lundi 29 avril 2013

A defender of the right of the child to physical integrity libelled by the Criminal Court of Nanterre (updated 12.08.2013)

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.

Signed Geneviève Siredey-Garnier, the judgment of January 3 2012 of the criminal court of Nanterre discharges me from the accusation of defamation brought on June 5 2009 by Mr. Xavier Valla for my on-line 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 ( 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 named us so in order to remind our origin.

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 (; the matter was a communication campaign 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 ( 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, has not been retained for my discharge by Mrs. Siredey-Garnier who, at the contrary and in a nonsensical way, accuses me of belonging to the antiJew far-right that I have been fighting since I have discovered the racism that it masks. Indeed, she writes two as false as defamatory allegations in her motives:

1/ Whereas I am opposed to any mutilation (feminine or masculine) without "very serious medical motive" (Article 41 of the French Code of Medical Ethics), it is defamatory to say (page 3, § 3) that I would present myself as "a declared adversary, notably, of the ritual circumcision imposed by some religions".

2/ Mrs. Siredey-Garnier affirms page 3, § 8, that I would have "defended myself of all anti-Jewism in my (multiple) letters to various representatives of the judicial institution".
But on the one hand, nothing of the sort can be found in my numerous letters that, in order to obtain the rejection of an abusive and illicit complaint, only attack the bunch of anti-Jew neo-Nazis of the AME. On the contrary, in one of them, I recall my letter to Mrs. Valérie Boyer where I was defending myself of the accusation of having an identical-to-that-of-the-AME approach through declaring myself a Freudian, and thus pro-anti-circumcision Jews. Besides, why on earth would I have defended myself from something I was not accused of?
On the other hand, accusing of defending himself of antiJewism the one who made the demonstration that the AME precisely defends itself of if is extravagant
Therefore, Mrs. Siredey-Garnier's affirmation is lying and defamatory. The matter is fake.

Instead of insulting me, Mrs. the president of the Criminal Court of Nanterre 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. Siredey-Garnier 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. Siredey-Garnier jumped out to an extravagant conclusion, strictly inconsistent with the rest of the thick file. This conclusion "fraudulently alters the truth," the malice is obvious.

The anti-Jew – anti-circumcision mixture holds sway amongst the Semites. Mrs. Siredey-Garnier 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 and 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...

The most outrageous is that whereas the evidence of public awareness of Mr. Valla's lie about his belonging to the racist far-right are public knowledge, an investigation has been opened and a judgment has been pronounced according to defamation law. 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 éminence grise of the AME, in a far-right magazine). This blatant lie should have caused a rejection of the complaint. But the judgment 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 court  followed the investigating magistrates and prosecutors in a doubly abusive procedure.

The reason might be that, 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 -, the court displays a strange complicity with that extreme right.

I was forced to put Mrs. Siredey-Garnier in her place at the hearing at the moment when she accused me of "ambiguity". She seems to have wanted to revenge.

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.

It seems that the circumcising moral order treats tactfully the anti-circumcision moral order in order to be able to go on perpetrating its pedo-criminality with impunity.
Those who live within the lies of the moral order of the sexual mutilation of their own 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 Semite 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., 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 judge, 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; maybe it assumes that I would profess the religion of my adversary, which is not the case,

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, not to ask for the appliance of article 425 of the Code of criminal procedure at the very moment when I had just been 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.

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

However, the decision pertinently picks 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-Semitism of the AME (, 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 and the fact that I published its results precisely show the libelling extravagance of the accusation of collusion between me and the anti-Jewish far-right made by the magistrate.

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 about the court of appeal's decision:

[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