mardi 30 avril 2013

The court of appeal of Versailles fooled by the lies of the criminal court of Nanterre (updated 12.22.2013)

Article 29 of the Law of 29 July 1881
"Any allegation or imputation of a fact that undermines the honour or the consideration of the person or body to which the act is attributed is a libel." (Defamation is punishable if it is published, but a judgment is not a public document)

Art. 441-1 of the Criminal Code
Is a fake any fraudulent alteration of the truth likely to cause a prejudice and carried out by any means in a writing or any other medium of expression of the thought which has the purpose or may have the effect of establishing the proof of a right or of a fact with legal consequences.


Illegally and improperly signed "Mrs. Sem" (the first name is missing and no one is her own Missis), the April 2 2013 ruling of the Court of Appeal of Versailles confirmed my discharge, pronounced by the January 3 2012 judgment of the Criminal Court of Nanterre, concerning the accusation of defamation brought against me by Mr. Xavier Valla June 5 2009 for my on-line writing of the following terms:

"... this is already enough to distinguish me from the Association against the mutilation of children of which most members, in my knowledge, belong to the French far-right (VALLA family of which a mem-ber was the founder of the GRECE,... Doctor ZWANG who publishes in the journal of the GRECE ...). "

The complaint of the neo-Nazi author of a revisionist article published by Revision (sic) in 1989 (http://pdfcast.org/pdf/la-honte-de-judas-de-xavier-valla) was brought against "Hervé Navoiseau". Bearer or a "bird's name" (which, in French, means an insult) (birds do not have a foreskin), I belong to an antique Jewish family, whose elder sons have "Michel" among their first names. It was converted by force to Christianity under the Inquisition who reminded our origin by this way.

The complaint is totally flimsy since the elementary right to freedom of speech allows maintaining that somebody belongs to the far-right. But Mr. Valla is the president of the Association against the mutilation of children, which practises the masked anti-Jewism (http://www.academia.edu/2131169/The_Association_contre_la_mutilation_des_enfants_a_masked_anti-Semitism_updated_02.11.2013_); the matter was an operation of communication intended to clear his association from all anti-Jewism (cf. the May 1st 2009 Press release of the AME, published less than one month before the complaint (http://ame.enfant.org.free.fr/commu5.html). It is obvious that his complaint is illicit, manipulative of the law, it should have been dismissed.

It can also be thought that Mr Valla attacks me because I bear a name of Marrano Jew.

But this fact, mentioned in my January 19 2010 letter to the investigative judge and in my request to reopen the debates, has not been retained for my discharge by Mrs. Sem, fooled by the lies of her colleague of Nanterre. At the contrary and in a libellous way, she accuses me of belonging to that antiJew far-right that I have been fighting since I discovered the racism that it masks. Indeed, she writes two defamatory allegations in her motives:


1 / "Indicted of public defamation towards a private individual, he appeared on January 22 2010 before the investigating judge to which he produced several documents, claiming that he only had the concern of informing and discussing children's rights; a first article commented a movie ..."Silence, cutting going on! The third millennium will it be circumcised?", available on the website enfant.org and a second article: "Philosophy below the belt, or: circumcision, excision, individual rights, parenthood, community, Nation.".... available on the website "Equality and reconciliation."

The titles of these two articles of the anti-Jew far-right are blasphemous for the religious. Now, Mrs Sem pretends that I would have used them joining myself to the provocation of their authors.

The first article, published by the site (enfant.org) of the Association against the mutilation of children chaired by Mr. Valla (evidence n° D 0145) is of the author of the film and the second (evidence n° D 0144), signed Alain Soral, is a copy of a page of his website.

I had given them to the investigating judge in order to show him the close relationship between the AME and Mr. Soral, with the following comments:

- for the first, "There are no less than three interviews of Mr. Soral in the film in question!"

- and for the second: "The AME gives, on its own website, a link towards this article by Mr. Soral."

These comments made Mr. Cassutto and his assistant smile; they disclose the anti-Jewism of the AME by revealing its links with one of the worst French anti-Jews, one of the right hands of Mr. Le Pen. The investigating judge failed to take note of my comments but in my demands to the court, I took care to present the second evidence that I entitled so: (12 : excerpt of n° 36 of the Journal of the AME including a link to the front page of Alain Soral's site rather than to this author's article against circumcision: http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Philosopher-en-dessous-de-la-ceinture-ou-circoncision-excision-droit-des-individus-filiation-2287.html", so that Mrs Sem could not doubt the purity of my intentions.

But did Mr Sem take the trouble to read my demands?

