| Index |
| Index |
| Next |
| FACTS SUMMARY English Version |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, Marc CAMPUS |
1. THE NOTARY
- February 2, 2004, in France, Mrs. Irene MAQUARD established a Will in notarial form before Me DUCHAN, the
Notaire. The Will was already drafted by a lawyer.
TEXAS RIDING LINE Co. (TRLCo. Incorporated in Nevada) was named legatee. Mrs. MAQUARD wished to comply with
all the legal requirements (provisions of articles 971-975 of the civil Code), hence, she established the Will in front of
a Notaire, a government-appointed public officer and two witnesses (compulsorily of French nationality "before the law
of 2006": without retroactive effect, as it is always question of proper and accurate identification of individuals which
matters when the document was executed.).
Due to lack of diligence,
- The Notaire omitted to check the nationality of the witnesses
- After mechanical transcription of the will of Mrs. MAQUARD, the Notaire did not read the act in entirety before the
witnesses.
- The Notaire failed to execute his duty with prudence and diligence and gave erroneous advices to TRLCo like:
"not to show the title of heir which showed the names of the witnesses " ,"that the Will would be valid in USA".
- In all inconsistency, the Will was recorded by Me DUCHAN at the Central data base of the provisions of last wills, at
the Ministry of finances and he requested an Apostille of the document (International Certified Copy) to be used in
USA
Legal issues:
Liability of the Notaire: negligence, lack of prudence, financial loss which rises from the nullity of the Will.
The Notaire failed to be prudent and the legal flaw arose due to his act that leads to the nullity of the Will.
The Notaire also engaged in a procedure of registering fraudulently and infringed his duties as a Public
Officer, an extremely serious fault for which he risks a heavy sanction before the Court of Justice. In fact,
he recorded the Will in the "the central data base of the provisions of last wills" when he knew that the document was
invalid.
With regard to the Apostille: "Apostille is a French word which means a certification. It is commonly used in English
to refer to the legalization of a document for international use.
On October 5, 1961 several nations joined to create this simplified method of legalizing documents through the Hague
Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents. Documents that are certified
with a conformant apostille are accepted for legal use in all the nations that have signed the Hague Convention
Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents. In countries which are not signatories to the
1961 Convention and do not recognize the apostille, the document must have an Embassy Legalization from which
the document is issued."
Even though the notaire was aware of the fact that the Will was invalid; he proceeded to attest it for all
legal purposes to be used in USA, as if it was a certified copy of a valid original.
The most serious fraud committed by a Government-appointed Public officer was that he justified all the
acts that he had done and aware that the complete functioning of the group relied on this totally.
Consequently, TRLCo., has a right to claim from the Notaire (with his insurer MMA for compensation of the act leading
to nullity of the Will – and to the Chamber of Notaires assuming the collective guarantee of the profession for the
infringement for committing “international” forgery in a public document) before the Court of Justice in USA for the
costs, mental distress and other consequential damages.
2. THE CHAMBER OF THE NOTAIRES
- Following the legal flaw in the recording of the Will, the Chamber of the Notaires was
engaged (according to the normal form Letter registered with Acknowledgement of Delivery, September 27, 2004) in
the claim for the professional liability for Me DUCHAN. The aforementioned Chamber informed the insurer on this
claim and possible compensations.
Legal issues:
The basic principle of law is that the burden of proof falls on the person (the claimant) who claims liability from another
person (the defendant). But in the present case, since the act of a legal professional is in question, there is
an inversion of the burden of proof and it is on the Notary to prove his innocence (what is almost
impossible, since it is a writing produced by him, and that he cannot exonerate his liability except with the proviso of
proving that it is not his Office and himself who has recorded the will, therefore a procedure of inscription of forgery).
Apart from this he has accepted his mistake.
