They attacked my right to defense, and the statement of facts of fraud and corruption made by them,

They attacked my right to defense, and the statement of facts of fraud and corruption made by them,

Believing that I am a slave, inherited them they have the right to steal and abuse, and nobody is allowed to interfere
I tell them that I will not be silent
I tell them that I will not allow
I tell them to prepare for war with me

File no. 11468/300/2016 - Court District 2 Bucharest
Section Common Fully - 23U2 (C3 Monday)
CONTEST: Dragos Cristian Gherasim
Deadline: 12/07/2016
• Answer • Greeting

Mister President,

The undersigned GHERASIM CRISTIAN DRAGOŞ, CNP 1620715400018, residing in Bucharest, str. County, no. 15, block 17, entrance 4, ap. 120, sector 2, because the appellant in that case nr. 11468/300/2016 pending before that court, in legal terms,

ANSWER TO MEET formulate Homeowners Association submitted by respondent block 17 against my objection to enforcement.

STATEMENT

In fact, the statement of claim formulated, Homeowners Association Block 17, the lawyer asked the court for enforcement does not alter the amount sought in the case of enforcement no. 276/2015 before the BEJA Boambes and Badea at 22818.08 lei to 13.618 lei, so reject the appeal petit our first and also asked dismiss as inadmissible the application for suspension of enforcement until the final settlement of this appeal with costs.

Defendant defenses are unfounded and please reject them as such.

"The state of facts" presented by the respondent does not reflect reality. 

Thus, through a series of judgments judecătoretşi, the undersigned have been ordered to pay allowances maintenance relating to periods successive allowances it had contested and some of them , we acquitted during the course of litigation between new parts. Aware that must be paid allowances, but appreciating the work outside the law governing bodies of Asocieţiei owners, which set quotas maintenance not only transparent but also illegal, and seeing that the courts did not I could not defend properly posibilitateamaterială of having to hire a lawyer I, the undersigned I made a criminal complaint against the leadership of the respondent in 2012, but unfortunately, until today it has not been resolved.

Execution titles in the dossier Execution - 5 (five) in number, include liabilities for the following periods and costs as follows:

• 6. 958 lei - December 2009 - March 2012 - file no. 4245/300/2012 - civil sentence no. 3120 / 27.02.2013. This will be added costs on appeal, 1,000 lei, according to the civil decision no. 1497 / R / 05.14.2014;
• 1200 lei costs - file no. 35982/300/2012 - civil sentence no. 695 / 21.01.2014 and 1,000 lei costs in the appeal, according to the civil decision no. 607 / R / 02.25.2015;
• 11608.04 lei - the period April 2012 - December 2013 - file no. 18306/300/2013 - civil sentence no. 3120 / 27.02.2013. At that loan costs 750 lei.

1. These amounts plus enforcement costs related file execution.
   Lord President of the Court of Sector 2, Bucharest
   Defenses defendant, according to the executive titles mentioned above, in reference to the non-levy of civil sentence no. 11 882 / 30.11.2010 of the present case are foreign, not enforceable civil judgment indicated levied in execution folder execution remembered.
   Civil Sentence no. 695 / 01.21.2014 issued by Bucharest District 2 Court file no. 35982/300/2012 the appeal filed by the undersigned in the execution Execution file no. 504/2012, rejected and no states, through the device, on any contribution payment in my task, so that the defendant's allegations have no legal backing. Amounts are executed in this file execution costs consist solely of no quota maintenance , so that the defense "Please notice that is properly fixed amount of 4454.77 lei ... on which it is worn enforcement ..." not related to the present case concerns another folder and aims to induce execution court into error, to cause confusion and needless to load the actual facts.
   Only other judgments cited in view of the current execution and maintenance allowances. Also alleged arrears listed as current, unrelated cause.
   ***
   The 'Motivation', show that, indeed execution titles is judgment final and irrevocable, but it does mean that, using its bad faith Rights, a creditor can claim and receive a claim twice, even if the sequence of events, it would be in such a position, this is against the general principles of law and EU law!
   The sums of money by way of allowances for maintenance, as they were calculated, but that the undersigned I always contested, represents oo onus on me that I tried to complement, by deferred payment, but the lead defendant did not he left this open way, which will result in even claim that "I did not come with any reasonable proposal." The respondent rejected any discussion plano, nothing seemed reasonable evidence to court records successive worn by new parties.
   In light of neighborly relations and co-ownership policy and forced linking owners of apartments in a block association could manifest another opening, but sought to exercise their procedural rights at all costs rather than resolve amicably the dispute arose .
   There is no "default culpable" debts recorded the following financial period traversed difficult and challenging calculated quota reflects a specialized study and a reality, both substantiated. If these allowances were properly calculated, it would have been significantly lower and would have to pay.
   The respondent did not take account of the amounts paid me 3,600 lei, proof of my good faith and citizenship, conştiient the possible problems and other owners of the building, and made ​​an imputation payment unlawful, setting quotas so way that we can talk without power Tagat, a genuine double taxation!
   To these matters, please reject as unfounded all defenses petit first respondent on demand.
   ***
   On The appliance on the request for suspension, please also reject them as unfounded.
   The respondent is in error manifest confusion, willingly or not, and make defenses unrelated cause. Undersigned have asked the court to suspend enforcement until the final settlement of this dispute to execution, paying for this purpose bail set by the court in my task and detailing the reason for this request for suspension.
   Separately from this suspension request, and asked the court to order provisional suspension, reasoning that the real estate seizure and prosecution could follow the course quickly, putting me in any situation of losing my home. This request for provisional suspension has been resolved by the Court of Bucharest Sector 2 by concluding public meeting dated 25.04.2016, issued in case no.11469/300/2016 court rejecting it because I have not done proving the Emergency and urgency of the action required. My request was solved, according disp. Statutory without filing citation without bail. The court did not rule in this case on the request for suspension vested executing court judge this case.
   With many words and legal reasoning flawed, the respondent relies on the plea of res judicata and the negative effect of res judicata. Please reject this exception as there is identity of object and concerned two applications - one of this dossier - 11468/300/2016 and the folder 11469/300/2016 are distinct and have different legal regimes and different final, with separate procedures for the settlement. Only the parties are the same.
   Reasons for the application for suspension were detailed by notes submitted the case file to the previous term, and defenses defendant about the lack of heritage undersigned imminent damage are unfounded, especially inadmissible and delayed because the request for suspension propvizorie has already been resolved.
   N law, art. 201 par. 2 pr.civ Code.
   Probe: documents and any other evidence that will result from the debates.
   ⃰ ⃰ ⃰
   Please acknowledge the appeal and request to suspend execution, as formulated.
               
   With consideration,