Rita ROSENSTIEL

Worldcorruption.info

Analysis of the failings of the APEA (Autorité de Protection de l’Enfant et de l’Adulte) Vaud Introduction The   public   opinion   did   acknowledge   this   scandal   last   on   January   2015   with   the   TV   emission   of   CEPPI.   . The   Vaudois   State   Councillors   of   the   caviar   left   parties,   Béatrice   MÉTRAUX   (Department   of   the   Interior)   and Pierre-Yves   MAILLARD   had   the   opportunity   to   behave   as   rulers   of   the   State. These   chiefs   of   the   Vaudois   politics lacked   probity   for   repearing   instantly   the   dammages   caused   by   the   Vaudois   Magistrates.   One   could   at   least expected excuses presented to the victim and the idemnisation of the material loss. Nothing   !   These   apparatchiks   (MÉTRAUX   is   a   former   court   clerk   and   MAILLARD   a   former   union   leader)   did   let set   in   train   the   Judiciary.   In   self-sufficiency   this   system   did   let   drag   on   the   affaire   during   4   years,   leaving   Rita ROSENSTIEL   spoiled,   because   the   judiciary   system   is   irredeamably   degenerated   and   totally   unable   to   mend   its own miscarrages. There   resulted   no   economy   for   the   tax   payers.   In   stead   of   paying   to   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   an   adequate   idemnity   for the   loss   of   her   beloved   goods,   the   gentlemen   spent   probably   much   more   by   having   the   «Judiciary   done   its   job». The   resented   feelings   of   this   victim   of   the APEA   Vaud   at   the   issue   of   these   judiciary   struggles   are   reported   in   her letter addressed to whom it may concern of 15.03.2018 . Rita ROSENSTIEL shredded by the wild gone judiciary machine The placing under guardianship This   multilingual   Lady   (born   on   February   17,   1924),   having   a   remarkable   cultural   experience   is   telling   with humor her unic life history in her fascinating autobiography «Pourquoi ?» , compiled at the age of 93 years. She    has    dedicated    the    second    half    of    her    life    promoting    artists,    spending    her    fortune    for    that    purpose. Eventually,   she   settled   down   in   a   3   room   flat   in   Morges,   where   she   acted   pro   bono   as   the   curator   of   the foundation PADEREWSKI, a position which she left in 1999. At   her   approaching   90   years   of   age,   the   commune   of   Morges   offered   to   her   the   occasional   support   of   a   social assistant   for   running   her   household   and   for   managing   her   budget. Three   times   a   week,   she   was   served   meals   at her   residence.   She   was   living   of   the   AVS   pension   (social   security)   and   complementary   provisions.   Her   late brother   supported   her   financially   until   2012.   Subsequently,   she   had   to   sacrifice   her   last   savings.   Certainly,   a monthly   subsidy   of   CHF   1'000.-   by   the   commune   would   have   solved   this   material   problem.   This   would   have been   probably   3   times   less   expensive   than   the   placement   in   a   home.   (The   costs   of   this   lodging   of   about   CHF 5'300.-   are   possibly   financed   for   the   half   by   the AVS   pension   and   the   complementary   provisions   –   the   rest   by   the commune of Morges). Said   social   assistant   started   to   worry   for   the   security   of   Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL,   unjustified   worries   in   the   perception of   the   concerned   Lady.   The   assistant   alerted   the   generalist   physician,   and   latter   initiated   by   letter   of   January   30, 2013   to   the   justice   of   peace   the   procedure   of   placing   under   guardianship,   violating   the   medical   confidentiality, because   he   obtained   discharge   of   it   only   2   days   later,   on   February   1st,   2013 .   For   hiding   this   irregularity,   and covernig   the   physician,   one   pretended   in   the   decision   of   the   justice   of   peace   of   November   27,   2013    that   the physician had written the famous letter only on February 1st, 2013 . The   Lady   was   considering   to   move   to   a   one   room   flat,   preferably   secured.   