Charge of attempted rape fresh strikes Strauss - Kahn (AFP)

PARIS (AFP) - a French writer filed a complaint alleging that former IMF leader and political leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn tried to rape her about eight years, his lawyer said Tuesday.

In a note to a single word, David Koubbi "confirmed" to AFP that he had sent a complaint by his client, aged 32 years Tristane Banon, Paris prosecutors which, under French law, will now be decide to launch a criminal investigation.

Complaint of Banon, which relates to an alleged assault of 2003 on Strauss-Kahn, came just as the Socialist heart of 62 years hoped to shake a charge of attempted rape previous to the United States.

The Economist had been charged with attempted rape, abduction and sexual assault of a hotel in New York City cleaner, but the case of the alleged victim has been weakened by the admission of the prosecution that he doubted his honesty.

Strauss-Kahn American lawyers hope he will soon be deleted in this case, but if he returns to the House of France, he now faces the prospect of a second inquiry far more earlier alleged assault.

It is in turn could overshadow all hope, he had to return to the first French political line, having already been favorite defeat pollsters outgoing centre-right leader Nicolas Sarkozy in the race for the presidency next year.

But in a brief exchange with the press French network i-Tele, Koubbit insisted that he had "no intention what in fact a case policy."

Banon had already publicly accused Strauss-Kahn, to try to force himself on his "like a chimpanzee rut", but said that it was satisfied at the time, that person would take his word against the powerful politician if it brought an action.

Strauss-Kahn is still formally charged and awaits trial in New York, but a judge released him from house arrest last week after prosecutors expressed doubts about the credibility of the accuser.

US media reported Tuesday that prosecutors were about to drop the charges.

Banon, a writer and French journalist, told the express weekly magazine that "seeing Strauss-Kahn released then after dinner in a restaurant in fantasy with friends, which makes me sick."

She repeated her account of the alleged attack in 2003, saying that Strauss-Kahn had his hands in my pants."after he is pulling my jeans and BRA

She added: "eight years ago, when I spoke to file a complaint, everyone made me believe that this would lead nowhere." In the matter it is word of one person against the other. »

When the complaint of Banon is received by the prosecutors, they must decide if there are grounds to initiate an investigation which could lead to formal charges.

Some allies of Strauss-Kahn in the French opposition Socialist Party have suggested that he might return to defeat Nicolas Sarkozy in the presidential election of the next year if it is disabled in the case of New York.

Some supporters of Strauss-Kahn has alleged that the arrest was a set-up.

Banon legal action complicates the prospects of him returning to the glory and prompted embarrassing questions for the Socialists who, Banon, knew his test alleged at the time and did nothing.

She said the former Socialist Party leader François Hollande, currently polling as the main Socialist presidential candidate, was aware of the charges, but he insisted that he had "no detailed knowledge" of the alleged incident.

France, an attempt of rape is punishable by 15 years in prison.

Counsel for Strauss - Kahn Henri Leclerc and Frederique Baulieu Banon dismissed as "imaginary" and has threatened to sue him for defamation.

She first publicly alleged the meeting with Strauss-Kahn in a string of broadcast television in 2007, saying: it rejected the politician to his.

His Socialist allies of mark opportunistic Banon.

"Tristane Banon was telling this story for years.". Now, it brings a complaint, ", said Jean-Marie Le Guen Parliament." "Clearly some people are not happy about the return of Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Health (Wall Street Journal) Act Court strikes

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

RICHMOND, Va.—A federal court ruled Monday that a key part of the health-care overhaul violates the Constitution, dealing the first legal setback to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment.

A federal judge ruled that a central plank of the health law-the requirement that most Americans carry insurance-violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment. Ashby Jones discusses.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

The 42-page ruling doesn't mean states or the federal government must stop implementing the law. But it is expected to give ammunition to a broad Republican assault against the overhaul, which includes efforts in Congress to chip away at it.

Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

The Obama administration said it was confident higher courts would rule the law constitutional, and said it was weighing an appeal. "Challenges like this are nothing new," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday. "I don't think the decision today and how he decided it was a surprise to anybody here."

The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration. The battle is expected to end up at the Supreme Court, though probably not until the 2011-12 term at the earliest.

Judge Hudson didn't grant the plaintiffs their request for an immediate nationwide injunction against the entire law or against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance. That requirement, known as the individual mandate, begins in 2014.

"We've won the first round of this particular fight, but we know there are others to come," Mr. Cuccinelli said. "This lawsuit is not about health care. It's about liberty."

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

Read more highlights | Full text of the ruling

Administration officials portrayed the ruling as an attack on one of the law's most popular provisions, the ban on insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions. That piece of the law cannot work unless coupled with a requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance, they said.