3. MMA (Mutual of Mans Insurances)
- MMA, the Insurance company, which was authorised by the Chamber of the Notaires, opened the claims file
(NOT04/4293) by sending a letter to TEXAS RIDING Co, with a distorting and tendentious version of the facts and
engaged itself in bad faith process contrary to the Insurance law:
- "Legatees of Mrs. MAQUARD are TRLCo company + Mr. Marc CAMPUS"
(Whereas only the TRLCo is the sole legatee, Mr. Marc CAMPUS is a representative of
this company)
- "The letter of the claim registered with acknowledgement of delivery was sent to Me DUCHAN"
(Whereas this one was addressed to the Chamber of Notaires in its role of Disciplinary office)
- "Mrs. Marie CAMPUS has acted as a representative of the legatee company, but it
appears from the Will that it is Mr. Marc CAMPUS who is the only authorised person to act "
( Mrs. Marie CAMPUS never acted as Director of TRLCo but only as the
Director of TEXAS RIDING Co , through a mandate given by TRLCo: The allegation to usurp quality to act is abusive
and defamatory)
- "The MMA requires the proof of the damage born, current and certain (quantified) in relation of causality with the
fault alleged to the policy-holder, Me DUCHAN."
(Whereas the burden of proof in this case falls on the Notary and if he cannot, it falls on his insurer, MMA. Apart from
this, TR Co and TRLCo. have already proved the loss and damages caused to their group due to the nullity of the Will
because of the negligent act of the notary.)
Legal issues:
The compensation in the insurance contract supposes the existence of a declared disaster or
in a financial damage or detrimental consequence undergone by the company, because of Me DUCHAN (the policy-
holder). Is the damage born, current and certain?
- Mrs. MAQUARD having died and the legal flaw (witness of another nationality) were
detected only on the day of opening of the Will. The damage is born from the fact that the Will
cannot be valid and because of this fact the inheritance which was to be acquired by TRLCo was lost due
to the act of the latter.
The damage is certain and current, since it is quantifiable (the value of the inheritance + action against the doctors –
Loss of chance + all other actions, among them Misinformation Case, Palestine case = Loss of opportunity as party
claiming damages).
The matter must be taken to the Court and the American Courts would be the best forum for redress and
to offer better compensation. The legal history of Mr. SEYS and MMA provide a congenial atmosphere to
file the case in USA.
- MMA is liable to compensate, not only the original insurance amount but also the economic loss caused due to its
unfair business settlement practices in the compensation procedure and its bad faith.
Legal history of Mr. SEYS/MMA in the USA
Another company controlled by the top executive of MMA, the MAAF was condemned in USA.
In an AFP article on Executive Life (1991-2006): "A representative of one of the French parties to the affair said
that the maligned purchase of US life insurer Executive Life by a French bank in 1991 simply reflected the way the
French do business. It was to also note that this purchase later was found to be in violation of the federal law of the
United States and one of the key players in the purchase, Mr. Jean Claude SEYS, is also the senior executive of MMA.
In result of this transaction Mr. SEYS has pled guilty of two counts of fraud. "
While this criminal act does not affect directly the present litigation with MMA, it is worth noting, as it
exemplifies the bad faith dealing that companies associated with Mr. SEYS are prone to.
In addition, December 7, 2005, the US bankruptcy Court of NY ordered granting recognition and relief in
aid of foreign main proceeding (05-60100: Petition of Jeffrey John LLOYD against MMA) in conformity to the
§ 1517, 1520 1521 of § of 11 U.S.C.
Petition of Jeffrey John Lloyd, as Foreign Representative of United Kingdom Foreign
Proceeding respecting United Kingdom marine insurance Account known as the MMA
Account, written by Les Mutuelles du Mans Assurances IARD, the United Kingdom branch of
La Mutuelle du Mans Assurances IARD, f/k/a
Les Mutuelles du Mans IARD, f/k/a
La Mutuelle Générale Française Accidents : Debtor in this UK Proceeding.
(Finally, amongst other things, the goods and American assets of MMA/US subsidiaries-branches were
frozen in the USA until the end of the fiduciary payment to avoid any dilapidation of it and all procedures
against MMA in the USA were permanently enjoined to that Court order and benefits from these legal
provisions.)
4. L’ACAM
- In the absence of negotiation at this level, the Audit Board of the insurances (French Control Commission of the
insurance Companies) was approached (#420/2006). They exonerated MMA from liability owing to lack of authority to
act by Mrs. CAMPUS (reiterating, in fact the false allegation of MMA).