One   started   gently   to   put   pressure   on her for forcing a decision. However, there existed no reason for precipitation. On   November   27,   2013 ,    the   «Judge»   of   peace   Véronique   LOICHAT   MIRA   implemented   a   guardianship   of representation   «in   favour   of   Rita   ROSENSTIEL».   One   planned   as   well   «a   measure   of   placement   (…)   «because of   her   health   decline   and   the   risk   of   consequent   falling   down».   An   insinuation   free   of   charge.   Today,   5 years   later,   Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL   is   still   solid   on   her   legs   and   enjoys   a   remarkable   physical   constitution   for   her age.   No   indications   can   be   found   in   this   document,   evidencing   that   LOICHAT   would   have   asked   this   citizen about   her   intentions,   when,   where   and   how   this   «measure»   shall   happen.   Not   a   single   question   for   establishing the wishes of the concerned person, where she wanted to live in the future. On    January    7,    2014,    LOICHAT    mandated    without    another    audience    the    appointed    trustee    Jean-Pierre GOETSCHMANN    to   carry   out   «the   measure».   Execution   with   a   frightening   speed:   on   January   27,   2014,   this executioner    informed    his    victim    that    she    shall    be    placed    the    following    day    at    the    home    Nelty    de BEAUSOBRE.     The     sceenery     is     described     in     the     autobiography     «Pourquoi     ?» .     The     same     day, GOETSCHMANN   cancelled   the   flat   lease   agreement,   and   subsequently   the   insurances   concluded   with   the ECA and La Mobilière for the mobile assets. According   to   the   minutes   of   March   18,   2015 ,    the   caretaker,   who   had   had   an   excellent   contact   with   this   Lady renter   witnessed   that   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   could   visit   her   flat   for   a   last   time   on   Ferbruary   3,   2014,    accompanied by   GOETSCHMANN,   and   she   could   carry   away   some   personal   belongings.   Since   she   had   to   share   at   the   home a   room   with   another   old   Lady,   she   could   just   take   with   her   the   items   of   greatest   necessity.   For   the   rest,   the caretaker described the brutal behaviour of GOETSCHMANN. On   05.02.14 ,   the   trustee   signed   a   sales   agreement   behind   the   back   of   his   pupil   with   a   flea   market   dealer,   selling her   furniture   and   personal   belongings,   insured   for   the   value   of   CHF   80'000   by   la   Mobilière   for   the   ridiculous   total of   CHF   1'500.-,   spent   subsequently   for   80   %   to   pay   the   costs   of   CHF   1'200.-   for   evacuation   and   destruction. Under the bottomline remained CHF 300.- Below   you   will   read   an   extract   from   the   witnessing   of   the   caretaker,   interrogated   on   16.03.15 .   Anwering   the question, if Mrs. ROSENSTIEL had returned alone once more to her flat, the caretaker replied: «Yes.   On   February   14,   the   birthday   of   her   90   years   of   age   was   approaching,   she   wanted   to   empty   her   letter   box. We   realized   that   her   mail   had   already   been   deviated.   She   exploited   the   opportunity   to   ask   me   to   accompany   her into her flat for opening with my key. We found the appartment empty. She was shocked. » As a matter of fact, GOETSCHMANN had requisitioned the keys of the pupils‘ flat already on January 28, 2014. The   robbed   old   Lady   addressed   various   letters   to   GOETSCHMANN,   starting   with   her   letter   of   February   18, 2014,   expressing   shortly   her   opinion   on   the   subject,   followed   by   a   registered   letter,   providing   the   inventory   of   her disappeared assets. Her letter of March 14, 2014   was written in clear text. She felt to have been robbed. In her letter of March 21st, 2014  she wrote: «I   ask   you   to   present   (…)   a   complete   and   detailed   inventory   of   all   my   personal   belongings   which   are   stored   at your house». She ignored thus at that very moment that her assets were already destroyed. Rita   ROSENSTIEL   never   received   such   an   inventory.   