Olivier Maret’s incredible fight against French-style cybertorture

Olivier Maret is a 56-year-old citizen with a degree in production management, he also has legal training. We are going to present to you in this article his sulphurous file against cybertorture of which he is one of the biggest opponents, indeed this one is able to lead to his recognition by the officials of the French state.

As a reminder, cybertorture is the use of cybertechnologies to repress or eliminate targets deemed harmful by the deep state that I describe as the « real state » or by the desire to conduct illegal experiments with a view to developing artificial intelligence. .

Since 1991 he has been experiencing an extraordinary phenomenon in the following forms:

• First , by emitting auditory criticisms of his own person in the form of voices which may be associated with the accent of people he knows personally (this increases the destabilizing effects) or people whose voices he ignores; these voices are reported in real time based on his thoughts, and associated with shockwaves to his brain. The technology used is V2K (Voice to Skull), patent number US4877027A .
•  Secondly , by comments made by natural persons during his daily life, in the form of more or less unpleasant but really disturbing remarks which relate to what he had experienced or thought at a time « T », which are also sometimes associated with shock waves on his brain.
• Thirdly , in the form of remarks that he receives from the audiovisual sector, in the form of verbal criticism relating to his private life or to people around him, these remarks can be broadcast as « highlights » in programs broadcast on his own audiovisual equipment, which complicates the search for the perpetrators of these offences.
•  Fourthly , by the vision of gestures reported either by physical persons in the course of their daily life, or by the French audiovisual media. –        
• Fifthly , by television films conceived in synthetic images, staging it where the resemblance was striking 
• Sixthly , by the perception of sounds added in his conversations or when he listened to the radio 
• Seventh , by viewing images and disrupting electronic devices. This phenomenon takes place in all places and at all times. Presumably this would be carried out by satellite. One could presumably listen to his thoughts via satellite for the purpose of subjecting him to what he described to you above, that is, to undergo this sonic aggression associated with shock waves on his person.

You will find on its INTERNET page two expert reports validating the feasibility of these phenomena. The patent number for this quasi-alien technology is US6011991A , many reputable scientists including the American Richard Lighthouse have mentioned it.

These extraordinary means relate to, you will understand very quickly, the field of espionage. The investigation of his file should of course lead to illegal tapping by satellite (which can be an instrument of power), where the file is very sensitive!

Presumably everyone would be listened to because they can reproduce anyone’s voice in real time. 

Chronology of his legal actions: 

* 1993-1995 Three letters to the Public Prosecutor of the TGI of Bourg-en Bresse (01) remained unanswered. It was only later that he learned of the dismissal on the grounds of « no offence » when torture was qualified for the facts that I described.

********** 

* 1996 He lodged a complaint with the Dean of the Investigating Judges of the TGI of Bourg-en-Bresse (01). He was received by the magistrate GOUY-PAILLER who ordered him a psychiatric expertise which concluded to a delirious chronic psychosis. His psychiatrist at the time, who agreed with him when he filed the complaint, advised him after this aberrant decision not to appeal this decision and for comment told him that his notoriety had taken a hit…

********** 

* 09/13/1999 He sent a file to Madame GUIGOU Elisabeth Minister of Justice through a bailiff to investigate a complaint in my case. No return in any form whatsoever was sent to him. Later, during a visit to the Ministry of Justice, he was told that his request had been forwarded to the DACG, which had forwarded it to the Court of Appeal of LYON with competent jurisdiction. Well no return was communicated to him. 

**********

 * 04/26/2002 He re-filed a complaint with civil action with the Dean of the Investigating Judges of the TGI of Bourg-en-Bresse (01). Initially, the judge BERTHET Jean-Pierre fixed the consignment at 7500 EUROS or nearly 50,000 Francs consignment (according to a lawyer a consignment for the civil party is between 3000 and 15000 Francs). He lodged an appeal against this astronomical amount and when he appealed to the Registry of the investigation of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Judge BERTHET came out of his office and told him, in front of his clerk,that this amount was sufficiently dissuasive, that he was not going to run after the spirits. He implied that it was a matter of psychiatry, when I took him back, he told him that he was not going to run after the CIA, and Mr MARET replied that he will have to educate him well. He replied that if it went that far, always implied, the file will be well classified before. Mr MARET even told him that with such an amount, it could lead him under guardianship, it made him wince .