Legal issues:
In France, Audit Board of the insurances or ACAM recently has the principal role to control the solvency of the
insurances. Nevertheless, it intervenes on an “out of Court” basis in a dispute between insured and organization of
insurance, here, the litigation involving TRLCo and the MMA. Nevertheless, as an administrative independent
Authority, the ACAM is supposed to follow certain ethics in its intervention to regulate these litigations: the question
relates to the legal nature of the act of the ACAM in the “out of Court” (amicable) cases of settlement: Administrative
act or simple opinion?
A short recall of its duties would throw some light on this subject: "ACAM is charged to take care that the entities
subjected to its control respect the legislative and lawful provisions which are applicable for them... Its staff members
also follow a deontology of the profession, respect of dignity, disinterestedness…"
In short, the ACAM should not be suspected of partiality or failure to its duty to take care on the respect
of the legislative & regulatory provisions by the MMA. However, in the present case, that is proved since
the ACAM agreed with MMA, whereas if it had pushed the investigation a little further, it could have
determined that MMA acted with bad faith: Moreover ACAM has very wide powers to carry out
investigations (while working on the file), since insurance litigation affects the entire public, rather than
merely the plaintiff and defendant, as in most non-class action civil cases..
Its liability can be established before the administrative jurisdiction where it raised or can be raised before
the legal jurisdiction which would determine the liability and the bad faith of the MMA as well as the fault of the Notary.
In the best interest of the claimant, TRLCo. (and its representative CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co.), the
liability of ACAM, MMA, Mr. SEYS, The Aude Chamber of the Notaires, Me. DUCHAN can be established
before US Judicial procedure by virtue of the principles of international business law, especially the
principle of freedom of choice of Courts and Applicable Law, by the claimants, the group of American
companies against the above said defendants.
* Comment of US Public Law Attorney : «MMA has merely “horsed you around” in the manner which
French bureaucracies so splendidly exemplify and issued a response pointing out a “standing” issue
which moreover is not founded. »
- February 2, 2004, in France, Mrs. Irene MAQUARD established a Will in notarial form before Me DUCHAN, the
Notaire. The Will was already drafted by a lawyer.
TEXAS RIDING LINE Co. (TRLCo. Incorporated in Nevada) was named legatee. Mrs. MAQUARD wished to comply with
all the legal requirements (provisions of articles 971-975 of the civil Code), hence, she established the Will in front of
a Notaire, a government-appointed public officer and two witnesses (compulsorily of French nationality "before the law
of 2006": without retroactive effect, as it is always question of proper and accurate identification of individuals which
matters when the document was executed.).
Due to lack of diligence,
- The Notaire omitted to check the nationality of the witnesses
- After mechanical transcription of the will of Mrs. MAQUARD, the Notaire did not read the act in entirety before the
witnesses.
- The Notaire failed to execute his duty with prudence and diligence and gave erroneous advices to TRLCo like:
"not to show the title of heir which showed the names of the witnesses " ,"that the Will would be valid in USA".
- In all inconsistency, the Will was recorded by Me DUCHAN at the Central data base of the provisions of last wills, at
the Ministry of finances and he requested an Apostille of the document (International Certified Copy) to be used in
USA
Legal issues:
Liability of the Notaire: negligence, lack of prudence, financial loss which rises from the nullity of the Will.
The Notaire failed to be prudent and the legal flaw arose due to his act that leads to the nullity of the Will.
The Notaire also engaged in a procedure of registering fraudulently and infringed his duties as a Public
Officer, an extremely serious fault for which he risks a heavy sanction before the Court of Justice. In fact,
he recorded the Will in the "the central data base of the provisions of last wills" when he knew that the document was
invalid.
With regard to the Apostille: "Apostille is a French word which means a certification. It is commonly used in English
to refer to the legalization of a document for international use.