In   the   only   inventory   established   simultaneously   for   the start   and   the   end   of   his   mandate,   dated   April   14,   2014 ,   GOETSCHMANN   discarded   totally   the   mobile   assets   of his pupil. One can designate this paper as a forged document, approved without any hesitation by  LOICHAT ! Obviously,   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   immediatly   requested   to   have   this   «trustee»   removed   from   his   position.   However, LOICHAT defended this trustee of her choice tooth and nail  in her letter of February 26, 2014 .   She   wrote:   «…   your   trustee   had   to   terminate   the   lease   agreement   for   your   appartment   (mandated   by   who   ?) (…)   Mr.   GOETSCHMANN   had   followed   your   instructions.   (…)   Mr.   GOETSCHMANN   acted   with   the   agreement   of the   justice   of   peace   and   accomplished   a   job   in   heart   and   concience,   in   order   that   nothing   can   be   reproached   to him   up   to   date».      Among   these   falshoods   figures   one   single   truth   «Mr.   GOETSCHMANN   has   proceeded   with the approval of the justice of peace»…   One will deduct that GOETSCHMANN has acted according to the orders of LOICHAT; both are accomplices ! Three   written   requests   formulated   by   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   were   necessary   to   get   finally   rid   of   this   trustee   predator by March 31st, 2014. Let’s   ask   the   question,   for   which   reason   the   couple      LOICHAT   /   GOETSCHMANN   acted   with   that   hurry   at   the costs   of   Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL.   It   is   permitted   to   ask   the   classical   question:   Who   benefits   of   the   crime   ?   The beneficiary   of   this   savage   evacuation   is   obviously   Bernard   NICOD,   the   owner   of   the   concerned   appartment. Knowing   the   shortage   of   lodgings,   the   flat   could   certainly   be   leased   again   at   an   increased   rent.   Logically   it   is permitted   to   pronounce   the   hypothesis   that   LOICHAT   /   GOETSCHMANN   functioned   as   the   bouncers   at   the service of the dominating real estate agent in the canton of Vaud. The penal procedure The   volume   of   documents   produced   by   the   Prosecutors’   Office   represents   just   about   ¼   of   the   total   paper volume,    although    this    procedure    was    opened    first    (on    August    29,    2014 )    and    terminated    as    the    last    on November   27,   2017 .   The   investigation   was   started   by   the   «prosecutor»   Hélène   SMITH   who   commenced   to drag   on.   Almost   one   year   after   the   disappearance   of   the   assets   of   Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL,    5   hearings   were realized,   the   one   with   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   (24.11.14),   of   the   accused   trustee,      Jean-Pierre   GOETSCHMANN     ( January   9,   2015 ),   the   social   assistent   Agnes   BEURET   –   witness   ( January   9,   2015 ),   of   the   flea   market   dealer REYMONDIN   –   witness   ( January   9,   2015 ),   and   of   the   former   caretaker   of   the   plaintiff,   Maria   –   witness   ( March 16, 2015 ). This latter witnessing is the most poignant one. SMITH   did   open   the   penal   inquiry   against   GOETSCHMANN   for   misappropriating   management   and   offense against   property.   However,   if   one   is   reading   the   repeated   written   declarations   of   Rita   ROSENSTIEL,   formulated lastly   in   her   letter   addressed   to   whom   it   may   concern   of      March   15,   2018 ,   the   penal   investigation   should   have aimed    as    well    theft    and    exploitation    of    a    defensless    person.    This    would    have    lead    to    the    jailing    of GOETSCHMANN   in   pretrial   custody.   Of   course,   this   did   not   even   come   to   the   mind   of   SMITH.   