Following this, Mr MARET’s lawyer told him that he should have recorded the scandalous statements of this magistrate that he made before the clerk. Mr MARET therefore tried to obtain the testimony of this clerk by going to court again but she told him that she had to wait for his approval from the examining magistrate. When the latter arrived and after he told him the purpose of his visit, the judge asked him to leave the court immediately, threatening him to call in the police to have him evacuated. .

Another time when Mr MARET again asked Judge BERTHET’s Clerk to record Judge BERTHET’s statements for him, she replied that he had said that because he had gotten angry, which was totally false and this clerk again refused to record to him the statements of this examining magistrate.

When he reported the words of judge BERTHET during his visit to the Investigation Chamber of the LYON Court of Appeal to have the astronomical amount of the deposit reduced, a gentleman from the Investigation Chamber had replied « that Judge BERTHET was doing this to help him”…

After that he was summoned for hearing on January 15, 2003. he appeared with a lawyer before the Examining Judge CLEMENT Sylvie (after this magistrate changed her name and was called CAHET Sylvie) at 9 am as planned .

He presented his problem in a simple way by indicating that he perceived sounds in the form of voice as well as shock waves on the brain and this in an almost continuous way, without specifying that one listened to his thoughts and that the ‘we were criticizing him through « audiovisual » (the Lyon lawyer who had helped him to file his complaint had advised him to go in stages to present his case so as not to risk a new classification of the part of justice). The magistrate immediately told him that to start his business he had to undergo an expert appraisal estimating his damage to characterize the offence. She told him he would have to go to a medical examiner as well as a psychiatrist. He told her that he already had an acknowledgment of disability and that he was forced to undergo treatment and that for him medical expertise was not necessary. He provided him with several copies of text from scientific publications that a collective from ARGENTEUIL (CAPT) had kindly provided him with, explaining the feasibility of certain unusual phenomena. This magistrate persisted in his wish to carry out “his medical report” asking him to send him a copy of all his periods of sick leave. She was already in possession of a notification of invalidity which he had attached to his complaint, but that was not enough for her. She also asked him where she could get her medical file and understood that she could get it from Social Security.

He asked this magistrate for technical investigations to investigate his case. She then replied that justice had only few means and that it was going to be expensive, that the budget of a court is limited. He told her that he still had the right to put an end, through the courts, to the attacks of which he was the victim.

This summons ended with the magistrate’s request to provide him with a statement of all his work stoppages. Just before leaving Judge CLEMENT’s office, he heard  »  I’m going to double the dose! »  with the voice of Judge CLEMENT. This led him to withdraw his complaint at that time.

 ********** 

* 2/05/2003 He re-filed a complaint with civil action before the Dean of the Investigating Judges of the TGI of Bourg-en-Bresse (01)

He was received on October 3, 2003 by the Examining Judge KRAMER-DAURAT Jocelyne.

He had given him an important technical file and a precise request for action. Investigating judge KRAEMER-DAURAT issued an order of non-suit dated January 14, 2004, 2 days after he sent her a letter to request an international letter rogatory from INTERPOL (Bureau Central National France) on the advice of the INTERPOL France liaison officers who had received him to whom he had forwarded the elements of his complaint and who were prepared to investigate his case .

His appeal against the dismissal order of the investigating judge to the Investigation Chamber of the LYON Court of Appeal was not heard by this court, although the conclusions of his lawyer defended several specific points, among other things, that the examining magistrate had in no way sought the materiality of the facts, that the psychiatric explanation (resulting from a previous complaint) confused consequence and cause, that the instruction was tainted by an error of law : violation of article 82-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, moreover we were also able to produce a report from a laboratory on audio and cerebral measurements concerning this type of problem.

