. . .
The only legal representative at the hearing was for Mr. Quinquis, and said that, therefore, while not appearing on behalf of the other party, an a priori application for adjournment should still be accepted by the courts, even when unopposed.
Again postponed, hearings on this part of the JPK dossier involving Guilloux, with judges deciding on the facts of a case by Vetea Guilloux against others for "false claims" and "wrongful dismissal".
In 2004, he publicly accused fellow GIP operatives Tino Mara and Tutu Manate of having 'disappeared' former Pape'ete editor Jean Pascal Couraud. Vetea Guilloux at first admitted to lying, then retracted his admission.
Sentenced on first appearance, he appealed, but the Supreme Court quashed a decision from the High Court, because the sentence exceeded what the penal code allows for such cases. Relocated to Paris, the second appeal case is forced to wait for instruction from Justice Redonnet, in the main JPK case, before they can continue.
Persisting all this time in his allegations, Vetea Guilloux briefly explained his retraction at the start of the case as being because of a "weight on his shoulders" from the justice system.
. . .
Original Google translation >
Friday at the courthouse in Paris, the case Vetea Guilloux, who had been referred to this date April 10 last, was again returned, this time to January 29, 2010 and without argument. The representative of Mr. Quinquis only at the hearing, and therefore not representative of the other party said that a priori, the direction should still be completed.
Examination of this part of the record JPK, where judges will decide on the facts of false accusation and wrongful termination against Vetea Guilloux, has again been postponed. The latter was accused in 2004, former IPTF Tino Manate Mara and Tutu to have removed the journalist Jean-Pascal Couraud. Vetea Guilloux had admitted to lying, then retracted.
Sentenced in immediate appearance, he was again on appeal, but the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the court of second instance, because the sentence exceeded what the penal code provides for such facts.Relocated to Paris, the second trial on appeal is forced to wait for instructions from the judge in the case Redonnet JPK before they occur. Vetea Guilloux, it persists for all time in his accusations, explaining briefly to have retracted to the top of the case, because of the pressure on his shoulders by the court.
Dr. Binet with RP
. . .
Original French >
Affaire Vetea Guilloux : on attendra encore
Vendredi au palais de justice de Paris, l’affaire Vetea Guilloux, qui avait été renvoyée à cette date le 10 avril dernier, a de nouveau été renvoyée, cette fois au 29 janvier 2010 et sans plaidoirie. La représentante de Me Quinquis, seule à l’audience, et donc sans représentant de l’autre partie, a indiqué qu’a priori, l’instruction devait encore être complétée.
L’examen de ce pan du dossier JPK, sur lequel les juges devront se prononcer sur les faits de dénonciation calomnieuse et dénonciation mensongère contre Vetea Guilloux, a donc une nouvelle fois été reporté. Ce dernier avait accusé, en 2004, les anciens GIP, Tino Mara et Tutu Manate, d’avoir fait disparaître le journaliste Jean- Pascal Couraud. Vetea Guilloux avait admis avoir menti, avant de se rétracter.
Condamné en comparution immédiate, il l’avait de nouveau été en appel, mais la Cour de cassation avait cassé l’arrêt de la juridiction de second degré, au motif que la peine prononcée était supérieure à ce que prévoit le code pénal pour de tels faits. Délocalisé à Paris, le second procès en appel est contraint d’attendre la fin de l’instruction du juge Redonnet dans l’affaire JPK avant d’avoir lieu. Vetea Guilloux, lui, persiste depuis tout ce temps dans ses accusations, expliquant s’être brièvement rétracté au début de l’affaire, à cause de la pression mise sur ses épaules par la justice.
Ph. Binet avec RP
. . .
. . .
. . .
Australian Federal Police have decided not to lay corruption charges against former monopoly, the Australian Wheat Board, despite allegations of $300m in bribery.
News of the AFP decision follows a review by a queen's counsel of three years of evidence since the scandal broke in December 2006.
Radio, TV and newspapers carried scant details of the decision. None of the major dailies carried comment on what has been one of the country's biggest scandals - a few letters - but no editorials or even columns.
It was left to a Vancouver paper to actually fill in the little details - like the $300 million figure.
NGO groups were also remarkably quiet. The Citizens Electoral Council, almost alone, issued a press release to attack the decision - and allege that the corruption claims were a jack up to dismantle the monopoly in favour of big business interests.
Civil cases lodged by the Australian Security and Investments Commission will continue, possibly.
. . .