ELECTION PRESIDENTIELLE EN POLYNESIE FRANCAISE / AUTO-PROCLAMATION DE RENE HOFFER

Publié le par lavapeur

L'ECHO DES MONTAGNES, dans le légitime but de vous informer, vous donne l'interview de MR RENE HOFFER; dans cet interview se trouvent tous les ingrédients de son auto-proclamation en date du 24 octobre 2004.

"
Cette interview contient pratiquement TOUS les éléments et ingrédients de mon autoproclamation du 25 octobre 2004.
Je vais la retranscrire
 
Article 69 says that the president has to be elected in absolute majority.
 
Article 2 says that if there is not majority absolute on the first round, there will be a second tour.
 
Nothing is said about blablabla. For me this is not a problem, because of my situation as president of so called "French Polynesia".
 
You say that this election of new president is of no consequence anyway because in 2004 the main political party made a main mistake by not contesting the election on the 25th of October which was the official day...
 
... Which was not the political party, it was the 17 candidates, the hight commissionar and the 57 representatives who were the only people allowed to contest the election of October 25th 2004 at supreme court in France and nobody did.
 
Which means?
 
Which means that I have autoproclaimed myself, I have written to the hight commissionar; I told him that he had five days to go to supreme court if he wishes to contest my autoproclamation. Nobody did, so nobody had ever contested legally my, being, president of so called "French Polynesia" since October 2004, 25th.
 
You have had these cases with the police taking you in for, you know, that connection with the cellular phone call you were caught, whatever, you told the police that they have no business in French Polynesia in part, because you know, if they come from France they have to go through a border and if there is a border it cannot be whithin the same country...
 
... What France has to do here? By doing that "famous" (in quotes) status of 27th of February 2004, France has actually created an institution, who is the president of French Polynesia, hein, so called "French Polynesia". So it's just one person, it's like the president of a republic, or something like this.
 
By creating that one position which is my title since Octobre 2004, 25th, they made four institutions. Before there were only three.  So the other ones are, besides the president of "French Polynesia", the second one is the "gouvernment" of so called "French Polynesia", the third one is the assembly of so called "French Polynesia", and the fourth one is conseil économique, social et culturel, whatever fourth institution.
 
Now, by having that motion de censure, which is one of my court cases pending in supreme court, that motion overthrough at once, two institutions which is the president and the assembly (René: my mistake, it is the "governement" in this case, not the assembly) of, in quotes, "French Polynesia". So why not at some point, overthrow all four at once, in a self destroying move or what so ever. So what I try to say is that, by creating an institution called the president of French Polynesia on 27th of February 2004, France has put in place an elected president. But, the election of that president was planned and is still planned, on a basis of an election through an assembly, an assembly of 57 representatives.
 
The very special thing which has happened on the only election day in 2004, in October, which was the 25th, was that, these 57 representatives did'nt show up to vote for the president. As well as the other 17 candidates who did'nt show up.
 
By doing so, it means that the 57 representatives have refused the power they had from the people who have elected them, which means when everybody is jumping ship, the one who stays on the ship, it's a bad image but euh..., let's say that's why I came in and I autoproclaim myself, at the unanimity of my own voice. Whith no vote against. So at 100 percent of the people, which means the French people because there is no Tahitian nationality, or Polynesian, French Polynesian nationality, and an outsider, could have been somebody called Jacques-CHIRAC or whoever, from France, so, meaning that somebody, out of the 60 million French people being able to apply for presidency, by voting for myself and autoproclaiming my self, I represent the people, who, the 57 were supposed to represent.
 
The question of course is: who is allowed to be a candidate for this election, and, according to the rules that were in place back in early 2004, candidates had to be backed by a number of people, I think assembly members, in order to be elegible to stand. What's your claim to be a legitimate candidate after the 17 that were there on, or intending to represent themselves on the 25th of October?
 