She does not either seem to have noticed that I had highlighted the name of the anti-Dreyfus Maurras in the copy I had given the judge.

Besides, I had reported these two articles and the above comments in my defence speech (pages 12-13, my evidences n° 16 and 17) in front of the Criminal Court which, therefore, did not use them against me.

Pointing them out amongst the 220 ones of the file, Mrs. Sem will not have either bothered to read that speech. We are forced to assume it but this does not lessen her malevolent intention.

The latter bursts out in the fact that, in her strange approach, Mrs. Sem refrained from raising the evidence n° D 0152 that I also had presented: the excerpt from the book "Socrates in Saint Tropez" by Mr. Soral in which he blames an alleged antigoyism of the writer Stéphane Zagdanski.

Then, this excerpt has been the subject of my article, "The AME and Soral against Zagdanski about circumcision, antigoyism or judeophobia?" (evidence n° D 0150) (http://www.academia.edu/2131151/Circumcision_antigoyism_or_judeophobia_The_Ame_and_Soral_against_Reyes_and_Zagdanski_top_hats_against_bowler_hats_red_against_greys_updated_05.13.2013_), in which I expose the racist collusion of Mr. Soral and the AME about Mr. Zagdanski. Besides, I exposed the fact to the LICRA (Ligue against Racism and AntiSemitism) that, in the absence of a complaint from Mr. Zagdanski himself, did not want to declare itself a civil party against this anti-Jewish attack. I have not published any article denouncing the two writings brought about by Mrs. Sem because antiJewism is only allusive in them. Mrs. Sem too did not publish anything against these writings; I do not accuse her of being a member of the bunch of anti-Jews for all that.

There is something extravagant that Mrs. Sem should accuse me of collusion with my adversary at the very moment when I was bringing in the case two writings denouncing his racism. Under Article 29 of the 29 July 1891 law, her accusation is of defamatory thoughtlessness.

The issue is whether this libelling is a false with malicious intent. We have just seen a first element of it here above, but amongst the 220 evidences in the file, I presented 133 of them against my opponent (evidences n° D 0048 to D 0097, D 0100 to D 0145, D 0148 to D 0187). Without the slightest evidence and without having questioned me, Mrs. Sem takes out two of them to jump to the conclusion that I would have used them to profit by the investigation rather than in order to "inform and discuss children's rights" and not to defend myself. This is the assumption, pure arbitrariness that has nothing to do in an acquittal judgment, but for affirming a collusion between my adversary and I. But then why the hell does not Mrs. Sem send us both in jail for blatant manipulation of the law?

For, as my letters to the magistrates falsely set up against me by Mrs. Siredey-Garnier in the first proceedings, all the evidences I presented merely attack the antiJewism of Mr Valla and, among the titles of articles, Mrs. Sem might have quoted not only the above title (evidence n° D 0150) but also that of my second article: "The shame of the AME" (evidence n° D 0185) (http://mutil-abolition-droit-au-corps.blogspot.fr/2013/06/shame-on-racists-of-ame.html), where I expose a revisionist article by Mr. Valla, or Michel Erlich's one: "Excision, circumcision, racism" (evidence n° D 0056), where the AME is designated as an accomplice of a gang of "delirious neo-Nazis."

Mrs. Sem's intention is clear; through wantonly ascribing me, in a decision of confirmation of discharge where this has nothing to do, to want to use them in "the concern of informing and discussing the rights of children", Mrs. Sem accuses me of belonging to the gang of extremists.

Instead of insulting me, Mrs. the president of the Court of Appeal of Versailles would have done better asking information about my person; she would have learnt that my grand-mother was called Hanoun.

It could be thought that Mrs. Sem freely expresses an opinion but the jurisprudence of good faith in matter of defamation requires that the information should be cautious and prove a genuine and serious inquiry, totally absent here. Now, these two conditions are particularly requested from magistrates. Mrs. Sem jumped out to an extravagant conclusion, strictly inconsistent with the rest of the file. Consequently, this conclusion "fraudulently alters the truth," the malice is obvious.

For Mrs Sem's discharge, it can be thought that she blind believe Mrs Siredey-Garnier's lies in her judgment.

