Mr. A.H. Winter. Acting Attorney, Legal adviser, Lawyer and Custodian.
Estate of Paulina Cristea,
rightful owner Mrs. M. C. Winter,
placed in trust for her son Anthony Winter.
....................
................
Email : general_aw@btinternet.com
Government of Romania
To: Prime Minister Tariceanu
Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:35:37
Dear Sir,
I am writing to inform you that having exhausted all representations between Mrs. Winter, and the local County court Timisoara, The past and present President, Minister of Justice, The local Mayor of Timisoara, The Land Registry Office Timis, and CEC Bank Timis. I now intend to proceed with complaints to all EU Foreign Ministers, The Eu President, and the committee for admissions of candidates for EU entry.
In short the Romanian Judicial system is in such major need of reform, that it cannot at present sustain its commitments to its own constitution, The Human rights Act, and the EU conventions on Human Rights. The authorities have received over two hundred representations for a case of criminal theft against members of my wife's family and have done precisely nothing in the way of advice, assistance or doing preciesely what they have been asked to do, as a pre-requisite to proper legal issue of the case so far presented locally.
The issue is a simple case of theft, at the time of my wife's mother's death in a railway accident, her mother's documents and CEC bank deposit books, held in trust by her uncle were destroyed and stolen, at the time of her death, and when our marriage application and emigration papers were being processed. This uncle taking advantage of her impending marriage, and departure, maintained that nothing existed, despite witness testimony by my wife that she saw her mother hand over a substantial amount of money in trust, where her and her daughter's name only were the authorised signatures. During the period of our absence, despite frequent holiday return visits, this uncle maintained the secrecy of the whereabouts of the finances that were now on deposit with the CEC in individual deposit accounts of equal amounts, two case were opened, the first being successfully concluded against another family member, and the second succumbed to bribery and the case faltered. In the interim, unknown to us, the uncle had suddenly grown rich, and purchased a property in Timisoara. We only discovered this on his death, and made immediate representations to the local court in the following.
All the list deposed below has been dealt with CONTRARY to articles under the Romanian constitution, the Human rights act, and the present EU conventions of Human rights. In short not one of our requests were acceded to, without even the courtesy of a reply, or the moral courage in explanation, despite the officers of the local authorities believing in our case.
Therefore, referring this case by the President, and the Ministry of Justice appeared to be a simple act of disassociation by the new democracy with the local judiciary, knowing at the same time, the state and incapacity of the courts in handling a case in civil proceedings that is of a higher form than one of defendant's screaming and bringing the entire process to an end in the most disreputable manner.
That the court do immediately place relevant papers with the local land registry (Cadastre) to place a charge, impediment or freeze (Intimpinare) on the property until such time as the case was opened and determined as to rightful owner.
That the defendant in the case be served with documents which I had prepared in English and Romanian stating the allegations and that the property left in the will, was not property the deceased uncle lawfully owned or earned, he had become enriched without cause. (Imbogatire fara causa)
The defendant be served with an 'ex parte' order (In England this is an order to deliver up documents that may be destroyed and that would be material to the claimant's cause.
We were advised to be in contact with a local lawyer, who did not wish to take up the case, on grounds that appeared to be concerns freedom of information and speech issues.
The Local Attorney (avocate) appeared to be very frightened to converse with us on the telephone, concerning details of the case.
These documents were drawn up by myself along the British model, for service upon the defendant, the local court having no proper paperwork, for service of such papers, and acting entirely the office equipment to communicate this case in accordance with a standard of documentation that was acceptable in a European country.
The defendant was, it is alleged, never served with my documentation, and indeed he never replied to any or our representations. The defendant maintains a silence (adversely as it would be seen in a western court) knowing the failures of the judiciary and relying on time and ablation to cause the claimant to renounce her claim.
All the relevant authorities do not wish to intercede and conduct even the simpler PRE-action procedures that should bring this case into the open,and the claimant now is ready to do so himself, by way of opening the case with as much publication as possible, and write this story for world wide consumption on the internet.
