BRITTANY......CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 1499
DON'T RESPECT BY FRENCH GOVERNMENT...

 

 

INFO concerning international treaties
MUST READ .... (excerpt from the blog of Louis Melennec)
International Treaties: terms of the contracting parties ...info ---> www.blog-louis-melennec.fr

I did not intend to spend on a lengthy legal review. (Beware, though, when Louis Mélennec promises to speak briefly this statement, sincere, sometimes turns into a raging river, abrading everything in its path, like horses ATTILA, as the subjects covered are huge!). All those who have read my analysis on frauds perpetrated by France in Brittany, in 1532, then in 1789, now know - as if they were lawyers specializing in international law, the conditions of validity of international treaties, and the consequences their nullity in law: the contracting parties are placed in the position where they were before the alleged treaty ... All my legal articles, without exception, are clear analyzes, written in clear language, accessible to all, including technical terms are purged and banished, as so many attacks on the dignity of readers, as if the author was hiding from his own failure to speak in a clear way, using an obscure language, abstract, absurd, incomprehensible. See the judgments of the Court of Cassation and the French courts: there who will understand, ... often. Are not talking about writing services departments, fell to the lowest level for a long time ..
A treaty - in the sense we understand it here - is nothing more than a contract between two States, acting freely, without constraint, their full commitment to create legal effects: for example to help each other if attacked by a third country, to provide part of the territory for a particular activity, to provide business benefits, etc.
For such an agreement to be legally effective, it must meet several conditions, both in substance and in form:
- It must be negotiated and ratified by the people, organizations, or institutions authorized to perform the contract on behalf of nations, peoples, countries. This is what often known competence. Very simply, it must be concluded by the persons or institutions that have power to act.
- Parties (countries that decide to contract together) must act freely, voluntarily, knowingly. That's what's consent, which is the centerpiece of the room contract is denominated. If the parties have not been informed about the content of the contract, if they have been deceived, if they were forced by violence or any other process to contract, the alleged agreement is not one: there is no legally .
- The treaty should be concluded through certain procedures - or forms. These procedures evidenced by their union, the substantive requirements have been met, so if both parties freely appointed their ambassadors, whether they have been properly accredited institutions authorized to designate, where they have without violence, without constraint or concussion, freely discussed around the table, if the representatives of the States concerned, in turn freely studied, discussed the terms of the treaty, if approved by authorized institutions in this end (Parliament, usually), it has been promulgated in accordance with legal forms, etc., we can assume that it is legally valid ... and vice versa.
- The treaty should be concluded for the benefit of both parties, it must contain a reciprocity of advantages and disadvantages.
A contract to be valid, must necessarily have advantages - or disadvantages - roughly symmetrical for both sides. It's the same thing for the treaties concluded by the two states. If one of them crashed through the other, that the other removes only drawbacks is that it has suffered the violence of the first, and he was not able to express his will that treaty (1532) is NULL, VOID OF ABSOLUTE.
An omitted treaty becomes legally invalid if its main provisions were violated.

.
***************
In theory and in practice, it is the head of state and his government belongs the prerogative to initiate and negotiate international treaties ...
But this negotiation can be done anyhow. The head of state is a hereditary prince (King, Emperor, Duke ...), or an elected politician (president ...), it is only by delegation - implicit or explicit - of the people he a mission to defend the interests. In any case, under penalty of forfeiture, the head of state and government can not negotiate a treaty with the object and purpose are immoral, not conform to the law or human rights violators of the people they represent.
example:
The two heads of state involved (Plombière 1858 Napoleon III and Victor Emmanuel of Savoy -royaum piedmont / sardaign, represented by its Prime Minister CAVOUR, negotiating what they lacked jurisdiction - the transfer of populations and territory without the consent of (Counties Savoyards + Nice) - acted as jockeys, they had no right to do.
(By law, we can express things in a different way: the two sovereigns had standing to negotiate, but that the object and purpose of the contract was unlawful The consequence is the same. Illegal contract is void and void of Law).
the presence of France in both countries this since 1860, has no legal basis, as a non-consensual occupation. Violating its formal commitment to seek the consent of the people, expressed explicitly by an honest and loyal vote, in accordance with international law, consent otherwise required by the populations concerned, this is in addition to any other irregularities which she was the initiator and the main actress, France from the private origin of any legal effect acts of transfer of sovereignty to its benefit. This is not the abrogation of the treaty since 1947 (the France did not submit to the UN) that it is, but of absolute nullity of the treaty, this from the beginning, by serious violation - as in Brittany again in 1532 - conditions and substantive validity of treaties.
An omitted treaty becomes legally invalid if its main provisions were violated (rigging at the polls for the hadésion populations - consent of the people in the treaties of Savoy and Nice).
***********