By   contrast,   the Vaudois are putting burglars in pretrial custody for offenses of value of  CHF 500.-. The   declarations   of   GOETSCHMANN   are   in   full   contradiction   with   the   sayings   of   his   victim.   According   to   him, she   had   handed   over   her   wallet   spontaneously   on   January   28,   2014.   She   would   have   asked   him   to   revoke   the insurance   agreements   for   her   assets   etc.   etc.   But,   SMITH   has   never   made   any   statement   because   of   such monumental    contradictions.    She    never    organized    a    confrontation    between    GOETSCHMANN    and    Rita ROSENSTIEL.    She    did    not    even    attempt    to    repeat    the    interrogations    in    timely    intervals,    for    provoking GOETSCHMANN   to   produce   his   own   contradictions.   Anyway,   this   is   the   classical   strategy   of   the   Vaudois   to interrogate   and   reinterrogate   innocents,   until   they   are   totally   exhausted,   for   tearing   out   such   «contradictions». See affairs LÉGERET and SÉGALAT. Subsequently   the   investigations   were   carried   on   by   another   «Prosecutor»,   Hélène   RAPPAZ.   In   the   file,   one   is discovering   that   the   sole   inquiry   measure   she   ordered   was   to   get   hold   of   the   file   concerning   Rita   Rosenstiel   at hand   by   the   home   Nelty   de   Beausobre,   for   having   it   confiscated   on   September   2009   and   October   8,   2015   on request   of   the   Lawyer   Robert   FOX   (defending      GOETSCHMANN,   violating   thus   the   medical   confidentiality.   This was   accomplished   against   the   opposition   formulated   by   the   Lawyer   of   Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL   on April   2,   2015,   and without   notification   to   the   parties.   See      letter   of   the   Lawyer   Anne-Rebecca   BULA   of   February   22,   2016.   This investigation   measure   was   thus   directed   against   the   plaintiff   !   After   this   date   of   October   8,   2015,   no   further measure   of   inquiry   was   carried   out.   Consequently,   one   could   have   closed   this   phase   by   end   of   October   2015   –   2 years earlier to the ultimate happy event. For   the   rest,   RAPPAZ   continued   the   work   of   her   job   mate   SMITH,   to   have   the   affair   dragged   on.   The   fact   that the   accused   played   this   card   is   almost   natural.   But   it   is   against   nature   that   the   supposed   defending   Lawyer of   the   plaintiff,   BULA   joined   that   game   –   demand   of   prolongation   of   a   deadline   of   April   2nd,   2015.   We   will come back to that proceeding in the civil part. Finally,   on   June   6,   2016,   BULA   sent   a   complaint   to   the   Prosecutors’   office.   RAPPAZ   promised   by   mail   of   June 17,   2016   «a   notice   of   imminent   closing».   Having   received   nothing,   BULA   sent   a   message   to   the   Attorney General,   Eric   COTTIER   on   July   11,   2016.   This   chief   was   not   at   all   surprised   to   see   an   simple   penal   affair dragging    on    since    more    than    2    years.    He    just    asked    gently    RAPPAZ    to    comment    within    10    days.    This «Prosecutor»   obeyed   and   returned   a   full   page   comment   containing   ridiculous   allegations.   Nontheless,   she dispatched   the   same   day   her   notice   of   an   imminent   condemnation   and   classification   (she   had   needed   almost one   year   of   assessment   since   the   last   investigation   measure).   She   made   it   clear   that   she   intended   to   exonerate almost   totally   the   responsible   for   the   catastrophy   of   Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL.   For   making   it   to   look   nice,   she   said   to have   the   intention   to   punish   him   on   the   detail   of   having   sold   off   cheaply   a   particular   piece   of   furniture. The   follow up:   Questioned   by   the   Lawyer   BULA,   RAPPAZ   did   let   know   5   months   later,   on   November   15,   2016   that   «the decisions   shall   be   notified   to   the   parties   in   the   shortest   future»,   for   correcting   it   2   months   later   (on   January   30, 2017)   that   this   event   shall   take   place   at   the   latest   by   end   of   February   2017.   