The original claimant, and now myself would like to make it clear that we are not pursuing this case for reasons of financial benefit, although that would and should be its proper outcome. The property can be taken and sold for the benefit of Romanian orphans in circumstance similar to my wife's . What we and now I particularly concerned with is simple JUSTICE, and the satisfaction that a criminal shall not be permitted to gain rewards by illegal means. The criminals are members of my wife's family, not only in Romania, but severally abroad. This is unacceptable and they should be make to account for this almost biblical unlawfullness.
I am a person of disabilities, and cannot travel easily, and shall pursue this case, even if I have to under the Hague conventions by the issue of documents that shall be used in the EU in Europe. I am entitled to conduct my legal affairs exempt from paying court costs, and my wife, is also entitled, in my view to have this case conducted with similar exemptions under Romanian law. I have conducted more than ten large cases in the UK, successfully against UK local authorities, the police, and the largest bank in the world. I have the competence in English to conduct my own cases, and still retain some ability to converse in Romania, with my wife of course being fluent. I do not wish to appoint a local attorney, the last attempt indicated the attorney was afraid to bring an international case to a local Romanian court, where I have no such concerns. Equally the previous attorney was susceptible to bribery and corruption, which shall be avoided by my conducting this case personally. The question is, shall this case come to a Romanian court, with the first measures deposed above being traversed properly as they should at the documentation stages prior to the more expensive stages even being considered. We are entitled to have the papers served on the defendants and examine their defence, which so far has been silence, along with the local court.
I wrote to President Nastase, and thereafter President Basescu and then to Secretary of OHCHR (Office of High Commission of Human Rights) well over a year ago, stating that this procedure was at that time almost exhausted, and Received replies from all parties. Both Presidents referred the matter to your Ministry of Justice, and on both occasions the Minister of Justice referred me back to the local court in Timisoara.
I have communicated over two hundred letters, emails and faxes with the County Court, Cadastre, Mayor's office, and Bank.
I have been informed privately that the outcome of proceedings is probably that the court shall seek to take a large sum of money from us, that defeats the object of the claim, merely to permit us to state out case in person without even a guarantee that the defendant shall be served with the allegations, summoned to attend the court, the property in question to be frozen from sale, and the documents in the possession of the defendant that supports our case will have been destroyed.
This state of affairs is not only totally unacceptable.
I intend now to proceed to place the testimony and documents of the case to the OHCHR, and publicise this case to all foreign ministers of the EU, including the EU President. At the end of that process and within a period of reasonable grace allowing for replies, I shall seek to place the documents with the committee that overseas the standards and conditions for allowing candidates to apply for EU entry, with a complaint that the judiciary of Romania is and has needed serious reform for many years, such that the illegal and irregular conduct by the judiciary is a sufficient ground to hinder entry.
The issue is complex and lengthy, and I do not wish to waste your time on details except to enumerate briefly a synopsis.
Claimant A.H. Winter.
Defendants County Court Timisoara.
Mayor of Timisoara.
Registry Office Timisoara
C.E.C. Timisoara
Minister Of Justice
President of Romania former, and present.
Complaint concerning Maladministration in Government, Local Authority, Police and Judiciary comprising wilful negligence aiding & abetting family member to acquire property unlawfully belonging to the former deceased P. Cristea.
relating to theft of inheritance property, bribery, corruption between defendant and claimant's bank, local registry office, mayoral office, and county court of Timisoara.
Re: Complaint on conduct contrary to Human Rights Act, EU convention of Human Rights, Romanian Constitution and Local Mayoral Officers and Judiciary Timisoara.
Dear Sir,
Romanian accession to the EU might face delay, says prime minister Tariceanu
Mr Tariceanu also referred to this option, saying that "if accession fails to happen in 2007, we cannot be certain that it can happen in 2008," referring to the sceptical climate on enlargement currently characterising the EU.