The anti-Jew / anti-circumcision mixture holds sway in the Jewish community. Mrs. Sem is a victim of it. This mixture ignores the existence of the multi-millennial Jewish current against circumcision which I participate in. It has been illustrated by Queen Jezebel and King Ahab, the Seleucids slaughtered by the Maccabeus, the supporters of baptism by water with Jesus Christ, the German Reform rabbis of the 19th century around Abraham Geiger, their followers in the United States, politicians Olry Terquem and Bernard Lazare, psychoanalysts Freud, Groddeck, Reich, Bettelheim, Lewinter, Julia Kristeva, Alice Miller Tobie Nathan, philosophers Spinoza, Jacques Rosenberg and Jacques Derrida, the Nobel prizes for medicine Francis Crick and George Wald, Professor Alexandre Minkowski, pediatrician Aldo Naouri, the powerful Jewish movement of the United States against circumcision, filmmakers Woody Allen, Ivan Attal, Nurith Aviv and Daniel Burman, the advocate Linda Weil-Curiel, Judge Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig...

In order to "inform and discuss the rights of children," I have at my disposal quantity of articles strictly virgin of any antiJewism, including those of Mr. Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig, president of the children court of Bobigny (one of them quotes my article: "Sexual mutilation and the moral order"), the preface to the book by Professor Aldeeb: "Male circumcision, female circumcision" written by the defender of the excised: Maître Linda Weil-Curiel, and those of Steven Svoboda , the advocate for the American circumcised against their doctors. Common sexism, tolerating masculine sexual mutilation, definitely imbues as well Mrs. Sem's defamatory words of in her decision as Mrs. Siredey-Garnier's in her judgment (see my article "Feminism, sexism and sexual mutilation" at academia.edu).


2 / Mrs. Sem concludes (page 4, § 5) that I would have said that the mentioned persons "(would have been) both right and wrong" without mentioning neither the reason: fighting sexual mutilation regardless of sex, age or personal choice, nor the wrong: the racism of the AME and Mr. Valla that was the subject of all my defence speech in order for him to be sentenced for abusive procedure. Once again, totally lacking of any serious investigation, the assertion is defamatory.


Being libelling and tinged with bad faith, according to the jurisprudence of defamation, and therefore malice, both inaccurate statements soil the decision with fake.

The most outrageous is that, pronounced according to defamation law, the judgment and the court of appeal's decision remain silent on the evidence of public awareness of Mr. Valla's lie about his belonging to the racist far right. Now, this evidence is included in the very terms he accused me of (his family ties with Mr. JC Valla and the writings of Dr. Zwang, the eminence grise of the AME, in a right-wing magazine). This blatant lie should have caused a rejection of the complaint. But judgment and decision ignored my requests to declare it abusive and illegal. A complaint of mere provocation should have provoked the condemnation of Mr. Valla who never appeared in court. So, the criminal court and the court of appeal made themselves the accomplices of the investigating magistrates and prosecutors in a doubly abusive procedure.

The reason is simple; of Jewish anti-circumcision inspiration, psychoanalysis and I are much more dangerous against male sexual mutilation than the Mr. Valla's more or less masked antiJewism and, throughout the three years and a half that the case lasted, I have been the victim of the anti-circumcision - anti-Jews confusion. Not only is justice not justice when the judge lies in order to libel a defender of human rights but foremost, by failing to condemn the racist provocation of the president of an association that makes grossly anti-Jewish remarks in its very statutes and even permanently defames a Jewish anti-circumcision writer (21 May 2002 press release of the AME - http://ame.enfant.org.free.fr/commu4.htm), the court displays a strange complicity with that extreme right.

The judges of the heart too, and not only the investigating judge who once convened me on the "10 March 1130" fell into the trap of Mr Valla's provocation.


The circumcising moral order treats tactfully the anti-circumcision far-right in order to calm it down and be able to go on perpetrating its criminality against the child with impunity.
Those who live within the lies of the moral order of the sexual mutilation of their children are not contended with abusing of their power upon the child; when they are in position of power, they also abuse of it upon the adult. As denounced by the psychiatrist-psychoanalyst Tobie Nathan, the techniques of affiliation by traumatism pave the way for fascism and its humiliations-provocations. But after the Nazi barbarity, the whole art of the Jewish pre-fascism consists – through playing upon the universal blockings – in pretending to be innocent and pacific through treating its opponents as rascals, and even in pushing or tempting to push them to violence. Circumcision is a push to genocide (cf. http://www.academia.edu/3133102/Why_genocides_the_psychoanalytical_theory_of_genocide_updated_05.12.2013_), this because it is itself a moral order that pushes to fascism.
May it bear upon the head, the bottom or the sex, violence upon the child has the same result: humiliate, in order to dominate and enlist. Circumciser moral order and anti-circumciser moral order, same old song!
Both racisms, the circumciser one and the anti-circumciser one are as stupidly arrogant the one as the other and the adults who are victim of them as infantile the ones as the others, as observed, but on one side only and for children only, by Sigmund Freud:

"... little boys hear that the Jews have something cut off in their penis – a piece of their penis, they think – and this gives them a right to despise the Jews."[1]

This is the reason why I will not sue in front of criminal courts either Mr. Valla or the judges, although, for the latter, it is practically impossible to do it in front of the civil high court since I shall never find a barrister to do it.