He lodged an appeal in cassation before the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The latter did not quash the judgment of the Investigation Chamber of the Court of Appeal despite a flagrant point of law: violation of 82-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

 ********** 

* January 8, 2004 He filed a file with the Ministry of Justice for the attention of Mr. PERBEN Dominique Minister of Justice of this he had no return Later he was told verbally that this file had followed the path of the DACG that it had been retransmitted to the Court of Appeal of LYON from which Mr MARET did not obtain any return in any form whatsoever. The file that he handed over to the attention of the Minister of Justice PERBEN Dominique Mr MARET sent it by hand the same day to the Commander of INTERPOL Mr DELOYE at the Central National Bureau France in NANTERRE who had advised him to write to the judge KRAMER-DAURAT specifying their contact so that he can take my case, and that’s when 2 days later the magistrate KRAMER-DAURAT Joceline closed the file… 

********** 

* 02/22/2007 He re-filed a complaint with civil action with the Dean of the Investigating Judges of the TGI of Bourg-en-Bresse motivated by new facts by asking for a change of scenery in his complaint of the instruction.

Here is what happened :

 – February 22, 2007: filing of a complaint with civil action with the Dean of the investigating judges of the TGI of BOURG-EN-BRESSE         

  – March 12, 2007: consignment order of the JI CACHET Sylvie

– June 6, 2007: exemption from consignment of JI CACHET Sylvie following the decision of the BAJ of AJ

– June 9, 2007: declaration of address to JI CACHET Sylvie

– September 19, 2007: his request for acts to the JI CACHET Sylvie

– November 2, 2007: letter to JI CACHET Sylvie concerning a France 3 report on the use of thought interfaces

– January 29, 2008: request for expatriation of his complaint to the public prosecutor of the CA of LYON on the basis of article 665 of the code of criminal procedure

– January 30, 2008: sending by the TGI of a civil party summons from the JI CACHET Sylvie dated January 29, 2008 (oddly the date of her expatriation request!!!) for March 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

– February 28, 2010: sent by the Attorney General of the CA of LYON VIOUT Jean-Olivier on his refusal to disorient his complaint

– March 5, 2008: his hearing by the JI CACHET Sylvie where he recalls his request for acts and where he learns that the public prosecutor has still not made his requisitions necessary for the opening of the instruction. So already 13 months lost in the investigation of his complaint filed for torture

– March 28, 2008: second letter to the Attorney General of the CA of LYON VIOUT Jean-Olivier for the expatriation

– April 7, 2008: sending of the response of the Attorney General of CA de LYON VIOUT Jean-Olivier on his refusal to disorient my complaint

– April 12, 2008: sending to the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation his appeal against the decision of the Attorney General not to disorient my complaint

– June 2, 2008 decision of the Attorney General of the CC NADAL Jean-Louis on his refusal to expatriate his complaint

– July 3, 2008: order for the purposes of referral to the investigating chamber issued by JI PILLOT Frédéric following the lack of the clerk’s signature on his hearing report of March 5, 2008. He thus learns of the qualification retained by the public prosecutor of the TGI of BOURG-EN-BRESSE « premeditated violence or ambush without incapacity » Consequence loss of legal aid regardless of the level of resources « case of torture », correctional and non-criminal procedure, the because of the non-recognition of his invalidity the penalties incurred by the criminals are not doubled

– July 4, 2008: redelivery of its request for acts because that of September 19, 2007 would be null and void because before the requisitions of the public prosecutor

– August 6, 2008: notification to the civil party for the hearing of the investigating chamber set for September 24, 2008

– September 23, 2008: his request for access to the investigation file at JI PILLOT Frédéric

– November 4, 2008: notification of the judgment of the investigating chamber delivered on October 22, 2008 which rules that there is no reason for any cancellation of the hearing report. This caused another 4 months of time to be lost in the investigation

– November 6, 2008: letter from JI PILLOT Frédéric on his refusal to access the investigation file

– November 12, 2008: sending by CANTERINO Jean psychiatrist of a summons to a psychiatric examination at the request of JI PILLOT Frédéric. Judge PILLOT did not tell him that. This convocation is for January 8, 2009 at 11 am. Another 2 months delay

– December 15, 2008: reminder to JI PILLOT Frédéric of his request for acts of July 4, 2008. He reminds him that he gave me no reason for his refusal to grant the right to them within the 30-day period in accordance with the article 82-1 of the CPP

