What : the scientology cult association in Lyon (near my home) launched a complaint after a message which
was most evidently a joke on ARS, complaining that I was menacing them of destruction and adding that I
was "blackmailing them".
When : near june 2001.
Why : because of a joke on internet (denounciating the fact that Keith Henson had been forced through false
witnessings and lies to be sentenced in California)..
Result: the instructor judge dismissed the complaint on form only; it *seems* that they had done some stoopid
error on form.
Fun: They had sent me a bailiff to see if I was the real poster of the joking message. I had answered
to them, insisting it was a joke... but since the crime cultists do think that jokers are Espees... see 2:
2
What : same topic as just above, same complaint for threats of destruction and - god knows why - blackmail.
When : near march 2002
Why :
Result: I learned later that another judge dismissed the second complaint as well, on the merits it seems.
I had been questioned thru the normal ways at the Police dept of my area. That's two suits for two defeats
of the cult, and I did not pay a thin dime except some few kilometers to go to the police to answer some questions
the second time.
Fun: where did they find any possibility to complaint for blackmail, I am still unable to see. Oatee
powerzz? I've no papers for that one, and have not taken an attorney. When questioned, I've said to the police
that I'll complain for libelous denounciation: since I never got the papers from the judge who stopped it
the second time, I did not get the denounciation, so I cannot complain myself. No problem, even if the president
of the plaintiff assoc was one guy that I could have complained against for assault (he had assaulted me before
the Lyon org, the day I went there with Gerry Armstrong - I was not hurt, and anyway, I don't like to complain
against individual scienos, even if they hate me and complain that I'm a blablah, unless they are major criminals
of the cult, or unless I can't avoid)
3 and 4
What : A scientologist who had been sentenced for fraud into the Lyon suit was not happy that his name was
visible on my site, into the appeal ruling where he was relaxed.
When : near end 2001
Why : a french law exists, (a similar exists in other european countries) which forbids to put complete names
in what the law called "computerized automatized nominative files"; that means that one can't , as far
as that 1978 law is concerned, to put the names when the people are sentenced.
Result: 1: the guy forgot his suit, or his attorney or the scieno attorney forgot the suit, so, I won the first
round by them not even present. But I'm unsure if that was not a manoeuver added to force me to come again and
pay again an attorney etc. One of my car tire was flat when I went out of the Court.
Result 2, since the guy launched it again later:: I've been (civil only) condemned to erase the name and to
pay one euro plus part of the attorneys cost, 385 euros. That's quite recent (october 2002)
Fun if any: No fun here, though the ruling was not that bad, and though I even won it once, I could'nt
believe I could be pronounced guilty of saying that a guy has been relaxed in appeal in the exact terms
of the Appeal Court! (I had never said that he had been sentenced to jail before, and he was otherwise qualified
of criminal in many other sites having never been attacked before courts, so, it's an evidence for me that
the crime cult does not care at all of the merits of a case, it cares only to ruin some of its critics; here, I
was the only target. Moreover, the crime cult knew it could'nt have won the same complaint in UK, USA or else).
Besides, that's also a complain before "express court" instead of normal one. Quite surprising
for such a case.
5
What : Another scientologist, Philippe Arsac., complained that his name was on two files on my website.
Those files are underlining infiltration of scientologists into economy and industry in France etc. Besides,
I had not "declared" my site to the french official Commission of liberties etc (the CNIL).
When : near end 2001
Why : A similar reason: individual names are to be sometimes erased of files.
Result: A. complaint has not been considered (his own complaint is dismissed); but since I had not done the
official declaration, I'm still waiting the hearings and ruling about that part.
The attorney of M. Arsac was present, as well as his client, despite their complain had been dismissed. Instead
of pleading the case itself, his attorney tried to plead sort of a "libel" case.
I'll comment the whole affair later, since i'll get the result of the trial on feb 18th, 2003.
Feb 18, 2003: I got 1 euro damages plus 450 euros amend for having not declared my website to the CNIL. I appealed the ruling , that should be on Lyon Appeal courts on december 17th 2003. This affair has been commented in a lot of places in France, since it's the first of its type.
Fun if any: Arsac has not declared his company site on time either. He declared it more than four months after
opening.
6
What : Moxon sued me for insult and "incitation to commit a crime against him"
after I wrote the joke to ARS and to poor Helena, to which I was saying the very very evident joke " Hi
Helena, why don't you k... Moxon ;-)) etc". But I've been unable to defend correctly, neither my attorney,
since I could'nt possibly believe that such a completely joke message with smileys, with other evident jokes included,
could be taken seriously before courts.
When : last year, ruling and appeal ruling in september 2002
Why : incredible.