On October 5, 1961 several nations joined to create this simplified method of legalizing documents through the Hague
Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents. Documents that are certified
with a conformant apostille are accepted for legal use in all the nations that have signed the Hague Convention
Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents. In countries which are not signatories to the
1961 Convention and do not recognize the apostille, the document must have an Embassy Legalization from which
the document is issued."
Even though the notaire was aware of the fact that the Will was invalid; he proceeded to attest it for all
legal purposes to be used in USA, as if it was a certified copy of a valid original.
The most serious fraud committed by a Government-appointed Public officer was that he justified all the
acts that he had done and aware that the complete functioning of the group relied on this totally.
Consequently, TRLCo., has a right to claim from the Notaire (with his insurer MMA for compensation of the act leading
to nullity of the Will – and to the Chamber of Notaires assuming the collective guarantee of the profession for the
infringement for committing “international” forgery in a public document) before the Court of Justice in USA for the
costs, mental distress and other consequential damages.
2. THE CHAMBER OF THE NOTAIRES
- Following the legal flaw in the recording of the Will, the Chamber of the Notaires was
engaged (according to the normal form Letter registered with Acknowledgement of Delivery, September 27, 2004) in
the claim for the professional liability for Me DUCHAN. The aforementioned Chamber informed the insurer on this
claim and possible compensations.
Legal issues:
The basic principle of law is that the burden of proof falls on the person (the claimant) who claims liability from another
person (the defendant). But in the present case, since the act of a legal professional is in question, there is
an inversion of the burden of proof and it is on the Notary to prove his innocence (what is almost
impossible, since it is a writing produced by him, and that he cannot exonerate his liability except with the proviso of
proving that it is not his Office and himself who has recorded the will, therefore a procedure of inscription of forgery).
Apart from this he has accepted his mistake.
3. MMA (Mutual of Mans Insurances)
- MMA, the Insurance company, which was authorised by the Chamber of the Notaires, opened the claims file
(NOT04/4293) by sending a letter to TEXAS RIDING Co, with a distorting and tendentious version of the facts and
engaged itself in bad faith process contrary to the Insurance law:
- "Legatees of Mrs. MAQUARD are TRLCo company + Mr. Marc CAMPUS"
(Whereas only the TRLCo is the sole legatee, Mr. Marc CAMPUS is a representative of
this company)
- "The letter of the claim registered with acknowledgement of delivery was sent to Me DUCHAN"
(Whereas this one was addressed to the Chamber of Notaires in its role of Disciplinary office)
- "Mrs. Marie CAMPUS has acted as a representative of the legatee company, but it
appears from the Will that it is Mr. Marc CAMPUS who is the only authorised person to act "
( Mrs. Marie CAMPUS never acted as Director of TRLCo but only as the
Director of TEXAS RIDING Co , through a mandate given by TRLCo: The allegation to usurp quality to act is abusive
and defamatory)
- "The MMA requires the proof of the damage born, current and certain (quantified) in relation of causality with the
fault alleged to the policy-holder, Me DUCHAN."
(Whereas the burden of proof in this case falls on the Notary and if he cannot, it falls on his insurer, MMA. Apart from
this, TR Co and TRLCo. have already proved the loss and damages caused to their group due to the nullity of the Will
because of the negligent act of the notary.)
Legal issues:
The compensation in the insurance contract supposes the existence of a declared disaster or
in a financial damage or detrimental consequence undergone by the company, because of Me DUCHAN (the policy-
holder). Is the damage born, current and certain?
- Mrs. MAQUARD having died and the legal flaw (witness of another nationality) were
detected only on the day of opening of the Will. The damage is born from the fact that the Will
cannot be valid and because of this fact the inheritance which was to be acquired by TRLCo was lost due
to the act of the latter.
The damage is certain and current, since it is quantifiable (the value of the inheritance + action against the doctors –
Loss of chance + all other actions, among them Misinformation Case, Palestine case = Loss of opportunity as party
claiming damages).
The matter must be taken to the Court and the American Courts would be the best forum for redress and
to offer better compensation. The legal history of Mr. SEYS and MMA provide a congenial atmosphere to
file the case in USA.
- MMA is liable to compensate, not only the original insurance amount but also the economic loss caused due to its
unfair business settlement practices in the compensation procedure and its bad faith.