– January 8, 2008: psychiatric expertise by CANTERINO Jean where he learns that a second psychiatrist must examine him

– January 12, 2009: his letter to JI PILLOT Frédéric “on worrying elements” which remained without news his cook had probably been trapped

– February 9, 2009 request for requalification of the facts to the public prosecutor and to JI PILLOT Frédéric

– February 9, 2009: letter to JI PILLOT Frédéric about the psychiatric expert reports of which there is no news of the second expert while the first had summoned him almost 3 months ago

– February 10, 2009: as if by chance, he received the summons from the second expert ALLOY psychiatrist in MACON for March 24, 2009, more time wasted

– March 9, 2009: letter to JI MOREL on the interest of its complaint and also the requalification

– March 13, 2009: letter from JI MOREL on its refusal of requalification and access to the investigation file

– March 24, 2009: psychiatric expertise of ALLOY Gérald psychiatrist

– April 7, 2009 reminder to the public prosecutor of BOURG-EN-BRESSE on the requalification of the facts following the refusal of the JI MOREL Régine

– August 20, 2009: notification of the conclusions of the expert report by the psychiatrists ALLOY Gérald and CANTERINO Jean filed on May 12, 2009 almost 3 and a half months later, and with a period of 20 days to formulate observations

– September 9, 2009: filing of his observations on the psychiatric expertise in default of his lawyer

– request by the lawyer for the contact details of FILTERMAN Marc

– March 18, 2010: hearing of FILTERMAN Marc on the feasibility of the phenomena related. He was not kept informed of this hearing either by the examining magistrate or by my official clerk who refused to answer me on the state of the investigation. He was therefore unable to comment on FILTERMAN’s statements.

– April 22, 2010: notice to the party sent by a new JI BLIN Muriel on the fact that the investigation seems to him to be over

– May 10, 2010: filing by him of a request for the purpose of pursuing information article 175 of the CPP

– May 26, 2010: order refusing additional investigative measures issued by JI BLIN Muriel

– May 31, 2010: his notice of appeal against the refusal of the additional investigative measure

– July 1, 2010: order attesting to the office of the president of the chamber of the investigation KLEINMANN Marie-Hélène who says that there is no need to seize the chamber of the investigation of the appeal of May 26, 2010

– September 28, 2010: letter to the new JI MOLINAR-MIN so that he either begins the investigation or dismisses the case so that Mr MARET can appeal to the investigation chamber

– October 5, 2010: notification of dismissal order issued by JI MOLINAR-MIN Antoine

– October 7, 2010: his notice of appeal against the dismissal order

– October 23, 2010: receipt of the date of the hearing for the examination chamber set for November 19, 2010

– October 25, 2010: filing by him of a memorandum for the purposes of communication of the investigation file or of a referral until he has a lawyer

– October 29, 2010: receipt of a postponement of hearing date for November 17, 2010 at 11 a.m.

– November 17, 2010: hearing granting him a deadline to find a lawyer and he is authorized to consult the investigation file at the CA registry

– December 2010: he was authorized to consult the investigation file at the Chambre de l’Instruction of the CA of LYON, but there were no emails concerning the hearing of the technician LE NOUVEAU which contradicted these statements. The clerk again asked the Bourg-en-Bresse TGI for the entire investigation file, which he was able to consult later.

– Beginning of January: submission of his thesis supported by the opinion of two scientific experts validating the feasibility of the phenomena undergone.

– January 14, 2011: hearing in chambers of the council at the CA of Lyon he is told that he finds experts like this on the INTERNET

– March 8, 2011: notification of the judgment of the CI of the CA rejection of its requests

– March 8, 2011 appeal in cassation against the judgment of the CI

– April 4, 2011: reception of his memorandum for the purposes of cassation by the CCCC

– June 8, 2011 receipt of the opinion of the “non-admission” rapporteur adviser validated by article 575 of the CPP

– June 10, 2011: response on the non-admission of the reporting adviser to the CCCC, article 575 has been repealed for almost a year