Result: I had to pay 300 euros damages to the criminal attorney of the crime cult, the famous Moxon Kendrick,
the one who salutes with a "Zig Heil" a high official of german government... etc.
Fun if any: None at all. I'm shocked that two french judges toward whom I had neither been pretentious, neither
antagonistic, neither anything bad, could rule me out and give more than one month of my salary to this guy in
damages and attorneys costs.
Besides, that's also a complain before express court instead of normal one; crime cultists can't use
normal ways to get what they call justice. They don't even care to win: what is winning for them, it's ruining
the critics, killing them if possible, etc.
7
What : I was sued for copyrights violations (it's not called that way here, no problem) of the
cult senior defamatory leaflet, the french version of Freedom, "Ethique et Liberté" - I had copied
and extensively criticized eight of their articles (representing. 2 to 3 % of the total of their 31 issues of that
lies sheet)
When : July or august 2001
Why : see above
Result: They did not want to pay for the "consignation", said their new in-house attorney Jacquot,
whom I saw much later. So, they dismissed the case themselves, one could say.
Fun if any: I learned about that suit because some idiot from the cult made some error later, and I got that
information that they had complained, info that I had not had otherwise! A footbullet.
8
What : same complaint as above, under another "express" juridiction. This time, instead of
suing me here where I live, they found the "Référés" , another "express
court" for serious cases of violations of copyrights or risks of publishing libelous texts, so as to block
issuance if necessary. They attacked me in Paris, 13 months after the 1st "self-dismissed" suit, without
saying they had already tried once.
When : sept 2002
Why : see above
Result: I can consider that I won, since I have only ONE euro to pay in damages.
Fun if any: They complained for their reputation; they asked zillions; and they got almost nothing. True
enough, they had boasted that the issue after the critics had had a record publication of 2 millions copies, proof
that I was not much of a problem for their money making.
Besides, They' re getting one or two complaints from me. The motives will be given later. Now i'll be also attacking,
with serious enough motives, or I'll get them attacked.
9
What : Panda France and Panda Spain (mother panda) complained that i was libeling them for a message
in newsgroups, where I said they were a scientology company and it was better to be prudent.Courts said it was
a libel, okay. I'm not judge and party here. The strange thing is that Panda have never attacked any one of the
other internetizens and websites who were explaining similar facts about that company.
When : end 2001
Why : what they call libel
Result: Panda France has been dismissed for it was not targeted.
Fun if any:
I'll get the ruling on january 2003, the 31st.
I've been sentenced to One euro damages on libel bases. Well, that's formal. The old law of 1881 is very strict
on its definitions. I've appealed the ruling as well, that should come before Paris 11th chamber of appeals on
october 4th, 2003.
Last: I've been again sentenced in appeal, I'm waiting the rulings in feb 04.
10
I WON.
What : Gounord and Dupuis, the spokepersons of the crime cult in France, complained that I insulted them
in different messages on internet.
When : 2002
Why : "insults".
Result: I should go to courts in march in Paris.
Their complaint has been dismissed, and they have to pay 500 euros to me (ruling april 25th). I don't know yet
if they'll appeal.
Fun if any: We'll see.
11
What : the same ones have still another complaint, for similar causes, but the plaintiff is different:
it is their entirely faked association "Ethique et Liberté", which has been sentenced
times after times for... libel - or violation of image's rights, or has lost suits here etc.
When : yesterday. This time, since their honour "seems so badly important for them", that they are
complaining before another "express court".
Why :
Result: not yet.
Fun if any: I won that won as well (defending myself)
12
What: Criminal attorney Moxon has complained against me for what he calls libel, that is, that I've called
him a racist after he said to a american judge Susan Schaeffer in the Lisa McPherson civil trial that "everybody
is a wog, Ma'am".
When: january 2003.
Result: I offered the evidences of his racism on time. Possibly no trial possible here. Wog is higly
defamatory or insulting as a word, whatever in scientology or in non-scn. Calling someone a wog is racism. Hubbard
was a racist, this being atetsted by more than one.
The next step is for june 03, where the exact date of the hearing should be done.
I should get the results on feb 17, 2004.
Besides, two of their PIs have been trapped while digging in my past and my present life.
Both have been sued by the Justice Dept here, but since I was not interested to sue underpaid poor non-scientologists,
even if they were defaming me and stealing pieces and informations about me, I would not sue them personnaly. They
could have taken some contact with me to say hello thanks for not suing us, but did'nt.
Perhaps they have been sentenced, after all, but I'm not the cause.
Others: I don't expose here the number of attorneys
letters, fuckinograms and kobrinograms and paquettograms, complain letters and mails to my ISPs here and in Switzerland,
etc etc. That can be found in part on my sub-index: scientology versus internet.