Legal history of Mr. SEYS/MMA in the USA
Another company controlled by the top executive of MMA, the MAAF was condemned in USA.
In an AFP article on Executive Life (1991-2006): "A representative of one of the French parties to the affair said
that the maligned purchase of US life insurer Executive Life by a French bank in 1991 simply reflected the way the
French do business. It was to also note that this purchase later was found to be in violation of the federal law of the
United States and one of the key players in the purchase, Mr. Jean Claude SEYS, is also the senior executive of MMA.
In result of this transaction Mr. SEYS has pled guilty of two counts of fraud. "
While this criminal act does not affect directly the present litigation with MMA, it is worth noting, as it
exemplifies the bad faith dealing that companies associated with Mr. SEYS are prone to.
In addition, December 7, 2005, the US bankruptcy Court of NY ordered granting recognition and relief in
aid of foreign main proceeding (05-60100: Petition of Jeffrey John LLOYD against MMA) in conformity to the
§ 1517, 1520 1521 of § of 11 U.S.C.
Petition of Jeffrey John Lloyd, as Foreign Representative of United Kingdom Foreign
Proceeding respecting United Kingdom marine insurance Account known as the MMA
Account, written by Les Mutuelles du Mans Assurances IARD, the United Kingdom branch of
La Mutuelle du Mans Assurances IARD, f/k/a
Les Mutuelles du Mans IARD, f/k/a
La Mutuelle Générale Française Accidents : Debtor in this UK Proceeding.
(Finally, amongst other things, the goods and American assets of MMA/US subsidiaries-branches were
frozen in the USA until the end of the fiduciary payment to avoid any dilapidation of it and all procedures
against MMA in the USA were permanently enjoined to that Court order and benefits from these legal
provisions.)
4. L’ACAM
- In the absence of negotiation at this level, the Audit Board of the insurances (French Control Commission of the
insurance Companies) was approached (#420/2006). They exonerated MMA from liability owing to lack of authority to
act by Mrs. CAMPUS (reiterating, in fact the false allegation of MMA).
Legal issues:
In France, Audit Board of the insurances or ACAM recently has the principal role to control the solvency of the
insurances. Nevertheless, it intervenes on an “out of Court” basis in a dispute between insured and organization of
insurance, here, the litigation involving TRLCo and the MMA. Nevertheless, as an administrative independent
Authority, the ACAM is supposed to follow certain ethics in its intervention to regulate these litigations: the question
relates to the legal nature of the act of the ACAM in the “out of Court” (amicable) cases of settlement: Administrative
act or simple opinion?
A short recall of its duties would throw some light on this subject: "ACAM is charged to take care that the entities
subjected to its control respect the legislative and lawful provisions which are applicable for them... Its staff members
also follow a deontology of the profession, respect of dignity, disinterestedness…"
In short, the ACAM should not be suspected of partiality or failure to its duty to take care on the respect
of the legislative & regulatory provisions by the MMA. However, in the present case, that is proved since
the ACAM agreed with MMA, whereas if it had pushed the investigation a little further, it could have
determined that MMA acted with bad faith: Moreover ACAM has very wide powers to carry out
investigations (while working on the file), since insurance litigation affects the entire public, rather than
merely the plaintiff and defendant, as in most non-class action civil cases..
Its liability can be established before the administrative jurisdiction where it raised or can be raised before
the legal jurisdiction which would determine the liability and the bad faith of the MMA as well as the fault of the Notary.
In the best interest of the claimant, TRLCo. (and its representative CS 1 GROUP LEGAL OFFICE Co.), the
liability of ACAM, MMA, Mr. SEYS, The Aude Chamber of the Notaires, Me. DUCHAN can be established
before US Judicial procedure by virtue of the principles of international business law, especially the
principle of freedom of choice of Courts and Applicable Law, by the claimants, the group of American
companies against the above said defendants.
* Comment of US Public Law Attorney : «MMA has merely “horsed you around” in the manner which
French bureaucracies so splendidly exemplify and issued a response pointing out a “standing” issue
which moreover is not founded. »