– July 22, 2011: sending by the CCCC of the opinion of the Advocate General “non-admission” without reasons

– July 25, 2011: call from him to the CCCC registry for clarification on the opinion of the general counsel, he is told that he must send a letter to the criminal registry and that we will send everything to him

– August 16, 2011: sending of his part of his observations on the opinion of the Advocate General, finally the registry sent him nothing and during a reminder he was told that he would have nothing contrary to this that he had been told on the phone on 07/25/2011

– August 25, 2011: sending of an additional statement of his appeal to invoke the violation of the ECHR

– September 6, 2011 CCCC hearing decision not to admit his appeal 

Summary of the instruction and elements to be developed

1/ A delay of more than a year before the prosecutor makes the necessary requisitions for the opening of the investigation for a complaint filed for physical and psychological torture. This with a flagrant poor qualification, no consideration of his disability or of the torture which makes him lose the benefit of legal aid for torture. Moreover he thinks that Mr MARET was summoned by the JI CLEMENT for March 5, 2008 by the fact that he asked the public prosecutor of the CA of LYON for the expatriation of his complaint. It was 2 days after he sent his expatriation request to the Attorney General that he received his request for a hearing. 

2/ A period of two and a half years was necessary for the first act of investigation to be carried out and communicated to him, that is to say the psychiatric report. Incidentally, no order from Judge PILLOT Frédéric has been served on him on this expert decision,  

3/ The people of the instruction never looked for the materiality of the facts. While this was a simple and inexpensive process. 

4/ Why so many investigating judges 5 investigating judges in less than 4 years 

5/ Why he was only interviewed by judge CLEMENT Sylvie when Mr MARET could have explained his elements to successive judges if they had been interested in his case 

6 / How is it that another complaint he had filed against a person and which was not investigated and that the dismissal had not been communicated to him more than 10 years after the classification, is found in his complaint which had nothing to do with for comment in a report of the people of the gendarmerie of MIRIBEL, he often comes to see us therefore he is persecuted or paranoid, closure of the complaint. At the time of this complaint, the gendarme who had interviewed him had told him that the Prosecutor had told him to tell him that it was not sure that he would have an answer… 

7/ The instruction people apparently took no account of all the technical documentation that was in the instruction file 

8/ At the Investigation Chamber, no account was taken of the reports of scientific experts that he had produced and we relied solely on certain points given by FILTERMAN, taking care to discard what accredited his say. The elements of Mr. FILTEMAN were erroneous because Mr. FILTERMAN was looking for the source of the disturbing elements near his place of residence when he had specified that these facts took place in all places and all hours, his argument did not hold. Due to the fact that He was in no way informed of his hearing either by the investigating magistrate or by his officially appointed lawyer who no longer answered him, he was unable to explain these contradictions to the instruction and dismantle this aberrant classification. 

9/ When he was able to consult the investigation file at the registry of the Investigation Chamber, he noticed that some documents were missing: emails exchanged between the expert FILTERMAN and the policeman in charge of the rogatory commission which validated certain points and which had been ruled out during the investigation to issue the dismissal order.  

********** 

He seized the European Court of Human Rights which rejected his request you can consult it on his INTERNET homepage , this despite a well presented and substantiated request of 405 pages in total. 

********** 

* September 28, 2012, he was able to be received by the Prosecutor TARRARE of the TGI of BOURG-EN-BRESSE territorially competent and he had explained to her his case and the judicial aberrations which had characterized it. He had moreover in his complaint of February 22, 2007 requested expatriation which had been refused to him. 

After a tough interview, he was able to obtain from this Prosecutor to be interviewed by the MIRIBEL(01) Gendarmerie as part of a preliminary investigation.

His problem is characterized in particular by projections of sound waves and shock waves on his brain which can take place anywhere and at any time.

In order to prove the reality of the facts to this magistrate who was moving towards the psychiatric path in his opinion, he had asked her to make recordings to materialize the facts.

He was interviewed by a judicial police officer from the MIRIBEL gendarmerie, he told him that he wanted recordings and that the criminals were probably using satellite technologies.