Yours most respectfully.
A. H. Winter.
DRAFT of representation, claims and pre action protocols.
INDEX OF SECTIONS.
Table of Statutory Instruments referred to. Page
Introduction
SCHEDULES OF SECTIONS - Representations
Pre-action conduct
Wilful negligence and known breaches.
Acts and Omissions, the nature of wilful negligence
Suppressio Veri and Suggestio Falsi
Local allegations of bribery and corruption
What you must know, and what you should know
What you have been additionally advised by my representations
What you must now know.
Tortious liability
Your duty of care
Where you have failed wilfully
The relevant extracts of the Romanian Constitution
Specific breaches by your personnel
Relevant extracts of the EU convention Human Rights
Breaches serve detriments upon the victim
Detriments cost time, money
Detriments, and representations cause anxiety, stress and sleep problems
Supplement:
Breaches of the law at Local Authority
Judiciary and State Level
Romanian Constitution
Article 17
Romanian citizens while abroad
Romanian citizens while abroad shall enjoy the protection of the Romanian State and shall be bound to fulfill their duties, with the exception of those incompatible with their absence from the country.
ARTICOLUL 17
Cetatenii români în strainatate
Cetatenii români se bucura în strainatate de protectia statului român si trebuie sa-si îndeplineasca obligatiile, cu exceptia acelora ce nu sunt compatibile cu absenta lor din tara.
Article 20
International human rights treaties
(1) Constitutional provisions concerning the citizens' rights and liberties shall be interpreted and enforced in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the covenants and other treaties Romania is a party to.
(2) Where any inconsistencies exist between the covenants and treaties on fundamental human rights Romania is a party to, and internal laws, the international regulations shall take precedence.
ARTICOLUL 20
Tratatele internationale privind drepturile omului
(1) Dispozitiile constitutionale privind drepturile si libertatile cetatenilor vor fi interpretate si aplicate în concordanta cu Declaratia Universala a Drepturilor Omului, cu pactele si cu celelalte tratate la care România este parte.
(2) Daca exista neconcordante între pactele si tratatele privitoare la drepturile fundamentale ale omului, la care România este parte, si legile interne, au prioritate reglementarile internationale, cu exceptia cazului în care Constitutia sau legile interne contin dispozitii mai favorabile.
Article 21
Free access to justice
(1) Every person is entitled to bring cases before the courts for the defense of his legitimate rights, liberties and interests.
(2) The exercise of this right may not be restricted by any law.
ARTICOLUL 21
Accesul liber la justitie
(1) Orice persoana se poate adresa justitiei pentru apararea drepturilor, a libertatilor si a intereselor sale legitime.
(2) Nici o lege nu poate îngradi exercitarea acestui drept.
(3) Partile au dreptul la un proces echitabil si la solutionarea cauzelor într-un termen rezonabil.
(4) Jurisdictiile speciale administrative sunt facultative si gratuite.
Article 24
Right to defense
(1) The right to defense is guaranteed.
(2) All throughout the trial, the parties shall have the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their own choosing or appointed «ex officio».
ARTICOLUL 24
Dreptul la aparare
(1) Dreptul la aparare este garantat.
(2) În tot cursul procesului, partile au dreptul sa fie asistate de un avocat, ales sau numit din oficiu.
Article 27
Inviolability of domicile
(1) The domicile and the residence are inviolable. No one may enter or remain in the domicile or residence of a person without consent.
(2) Derogation from provisions under paragraph (1) is permissible by law, in the following circumstances:
a) for carrying into execution a warrant for arrest or a court sentence;
b) to remove any danger against the life, physical integrity or assets of a person;
c) to defend national security or public order;
d) to prevent the spread of an epidemic.
(3) Searches may be ordered only by a magistrate and carried out exclusively under observance of the legal procedure.
(4) Searches at night time shall be prohibited, except in cases of «flagrante delicto».
ARTICOLUL 27
Inviolabilitatea domiciliului
(1) Domiciliul si resedinta sunt inviolabile. Nimeni nu poate patrunde sau ramâne în domiciliul ori în resedinta unei persoane fara învoirea acesteia.
(2) De la prevederile alineatului (1) se poate deroga prin lege pentru urmatoarele situatii:
a) executarea unui mandat de arestare sau a unei hotarâri judecatoresti;
b) înlaturarea unei primejdii privind viata, integritatea fizica sau bunurile unei persoane;
c) apararea securitatii nationale sau a ordinii publice;
d) prevenirea raspândirii unei epidemii.
(3) Perchezitia se dispune de judecator si se efectueaza în conditiile si în formele prevazute de lege.
(4) Perchezitiile în timpul noptii sunt interzise, în afara de cazul infractiunilor flagrante.
Article 31
Right to information
(1) A person's right of access to any information of public interest cannot be restricted.
(2) The public authorities, according to their competence, shall be bound to provide for correct information of the citizens in public affairs and matters of personal interest.
(3) The right to information shall not be prejudicial to the protection of the young or to national security.
(4) Public and private media shall be bound to provide correct information to the public opinion.
(5) Public radio and television services shall be autonomous. They must guarantee for any important social and political group the exercise of the right to be on the air. The organization of these services and the Parliamentary control over their activity shall be regulated by an organic law.
ARTICOLUL 31
Dreptul la informatie
(1) Dreptul persoanei de a avea acces la orice informatie de interes public nu poate fi îngradit.
(2) Autoritatile publice, potrivit competentelor ce le revin, sunt obligate sa asigure informarea corecta a cetatenilor asupra treburilor publice si asupra problemelor de interes personal.
(3) Dreptul la informatie nu trebuie sa prejudicieze masurile de protectie a tinerilor sau securitatea nationala.
(4) Mijloacele de informare în masa, publice si private, sunt obligate sa asigure informarea corecta a opiniei publice.
(5) Serviciile publice de radio si de televiziune sunt autonome. Ele trebuie sa garanteze grupurilor sociale si politice importante exercitarea dreptului la antena. Organizarea acestor servicii si controlul parlamentar asupra activitatii lor se reglementeaza prin lege organica.
Article 42
Inheritance right
The right of inheritance is guaranteed.
ARTICOLUL 42
Interzicerea muncii fortate
(1) Munca fortata este interzisa.
(2) Nu constituie munca fortata:
a) activitatile pentru îndeplinirea îndatoririlor militare, precum si cele desfasurate, potrivit legii, în locul acestora, din motive religioase sau de constiinta;
b) munca unei persoane condamnate, prestata în conditii normale, în perioada de detentie sau de libertate conditionata;
c) prestatiile impuse în situatia creata de calamitati ori de alt pericol, precum si cele care fac parte din obligatiile civile normale stabilite de lege.
Article 48
Right of a person aggrieved by a public authority
(1) Any person aggrieved in his legitimate right by an administrative act or failure of a public authority to solve his application within the legal term is entitled to the acknowledgment of his right, annulment of the act and remedies for the damage.
(2) The conditions and limits on the exercise of this right shall be regulated by an organic law.
(3) The state bears patrimonial liability, according to the law, for damages caused by judicial errors in criminal cases.
ARTICOLUL 48
Familia
(1) Familia se întemeiaza pe casatoria liber consimtita între soti, pe egalitatea acestora si pe dreptul si îndatorirea parintilor de a asigura cresterea, educatia si instruirea copiilor.
(2) Conditiile de încheiere, de desfacere si de nulitate a casatoriei se stabilesc prin lege. Casatoria religioasa poate fi celebrata numai dupa casatoria civila.
(3) Copiii din afara casatoriei sunt egali în fata legii cu cei din casatorie.
Human Rights Act.
The European Convention on Human Rights
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Protocols
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. providing it is done lawfully.