Nuts   :   The   decision   of   classification (even   the   minor   accusation   for   the   peanuts   of   the   piece   of   furniture   sold   off   cheaply   was   dropped)   is   dated     November 27, 2017   – three and a half years of meticulous investigations. Honni soit qui mal y pense. The civil procedure The   justice   of   peace   had   confirmed   the   placement   of   Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL   in   a   home   on   June   24,   2014.   She appealed   against   it   at   the   chamber   of   guardianship   of   the   cantonal   court,   which   accepted   her   appeal   on   that point.   Unfortunatly,   her   houshold   had   been   destroyed   and   the   lease   contract   cancelled.   She   was   condemned   to stay on in the home Nelty de BEAUSOBRE. The   Lawyer   BULA   filed   on   June   2015   a   request   for   conciliation   with   the   Canton   of   Vaud   at   the   Tribunal d’arrondissement   de   la   Côte,   doubled   by   another   request   of   conciliation   dated   September   8,   2015,   and   repeated a    third    time    with    a    request    dated    October    8,    2015.    But    before    starting    with,    she    secured    by    request    of September   23,   2014   to   get   the   judicial   assistance   for   proceeding   free   of   charge   in   favour   of   her   client,   including the Lawyers fees ex officio. She had operated pro bono in the penal part, but her philanthropy had its limits. On   July   9,   2015,   the   «Judge»   Lionel   GUIGNARD    autorized   graciously   to   proceed,   and   the   «   Judge»   Anouk NEUENSCHWANDER reapproved on October 12, 2015. Intervened   the   offer   of   the   judicial   and   legislative   service   of   the   State   of   Vaud,   transmitted   by   phone   by   Marlène PARMELIN   to   BULA,   with   the   lure   to   offer   an   indemnity   of   CHF   20'000   ending   all   claims.   Mrs.ROSENSTIEL   felt offended and declined this cheap offer. One   had   produced   kilos   of   paper   for   this   correspondance.   One   of   the   prioritiy   claims   of   BULA   were   her   Lawyer fees.   Like   in   the   penal   procedure,   one   started   again   the   game   requesting   extensions   of   deadlines.   In   the   name of   the   State   of   Vaud   Marlène   PARMELIN   opened   the   ball   on   November   9,   2015.   On   April      20,   2016,   BULA lodged   a   complaint   at   the   Tribunal   d’arrondissement   de   la   Côte   because   of   the   demand   for   prolongation   of   a deadline presented by PARMELN on behalf of the State of Vaud. This Lady reacted on April 25, 2016 as follows: «   …   it   is   at   least   quizzical   to   realize   that   the   Lawyer   BULA,   who   had   waited   until   the   end   of   a   deadline   of   three months   from   the   issue   of   autorization   to   proceed   for   introducing   her   request,   and   had   asked   not   just   once   but twice   an   extension   of   deadline…   ».   Yes,   indeed,   BULA   shall   beg   at   7   more   opportunities   extensions   (July   14, 2016   -   August   29,   2016   -   October   5,   2016   -   October   21st,   2016   -   November   18,   2016   -   December   15,   2016   - January   9,   2017).   «The   complexity   of   the   affair»   has   thus   constrained   the   Lawyer   BULA   to   demand   9   times an   extension   of   a   deadline   in   the   name   of   her      nonagerian   client.    Really,   this   was   rendering   a   great   service to the power of the State, which was contrary to the interests of her her client. In   the   meantime,   the   «Prosecutor»   RAPPAZ   had   issued   on   July   22,   2016   her   decision   of   classification   / condemnation,   making   it   clear   to   the   representative   of   the   State   of   Vaud,   PARMELIN   that   the   penal   complaint   of Mrs.   ROSENSTIEL   faced   failure.   Exploiting   this   opportunity,   PARMELIN   launched   on   February   18,   2016   a request   of   suspending   the   civil   procedure   until   known   judicial   issue   of   the   penal   procedure.   