France: One plaintiff withdrawing from Nov. 3 appeal trial

Discussion in 'Media' started by mnql1, Nov 2, 2011.

  1. mnql1 Member

    Translation of a French Associated Press report posted on Nov. 2, 2011 on the website of weekly news magazine Le nouvel Observateur:

    Retour à la case tribunal pour la Scientologie
    • Like Like x 9
  2. mnql1 Member

    A Nov. 2, 2011 article in Le Figaro contains much of the information that has already been posted about Scientology's 2009 conviction for organized fraud in France and the Nov. 3, 2011 appeal trial, but it also provides this detail (translation):
    Nouveau procès contre la Scientologie
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Sponge Member

    So, bearing in mind that an appeal in French courts (cour d'appel) is more akin to a retrial, if one of the plaintiffs withdraws from an appeal then does that plaintiff's previous evidence/testimony from the original trial suddenly become null and void (because she can't be cross-examined again)?

    I can appreciate that these long drawn-out things can be very wearing on individuals, especially with scientology involved but, really, wtf? I guess since she got her "mafia pay-off" she doesn't give a fuck about actual justice then?

    We need a French version of Tikk in here for informed legal comment. I wonder if Jonny Jacobsen can shed any more legal light on this.
  4. mnql1 Member

    Translation of an excerpt from a French article posted on Nov. 3, 2011 on the website of the Europe1 radio network:
    La Scientologie de retour devant la justice
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Sponge Member

    As per my previous post, but with even more WTF?!
  6. TinyDancer Member

    As it happens, I had lunch on Wednesday with the president and the secretary general of MIVILUDES, Georges Fenech and Hervé Mashi at Parliament House in Canberra. (I apologise for the major name-dropping, but I think it's only fair that David Miscavige knows so that he can prepare his next set of footbullets.) One of the other guests was Stephen Pallaras QC, the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions.

    Discussions were had.

    Communications will follow.

    Oh, and Georges told me that he once put Daniele Gounord (Paris, OSA) in jail for three weeks!
    • Like Like x 9
  7. TinyDancer Member

    Oops. Forgot to mention two things:

    1. Georges and Hervé met with the Australian Attorney General; and

    2. While lobbying federal politicians the next day, one of the pollies that I met with about cults generally said that he has a scientologist in his electorate. He named the man. He said, actually, there is one organisation that those guys are absolutely. paranoid. about. They're called 'Anonymous'.

    LOL. I explained my connection to Anonymous. He laughed and emphasised again how utterly fixated the CoS is on Anonymous. :)
    • Like Like x 9
  8. Random guy Member

    Well, well, well, we must be doing something right then!

    Thank you for your persistent work, Tiny!
    • Like Like x 5
  9. mnql1 Member

    The story of the arrest and how Danièle Gounord got her revenge is told in this video:
    The missing files part 2
    • Like Like x 5
  10. moarxenu Member

    • Like Like x 2
  11. moarxenu Member

    [quote="Sponge, post: 1938533"
    We need a French version of Tikk in here for informed legal comment. I wonder if Jonny Jacobsen can shed any more legal light on this.[/quote]

    For those of you who missed it Jonny has a great new post up on Infinite Complacecny reviewing the legal issues. Reviewing the Paris Judgment
  12. aw. that's so sweet of them.

    there's nothing like a good review!
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Albion Member

    Cross posting reply here...
    I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of plaintiffs in the Paris case: the National Council of the Order of Pharmacists did not look like they were in the mood to back off in the original trial and that won't change on appeal.
    Perhaps more worrying is the claim that the case has gone past the statue of limitations and so should never have come to trial: they have made at least one case go away on these grounds in the past (as reported here way back when: the case was eventually thrown out just a few years ago). One can't help wondering though, why this issue wasn't raised earlier.
    So far as the questions of constitutionality raised are concerned, it's difficult to judge without knowing the specifics.
    Scientology has, as always, hired some of France's top lawyers to defend it. Olivier Morice, the lawyer for one of the plaintiffs at the original trial and France's counter-cult group UNADFI, and Olivier Saumon for the pharmacists faced an impressive battery of lawyers and their assistants for the defence at the original trial.
    As impressive as they are however, I'm sceptical that Scientology's lawyers can get the convictions overturned. And even if they do, given the political firestorm that is likely to generate, it may prove to have been more than trouble than it was worth.
    For my analysis of the original trial judgement, see here:
    For a summary of the convictions themselves, see here:

    Jonny Jacobsen
    • Like Like x 8
  14. I bounced in my chair and clapped for awhile after reading this! :)
    • Like Like x 3

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins