Re: Precisions on the Martinot situation

From: JDP (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 10:34:40 MDT

  • Next message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: How transparent should transparency be?"

    JDP a écrit (29.7.2003/19:50) :
    > In any case, I am presently finding out what the next judiciary stage
    > involves, and what the options are.

    Here goes:

    Next (and last within France) possible move is "recours en cassation"
    at the "Conseil d'Etat".

    This involves special habilitated lawyers. There is a limited number
    of them (a quantity controlled by the State). Hence, Giulio's
    suggestion of offering much money (in case it was made available) to
    get a super lawyer doesn't seem to be practical.

    Conseil d'Etat doesn't re-judge the case; it just says whether the
    decision is lawful or not. In particular, the facts are not examined
    again (no witness).

    I learned all that through the help of a law post-grad (assistant
    professor in Paris, but not specialized in administrative law). He
    agreed with me that defending the freedom of burial was doomed, and
    that arguing that the court MAY kill the Martinot by ordering their
    burial was the way to go. (As you might guess, the administration is
    not supposed to kill people for no reason.)

    Also, Conseil d'Etat already rendered a decision (negative) on a
    similar situation last year (in which freedom of burial was argued).

    I made a web page with everything I know on the situation, and I will
    update it with anything new. It's at

    http://dtext.com/transition/martinot/

    I don't have the time to do an English language version for now
    (anyone who'd agree to do it please contact me, I think it would be
    useful), hence the quick summary above.

    Jacques

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 10:42:03 MDT