.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED NULLITY TREATY 1532: BRITTANY AND IS STILL A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY.
Foreword: the treaty in Brittany is a highly detailed and accurate procedure in any case Stackable humbug initiated and perpetrated by France in 1532 From a formal point of view, the treaty is done in four phases:
initiative and the appointment of ambassadors by the Duke and his Government, negotiations, the drafting, ratification. All this surrounded by very explicit guarantees, especially if it is an important treaty. None of these conditions has been met by France in 1532, which only consider only those violations of formal requirements, even apart from the violation of the basic conditions, making it impossible to call "treaty" the 'french edict of the month of August 1532.

The legal consequence of this analysis is crucial. The rule of law is peremptory: The alleged treaty of 1532 is null and void. Lawyers go further: this alleged "contract" is assigned if serious irregularities, both substantive and procedural, it does not exist legally, for the reason that none of the conditions of validity of treaties met :
- Lack: the French have claimed a treaty with the States of Brittany. But these are strictly incompetent to deal with such matters. In Brittany , only the Duke and his Government have the authority to negotiate international treaties.
- No consent. The Edict of August 1532 was imposed unilaterally by the French, by force. In addition, there were maneuvers concussion, proved by historical evidence. Both substantive flaws, major ban, strictly speaking, decorating fantasies perpetrated by the French name of the treaty. (August 4th Parliament convened by Fr Valves 1 and surrounded by the army of François 1)
- Serious breaches of formal requirements. The Britons were not entitled to appoint plenipotentiaries, ambassadors and negotiators. They were not allowed to propose, develop, negotiate, participate in writing, discuss any agreement. Edit the text of the French was imposed in serious violation of the strict conditions of the treaty-making, according to Britons and international laws of time (see our important article: The third ground of invalidity, below).
- Finally, there was no reciprocity in the above benefits the parties. France alone has pulled all the benefits of the deal. Britons have lost everything in this disaster case, one of the worst in their history two thousand years.
When a treaty between the two countries appears to be zero, these two countries are presented in the situation prior to void or annulled Treaty.
In addition, there is no requirement in this area (see the important article by Professor Charles Rousseau, quoted below). The fact that France is installed in Brittany for five centuries, and it governs the country against his will, is of no effect and does not create any right for her. To understand the idea that we express here in simple, easily understood by any reader, including the less familiar things of the law: the thief does not become lawful owner of the stolen property, regardless of the time elapsed since the robbery, he must return to those to whom they belong.
The text that governs the legal relations between Brittany and France and is still regularly found the January 7, 1499 by Anne treaty Britain and Louis XII, at their wedding in Nantes, the two sovereigns expressed in this text, discussed, negotiated, initialed the will of their people and in their name. This text establishing the total independence of Brittany, the Britons had neither treated nor discussed nor accepted any "treaty of union" in 1532 with France, Britain REMAINS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, A SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT POWER: France is a OCCUPANT COUNTRY, nothing else.
The only destiny of France in Brittany from, vacate the land, foreign to her.

.
LOUIS MELENNEC, law degree, graduate degree in public law, graduate Graduate private law