Yes, so that's very easy to answer: these 15 parrainages can only be accepted or rejected by court. Which means, if there is a doubt about these parrainages, in France, if we mention France, only the judge "says the law". Here, it was the high commissionar, it was the president of the assembly, who substituted themselves of the justice by deciding: he has or he does'nt have.
 
When you are accused of something, like being accused of not having 15 parrainages, in law, you have the right to defend yourself. And you only defend yourself in court. Which was the problem of October 22nd 2004 when mister Gaston FLOSSE decided that he was organizing an election, I was a candidate that day and I asked for the high commissionar, to take that case to court. I asked who ever wants to decide that I am legitimate to put my candidatship down on that date, etcetera. And the high commissioner, nobody, I even called on to, by then, to Jacques-CHIRAC, if he dares to contest this point, to take me to court.
 
By taking me to court, it would have postponed that famous or infamous election of October 22nd, because, there are some delays when you go to court, and since FLOSSE and his fellow, I don't have the right word to describe these reptiliens, decided that 25th is out of date, it would have postponed the election day on October 25th ! So he prefered to handle it in a mafia type, which is: the one who has most guns wins! Or the most bullits wins! But this is not a law attitude, a right attitude in law, in right.
 
Who was backing you as a candidate, that was not challenged, I mean who was proposing you as candidate?
 
Well, I have these documents ready for whoever would be habilitaded to ask them to me. I have these documents, definitely.
 
Yay, yay, but...
 
... but no one wanted to see them.
 
Yay, yay, sure....
 
... why to open a new box of something which is useless?
 
But...
 
... the court could have asked me. The judges could have asked me but nobody asked, so why concentrate on details and on things passed which are, have never been contested?
 
When you went into, turned up as a candidate on October 25th whith your documents, no one contested your backers, or the number of your backers you said you had, but you must have had backers in order to be a candidate?
 
Yes or no! For the completely, there were some different court cases: there is a technical problem, the technical problem is: somebody who is not an elected one, meaning one of the 57 persons, can be a candidate. Which means that 60 million people (I exagerate, there are may be the ones who are not in the age to elect, you know, not 18 or something like this, make it roughtly, 40 million people could have been candidate.
 
Correct...
 
So the question is: can one representative support more than one candidate? In other terms, can he sign 60, 49, 40 million recommandations or can he just recommand one? If he only recommand one, there is a problem, because, since there are 57 representatives and it has to be one quarter of them supporting one external candidate, it makes 14,25 person. Or here we don't cut people in quarters. So: is it 14, is it 15 !
 
Netherless. If it's 15, times 4, makes 60.
 
15 times 3 makes 45, which means that 12 representatives who would for instance not having given their representation, their parrainage to somebody, could not, 12 people, which is above the half of 15, support on candidate. So actually it means that 12 representatives of the assemblée de "la Polynésie française" have a right... to have no voice! To have no parrainage.
 
I took this to court. All these things have not been judged because (it's easy to understand why), and not even contested, so we ...?... 40 million candidates because the Tahitians - there is no tahitian nationality, or polynesian nationality -, everybody has a French passeport, so, it's also one of the situations, unique in a democraty if you call it like this, where you can have more candidates than electors, which is also something I don't think in China, in Russia or some other countries, Korea, North, South, Middle, East, West, whatever, there is a rule as wonderful as this one in the country of Human rights which is: you can have 40 millions candidates... and 57 electors, which brings in another problem, which is very funny, which is that there is a difference between a candidate who is an elector and a candidate who is not an elector!
 
A candidate, being part of the 57 representatives, can vote for himself.
 
On the other case, somebody who is not one of the 57, who is one of the other 40 millions people, cannot vote.
 
I am the president of that crazy thing called "French Polynesia" which is actually the Kingdom of Tahiti and it's islands, and it's Dependances exactly, where France is occupant with no right and no title for over 160 years. A little bit as if in Irak, in 150 years, the Americains will still be there, having given the american nationality to the Iraqi people and taken the petrole. Point.
 
Haha, good, good...."
 
Pour être informé des derniers articles, inscrivez vous :

Commenter cet article