 delegate these powers sovereign services gatekeeper (Placement family de Rambouillet and the social assistance to the children of Suresnes), and it is clear that these delegations showed how justice Novella provides more impartiality of debates and assumes not his role of counterforce to the custodial services.
****
The shortcomings of the Novella judge are even more evident when one compares extracted acts of a symposium on "the child to justice", organized by the Court of Cassation:
http:// WWW. Court of child comite_634/juge_ cassation.fr/active_international_5/britanno_irlandais_632/actives_ _ 8624.htlm.
It was thus recalled in seminars that:
"The judge must stay constantly on the alert to the categorical imperative, which governs: that of impartiality.". In any trial, must always ensure particularly not be exploited by the dominant part, to play its role as protector of public freedoms. However, in the field of child victims, the dominant part will often the child welfare service. In effect, that weighs socially and economically inferior to a line of an administration that has all the grounds of investigations, expertises, who knows so all the workings of the judicial institution, and in particular its vocabulary, and able to present a good folder Mount.
****
... It is fundamental that the judge does not forget its role of counterforce to the intervention of social services: are role of guarantor of individual freedoms.
****
In this case: Ms. j. of children to entrust the Lorentz children to services guard Rambouillet and Suresnes, and in his decision, justice a granted rights visits parents. Designated by the judge to execute the decision, guards services did not respect the rights of visits, which were never held to this day.
Or if such drift could occur, it is because justice Novella children is not itself as the act he in fact yet duty, determine the nature and frequency of the rights of visits of parents towards their children.
****
In its decision, Madam Justice it simply say." That the rights of visits will be organized by educational services with minors in charge and that in case of difficulties, he to will be referred to the judge. »
In deciding so, even the children Novella judge a delegate using social in the Suresnes childhood and the family of Rambouillet, the sovereign powers entrusted Placement, and thereby violated the Act and the constant jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation. In effect, pursuant to section 375-7 of the civil code:
"If the situation of children the, j. fixed the nature and frequency of visits rights and may decide that their conditions of exercise is determined jointly between holders of parental authority and the person, the service of the institutions to which the child is entrusted, in a document which is then sent to him." "He is seized in case of disagreement".
****
Under the terms of this text, it appears very clear that in no case judge may not delegate the determination of the nature and frequency of visiting rights, a what it is, and that only the conditions for the exercise of these rights can be delegated subject to agreement of the parties, and not only act, but also the settled of the Court of Cassation, prohibit the judge delegate their authority in this matter reveals fundamental freedoms and the judicial judge must be the guarantor.
****
But despite the Act, the case law of the High Court, Madam Justice of children Novella, which is yet a very experienced judge, knowingly delegated its prerogatives to services Guard (investment family of Rambouillet and social assistance to childhood of Suresnes) that are parties to the proceedings.
****
This fact had the immediate consequence of transferring to the social assistance to the Suresnes childhood and the family Placement of Rambouillet, which are parties to the trial, powers who could that be the wisdom of a judge.
****
The judge therefore knowingly developed Party at trial "custodian services" position of strength, to the detriment of another party, parents.
In such conditions created by the judge of the Novella children, debates may not be impartial because the custodial services, which are a simple social service party at trial, and put in a position of strength to the other party. It seems useful to recall the conclusion of the Symposium of the Court of Cassation on the child in justice again:
"It is fundamental that the judge does not forget its role of counterforce to the intervention of social services: its role of guarantor of individual freedoms."
****
(4) The debates by Madam Justice Novella children at previous hearings, did not comply with section 380-1 of the civil code, neither meets the requirements of article 6 & 1 of the European convention for the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights:
The words of the children are frequently used, see manipulate, by, and social services so that they have never been informed of their right to be assisted by a lawyer, and until now always are the services of the social assistance to the Suresnes childhood and the family Placement of Rambouillet which led to the hearings, and parents believe that the absence of counsel allowed the custodian service packaging and manipulate children for hearings before the judge.
****
However Madam Justice of children has never nothing undertaken to ensure respect for our fundamental rights, and for children to benefit from a lawyer, and rapid consultation mentioned sus circumstances was apparently no record of hearings of children.
****
The word of the Lorentz children can be, and is completely instrumentalisé, without no fundamental guarantees that the Act has been met.
****
Custodian services appear to attempted to justify by excipient according or behaviours of children: This shows that children are manipulated and mounted against their parents by the custodian services, so they came to reject.
One such observation demonstrates failure and measurement of investment and the guilty failure of services gatekeeper whose role is, it must be remembered, restore links and non-permanently destroyed by pressure on children, to which it is easy to present parents negatively to then claim that children reject the parents.
****
Such processes of manipulation on children are filthy, and only a totally impartial magistrate to restore the balance between the dominant part: services custodial Placement family of Rambouillet and the social assistance to childhood of Suresnes, and parents to end the psychological disposition of which are the object children and parents, and this because of the referred decision which refers to as service Guard (Placement family de Rambouillet and the social assistance to the children of Suresnes)institutions that have forgotten the guiding principles that should guide their action.
Reasons for disqualification based on article 341-4 of the code of civil procedure:
Parents undertake a trial against the children Ms. novella judge and the social assistance to childhood. The content of the complaint will be sent to Mr the Attorney of the Republic by letter recommended with acknowledgement of receipt.
The procedures that will be incurred, the application for recusal of Ms. Novella and social assistance to childhood is also filed on the basis of article 341-4 of the code of civil procedure.
A assert that right.
We ask you to approve, the expression of our high consideration.
PUTEAUX for Mrs Moreau and Mr Lorentz SEFCA Association