My only appeal is to sue the state for serious ill-functioning of the law.


For besides the moral prejudice endured reading the decisions, I have been the object of repeated psychological violence in a harassing and overwhelming case that, since three years and a half, causes me horrible headaches with insomnia, bleeds in the brain and grave memory trouble:

- a written insult from the head of the advocates of Versailles who deems is "particularly inadmissible and unworthy" to claim for a defender who would not be a proponent of circumcision,

from the investigation judges::
- opening of an investigation and indictment for an obviously non reprehensible fact,
- whereas I had written in order to explain my absence to the first convening by giving proofs that the procedure was abusive and thus illicit, a young person allowed herself to ring in my home and began to threaten me, with an aggressive tone, to be forced to come at a convening brought by the police and finally hanged up on me in front of my legitimate protests,
- convening for the 10 March 1130, at the time when the Inquisition threatened my ancestors to burn them live,
- repeated threats to be forced to come at convenings brought by the police (evidences n° D 0098, 0099, 0147, and convenings to indicted person of 22 January 2010 and 10 March 2010, bowdlerized from the file),
- illegal absence of investigation for discharge and, notably, no note of my declaration to the investigating judge together with evidences D 0144 et D 0145,

From the courts:
- in spite of the position taken by the 5 January decision of the Court of investigation, the Criminal court refused to consider the alleged defamation as non public,
- at the first hearing, the court required that I should ask for judicial help in order to obtain the court appointment of a counsellor (barrister), a procedure that is absent of the code of criminal procedure for indicted persons,
- for a total of 14 hearings (6 during the first proceedings, 3 in front the Court of Appeal in matter of investigation, 5 in front of the Court of Appeal), my claims in order to obtain the court appointment of a counsellor (barrister) remained fruitless,
- I asked several times without success for the appliance of article 425 of the Code of criminal procedure (automatic withdrawal for non appearance),
- at the hearing, Mrs. Siredey-Garnier pretended without motive that I would be "ambiguous",
- the judgment was pronounced in violation of article 417-4 of the code of criminal procedure in spite of my 7 December 2011 letter to the court,
- at the hearing of the Court of Appeal, Mrs. Sem repeatedly cut me short, which destabilized me and prevented me to present my claims, the main one being the nullity of an abusive and illicit complaint,
- through neglecting my antique Jewish origin as a discharging element, the decisions seem to treat me as a renegade; they humiliate and discriminate me by assuming that I would profess the same religion as my adversary, which is inaccurate,

As for the prosecution:
- they accompanied Mr. Valla in his complaint and required my sentencing during the whole first hearings, strangely giving up this stand in appeal,
- they reproached me, at one hearing of the Criminal Court, not to ask for the appliance of article 425 of the Code of criminal procedure (I was prevented to do so because the President precisely set it aside at the beginning of the hearing).This well shows that, without right to investigate nor proof, they suspected me to be an accomplice of my opponent.

So, the whole procedure had no other aim, unofficial and therefore illegal, than trying to establish that I would have been an accomplice of Mr Valla.


However, both decisions pertinently pick out that Mr. Valla:

"did not precise how belonging to the French far-right was likely to offend his honour and consideration." (Criminal Court's judgment, took up again by the Court of Appeal)

And for good reason since the thorough enquiry I led following his complaint disclosed the carefully masked anti-Jewism of the AME (http://www.academia.edu/2131169/The_Association_contre_la_mutilation_des_enfants_a_masked_anti-Semitism_updated_02.11.2013_), and very particularly of Mr. Valla. Therefore, I cut the ground under feet of the latter who did not dare denying his racism in front of the judges whom I have convinced of it.

The success of this enquiry precisely shows the libelling extravagance of the accusation of collusion between me and the anti-Jewish far-right made by both magistrates.

Psychoanalysis exposes circumcision as a traumatic and criminal assault to the body of the child. That Mr Valla and the far-right should not want to hear about that "Jewish science" is their problem. But that Jewish magistrates should project upon a Freudian psychoanalysis researcher to be joined with the antiJew far-right is scandalously libelling.

Both far-rights join, at the expenses of the victims of circumcision.


see my comment of the judgment of the criminal court:


[1] Analysis of a phobia on a five-years-old boy (Little Hans). 1909. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1955. S.E., X, p. 36, n.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire