November 2017

This is the “warrant” for the breaking and entering, or the Bailiff’s crumpled business card, with the wrongspelt title ”Huisier, the only document the clerk Métivier handed over to Mrs Fristedt the 27 of July 2004…

This is the “warrant” for the breaking and entering, or the Bailiff’s crumpled business card, with the wrongspelt title ”Huisier, the only document the clerk Métivier handed over to Mrs Fristedt the 27 of July 2004…

Extract from the first page of the bailiff’s statement, 12 August 2004.

Extract from the first page of the bailiff’s statement, 12 August 2004.

English translation from one part of the the clerc Métivier’s inventory list:

[…] “We disconnected the computer and it’s accessories, all cables were rolled together and put in a plastic box. The Hewlet Packard printer, the Agfa scanner, the Compact[…] computer, placed in its cover, the Philips fax and telephone, the two calculators and a computer card, the modem, a silver colored tray with pencils, the seven check books and the documents we found on the table, a filofax diary, two hair brushes, the box which contained all the jewellery and the black suitcase which contained female clothes, and also four pair of glasses found in the apartment. All this was placed outside the door.”

Comment: The bailiff committed acts of blatantly unlawful conduct and an abuse or excess of power, in violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution and the right to due process and a fair hearing, when she decided to draw up an ex parte inventory of Mrs Fristedt’s belongings in the presence of only her sworn clerk and two non-residents, namely Mrs Shahzada and Mrs Boof.


Extracts from Mrs Fristedt’s letter of the 31st of July 2004 to the President of the Court of First Instance, Mr Philippe Narmino:

[…] “I would be grateful if you could forward me a copy of the decision forbidding me and my children from accessing the apartment of which I am the tenant, as well as any decision prohibiting me from recovering my belongings.”

I would also like to know the reason why Maître Escaut-Marquet, the bailiff, prohibited me from being present during the inventory, the content of which I am unaware, particularly as the majority of the items in the apartment belonged to me.”

Comment: Mr Narmino answered that he was unable to do anything. See Narmino’s role in this scandal as president of the court of first instance, and later as director of judicial services.)


Extract from  the first page of Mme Boof’s testimonial

Extract from the first page of Mme Boof’s testimonial

Extract from Mme Boof’s testimonial:

[…] “When the bailiff had made the inventory of everything that was found in the apartment and despite that Mrs Monica Fristedt told the bailiff that the inventory was inexact and invalid […] we wanted […] to immediately give back the maximum of her personal belongings such as all her jewellery, her computer with all accessories, (fax, printer, scanner…) her diary and a black suitcase filled with female clothes that she had prepared on the bed. The bailiff phoned her several times to tell her to pick it up outside the studio, but she did not care to do it.”

Comments:
The bailiff’s sworn clerk committed acts of blatantly unlawful conduct and an abuse and/or excess of power, in violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution, when she prohibited Mrs Fristedt from entering her studio located in Château Périgord, particularly in order to protect her property, privacy, private correspondence and personal family medical history.

The bailiff committed acts of blatantly unlawful conduct and an abuse or excess of power, in violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution and the right to due process and a fair hearing, when she decided to draw up an ex parte inventory of Mrs Fristedt’s belongings in the presence of only her sworn clerk and two non-residents, namely Mrs Shahzada and Mrs Boof.

The bailiff committed acts of blatantly unlawful conduct and an abuse and/or excess of power, in violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution, in assigning her sworn clerk and a non-resident, namely Mrs Boof, to move Mrs Fristedt’s personal belongings, valuables and jewellery from her studio located in Château Périgord.

The bailiff again committed acts of blatantly unlawful conduct and an abuse and/or excess of power, in violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution, the right to due process and a fair hearing, and in violation of her duty to remain impartial, in proceeding, on no legal grounds, with an inventory of Mrs Fristedt’s belongings on 29 October 2004 without informing her and in her absence, and on behalf of a client of her husband (Mrs Shahzadas lawyer).

The very fact that the bailiff drew up and holds to this day an inventory of Mrs Fristedt’s belongings, and photographs thereof, on no legal grounds, through acts of blatantly unlawful conduct and an abuse and/or excess of power, constitutes a continued or on-going violation of her right to protect her privacy and her right to protect her property, in violation of Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.