For opponents of the health overhaul, Monday's ruling is a victory in an attack on both legal and political fronts that Republicans believe could help them take back the White House in 2012. Public skepticism about the health law, particularly among older voters, helped Republicans achieve significant gains in the midterm elections.

One part of the ruling was good news for supporters of the law. Judge Hudson found the majority of the law could be "severed" from the individual mandate. That effectively protects critical parts of the law—including tax credits to help lower earners buy coverage and an expansion of the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor.

In court papers, the Obama administration argued that Congress's constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and other clauses gave it the power to require Americans to carry insurance. Since all Americans at some point get health-care services, it said, the rule is simply a way of regulating how consumers pay for their care.

But Judge Hudson found that was too broad an interpretation of the Commerce Clause, arguing that "the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions." He added that Congress lacked pre cedent for "regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme."

associated press Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli brought the suit.

Judge Hudson also shot back at the administration's argument that federal taxation powers give it the right to levy the penalty on those who forgo insurance, noting that the administration had avoided using the unpopular word "tax" during the law's debate—only to employ it later for legal reasons.

The penalty, eventually topping out at $2,085 a year for families lacking insurance, is expected to raise $4 billion a year for a law that costs $938 billion over a decade. The judge concluded the penalty "lacks a bona fide intention to raise revenue."

The ruling presented a striking contrast to a decision on the same issue by another Virginia federal district judge, Norman Moon, just two weeks ago.

Judge Moon's opinion put the individual mandate in the context of the law's broader overhaul, writing that the law removes "many barriers to insurance coverage," encourages small businesses to provide coverage and creates insurance exchanges where people can comparison-shop for plans.

Only then did Judge Moon reach the coverage mandate, concluding that those who choose to forgo buying insurance "are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now."

Judge Hudson, by contrast, zeroed in quickly on the penalty for those who refuse to buy coverage. He said his ruling applied only to the part of the law that establishes the individual mandate, and any directly dependent provisions that refer to that part. Exactly what that applies to is unclear.

Mr. Cuccinelli said the ruling, if upheld, would nullify the pre-existing condition requirement, and the rule that insurers must charge all consumers similar prices. Those two provisions, which are popular in polls, begin in 2014. The Obama administration previously has agreed these pieces couldn't stand without the individual mandate.

Mr. Cuccinelli said he believed the ruling also applied to the provision that allows children to stay on their parents' insurance policy until they turn 26 years old, which went into effect this year. Administration officials said they were still assessing whether that provision, which is also popular, or others would be tied to this ruling.

The ruling plays into the political battle on Capitol Hill. Judge Hudson is a Republican appointee who made his name as a conservative federal prosecutor in northern Virginia crusading against pornography and pursuing big defense-procurement cases. The two judges who ruled in favor of the Obama administration were appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

Liberals have complained about the fact that Judge Hudson is an investor in a political-consulting firm that has done work for Republicans including Mr. Cuccinelli and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The judge's financial-disclosure forms for 2009 show that he received between $5,001 and $15,000 in dividends that year from the firm, Campaign Solutions Inc.

Mr. Cuccinelli's campaign paid $8,852 to Campaign Solutions in 2009 and 2010, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan campaign-finance website. Campaign Solutions and Judge Hudson couldn't immediately be reached for comment Monday, but Campaign Solutions has said that the judge was a passive investor who wasn't involved with the firm's day-to-day operations. Mr. Cuccinelli stopped using the firm when he found out the judge was a shareholder, a Cuccinelli spokesman said.

Republicans in Congress cheered the ruling, saying it bolsters their plan to pass a repeal bill in the House once they take control of it next year. While that measure is expected to die in the Senate, congressional Republicans do have the leverage to chip away at funding for the law and are expected to win some Democratic votes for peeling back unpopular provisions of it.

The health overhaul is designed to expand insurance to 32 million Americans. Without the requirement to carry insurance, the Obama administration predicts, the law would leave an additional 16 million Americans uninsured.

Insurers had backed a strong requirement that individuals carry coverage, since it hands them millions of new members and prevents people from waiting until they get sick to buy a policy. Guaranteeing that people can get coverage regardless of their health "would cause significant disruption and skyrocketing costs unless all Americans have coverage," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group.

States and companies in the health industry say they are forging ahead with implementing the law, and Monday's decision is unlikely to change those plans. Spokesman Matthew Wiggin of insurer Aetna Inc. said that pending the legal appeals, "we intend to remain compliant" with the health-care law.

The president and other defenders of the health law have noted that most states already require drivers to carry auto insurance. However, Judge Hudson found that requiring them to carry health insurance was different, because consumers could chose whether to own a car, while the health law gives them no way to opt out of carrying health insurance.

—Jess Bravin and Avery Johnson contributed to this article.

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com