This   request   was rejected   by   the   «President»   CORNAZ   on August   15,   2016   –   that   is   to   say   that   the   State   of   Vaud   had   gained another   half   a   year   on   its   enemy   of   92   years   of   age!   This   way,   one   tried   to   get   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   by attrition,   and   PARMELIN   reiterated   on   September   2nd,   2016   in   the   name   of   the   State   of   Vaud   via   her Lawyer the offer for an indemnity of CHF 20'000.- Finally,   the   «Judge»   CORNAZ   deigned   to   hold   a   final   audience   on   February   1st,   2017 .   On   the   programm   were the    interrogations    of    the    medical    actors,    having    not    the    slightes    connection    with    the    request    of    Rita ROSENSTIEL   to   obtain   due   satisfaction   and   indemnity   for   the   distruction   of   her   furniture   and   other   assets.   The battle   was   thus   fought   on   a   secondary   war   theater   –   3   ½   hours   of   sterile   and   highly   errudite   debates.    On February    6,    2017 ,    CORNAZ    delivered    the    dispositive    of    her    judgment,    rejecting    the    demands    of    Rita ROSENSTIEL on all points. However, her Lawyer BULA obtained CHF 12'292.- for her collaboration. Thereupon   an   unusual   action   followed:   instead   of   awaiting   the   motivated   judgement   for   appealing   to   the cantonal   court,   BULA   produced   another   voluminous   reply   addressed   to   the   Tribunal   d’arrondissement   de   la Côte.   Since   there   is   no   trace   of   a   follow   up,   one   can   presume   that   this   document   has   never   been   read   by   the recipients. And now, the future «Cesar of the Judiciary»,   Eric KALTENRIEDER   jumped on the bandwagon. By   letter   of   April   11,   2017 ,   BULA   announced   to   her   cheated   client   that   she   shall   meet   Cesar    on April      28,   2017 at   3   p.m.,   since   the   State   of   Vaud   had   renewed   its   generous   offer   for   an   indemnity   of   CHF   20'000   for   moral wrongs.   Consequently,   it   was   KALTENRIEDER ,   the   future   President   of   the   cantonal   court   VD   who   has drawn up the transaction of   May 24, 2017 . Extract of the content : I. As   a   gesture   of   goodwill   and   without   any   recognition   of   responsibility.   the   State   of   Vaud   shall   pay   to Agnes   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   an   amount   of   CHF   20'000   (twenty   thousand   francs)   for   moral   wrongs   within   one month of the signatrue of the present convention. II. The   State   of   Vaud   shall   take   in   charge   the   entire   judiciary   costs   of   the   three   above   mentioned   three procedures (PE14.021312, PT15.042781, PT16.001617) III. Agnes   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   will   withdraw   her   penal   complaint   against      Jean-Pierre   GOETSCHMANN and renounce to participate at the penal procedure as well as a plaintiff in the penal and civil case. […] VIII. The content of the present is confidential. Starchamber justice at work. . Since   it   had   become   an   affair   of   the   bosses,   said   transaction   was   signed   by   the   worthy   representatives   of   the State   of   Vaud,   Jean-François   MEYLAN ,   President   of   the   cantonal   court   at   that   time,   and   Pierre   SCHOBINGER, Secretary General of the Judiciary. On   June   28,   2017,   BULA   asked   by   e-mail   to   the   new   trustee   of   Rita   ROSENSTIEL,   Vanesa   CASAS   on   which account   the   CHF   20'000   should   be   transfered.   The   amount   payed   out   for   moral   wrongs   by   the   State   of   Vaud ended on an account administrated by CASAS, serving to pay the lodging at the Death House in Morges. The affair in its globality 4,6   kg   documents   produced   in   3   procedures.   The   sufferings   caused   by   Jean-Pierre   GOETSCHMANN   to   Rita ROSENSTIEL did not end after 4 years of judiciary struggles. BULA   cashed   in   CHF   12'292.30   Lawyer   fees.   According   to   the   last   penal   and   civil   judgments   the   expenses   of justice amounted to 3'675.- + 8'582.- = CHF 12‘257.-. Expenses + fees for the auxiliary of justice + indemnity for moral wrongs result in a total of CHF 44‘549.30. In   reality   one   can   guess   that   the   State   spent   much   more   this   way   than   the   amount   of   CHF   80'000.-   claimed   by the old Lady for the distruction of her beloved assets. One    has    activated    a    Tinguely    machine,    pulling    unscupulously    a    fast    one    on    the    back    of    a    vulnerable nonagenerion. It   is   a   shame   for   Switzerland,   for   the   State   of   Vaud   and   for   the   Rule   of   Law!   This   behavior   demonstrates   the degeneration   of   our   institutions,   the   operation   of   which   is   no   longer   ensured   except   by   criminals   whose   acts   are sanctioned by the State. The responsibility of the APEA VD in the affair of Rita ROSENSTIEL The   equivalent   of   the   APEA   in   French   speaking   Switzerland   is   the   KESB   in   German   speaking   Switzerland, meaning   Kinder-   und   Erwachsenen-Schutz-Behörde   (Authority   for   the   Protection   of   Children   and   Adults).   This institution   has   a   miserable   reputation   on   the   other   side   of   the   Sarine.   Strangly,   the APEA   is   wrongly   escaping this   outcry   in   Western   Switzerland.      The   author   of   this   analysis   knows   dysfonctions   of   the   APEA   in   all   other French   speaking   Cantons,   with   the   exception   of   the   Jura   (what   is   not   excluding   that   this   failures   exist   as   well   in that peripherical Canton). The   APEA,   respectively   the   Autority   of   Protection   of   Children   and   Adults   is   certainly   doing   a   useful   job   in   many cases.   But   in   case   of   negative   deviations,   as   thatone   of   Rita   ROSENSTIEL,   this   institution   is   unable   to   correct itself and to repear the dammages, since there does not exist any efficient quality control.  In   the   present   case,   the   employee   of   the   APEA   Vaud,   the   trustee   Vanesa   CASAS   had   the   obligation   to   protect her   pupil   Rita   ROSENSTIEL.   Instead   of   acting   to   defend   her,   she   and   the   Lawyer   Anne-Rebecca   BULA countersigned that odious «transaction» of May 24, 2017 . They betrayed their duties. According   to   the   prinicples   of   the   SUVA,   the   bosses   are   always   responsible,   be   it   for   mishandled   selection   of   the staff, be it having failed to train them correctly, be it for not having checked them sufficiently. Consequently,   the   top   shot   of   the   APEA   Vaud,   the   State   Councillor   Pierre   Yves   MAILLARD,   responsible for the Department of public health is as well one of the a major offenders. PS   :   One   of   the   reasons   invoked   to   place   Rita   ROSENSTIEL   under   guardianship   was   that   it   occured   to   her   to forget   to   pay   the   bills.   However,   one   is   finding   in   her   correspondance   written   evidences,   reminding   her   trustee   to settle invoices concerning her pupil. Should one think about a placement of that trustee under guardianship? GU / 15.03.18 This   dossier,   like   all   dossiers   on   BernLeaks   or   on   swisscorruption.info ,   is   a   disgrace   for   Switzerland,   for   the Cantons   and   for   the   rule   of   law   ! These   behaviors   demonstrate   the   degeneration   of   our   institutions,   the   operation of which is now only ensured by criminals whose acts are supported by the State taken hostage. It is up to today and without delay, to compensate Mrs. ROSENSTIEL for the crime of which he was a victim. For   all   the   citizens   of   our   country   who   notice   the   degeneration   of   our   institutions,   we   must   resolutely   consider the constitution of a "National Transitional Council" proclaimed at the Swiss level and declared to the UN. The   situation   in   the   hands   of   henceforth   illegitimate   leaders   who   flout   democratic   values   and   trample   on constitutional rights cannot and should no longer be tolerated.

BernLeaks