Shortly after, on December 18, 2012, Prosecutor TARRARE closed her complaint with the following comment:  »  To follow up on our interview of September 28, 2012 and the investigations that I had carried out at your home, I regret to let you know that it has not been demonstrated the existence of sound or other manifestations of which you would be the victim and which could receive any criminal qualification. Under these conditions, I can only dismiss your complaint…  ”. 

He replied to this Prosecutor with the following terms: “  I receive your notice of classification, attached copy, today. You suggest that you have carried out investigations at my home and you declare: « that it has not been demonstrated the existence of sound or other manifestations of which you would be a victim and which could receive any criminal qualification  « . Apart from the visit of the investigative gendarme three times to my home, no one came to make recordings to my knowledge. Did you make recordings without my knowledge? But then how to establish the facts if during this period I did not notice anything either, there was no confrontation of perception. How to deduce from it that I do not undergo such or such facts. Your post is confusing me. » 

He was able to obtain the copy of the preliminary investigation and of course no recording in any form had been made. So how could this Prosecutor to whom he had informed of his case once again close his case by invoking such a totally unfounded argument?

He appealed against this unfounded decision before the General Prosecutor of the LYON Court of Appeal.

Well the magistrate CAPERAN Francine of the AC of LYON confirmed the classification.

 **********

 * January 14, 2013 He wrote to the Minister of Justice Mrs TAUBIRA Christiane for a possible appeal of this aberrant decision, without response he relaunched on March 14, 2013 then May 21, 2013. These 3 shipments were by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt that he received in return. Having no news he called the Ministry where he was told after research on their databases that there was no trace of his letters he was told to retransmit my file to the DACG which he did on September 25, 2013, who retransmitted to the Court of Appeal of LYON where it is still the General Advocate CAPERAN Francine who was responsible for this review and who refused to rule. He therefore contacted the DACG again on January 3, 2014, which once again forwarded his case to the LYON Court of Appeal for examination. As a security measure, he personally gave the copy of the preliminary investigation filed at the LYON Court of Appeal on February 20, 2014. It was magistrate FERON who was in charge of the file. Despite several reminders, he only received a response on September 15, 2014 to a phone call from him to his secretary Mrs. ERADE for the new classification of the preliminary investigation. As notified to you on several occasions by my predecessor, I confirm the decision to classify without follow-up ordered by the Public Prosecutor of Bourg-en-Bresse and invite you to refer to the letters which have been sent to you in this regard.  « .

His appeal, forwarded a second time by the DACG of the Ministry of Justice, was not unfounded and the joint preliminary investigation confirmed this aberration. In order not to risk a denial of justice, the magistrate FERON Vincent like his predecessor invokes an unsuspected appeal decision. Who cares about him, he made a second appeal which was validated by the Ministry of Justice DACG and it took 9 months and such a service on such a sensitive file.

 **********

 * August 8, 2013 On the advice of the investigating policeman to whom he explained the classification by the Prosecutor TARRARE Marie-Christine of his case, he wrote to the new Prosecutor of Bourg-en-Bresse MONDON Denis explaining to him the aberrations in the examination of his complaint. On October 16, 2013, he was able to obtain the classification opinion where the prosecution qualifies the facts as « noise, noise, noise pollution, endangering others, provocation to suicide, physical and psychological violence » without once again retaining the torture and then his classification by declaring « the facts of which you complained are not punishable by law ». It’s totally awesome!!! These elements are on its home page. 

********** 

* November 5, 2014 He sent a file to the General Inspectorate of Judicial Services on his case also supported by his testimony book in order to have his case investigated and the judicial dysfunctions he suffered. January 13, 2015 Mr. Luc SALEN secretary General of the IGSJ replies that the IGSJ cannot act on its own.

 ********** 

* December 17, 2014 and January 5 He alerted the Regional Prefect Mr. Jean-François CARENCO about his case. On that date, he had not received the response from the IGSJ. He obtained a response from the Ain prefecture, to which the regional prefect had retransmitted his file, who replied, « The principle of the separation of powers prevents me from investigating this case, because it comes under the authority judicial” Then a response from the Regional Prefecture in the same direction.

********** 

*February 23, 2015  He wrote to the Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals, Mrs. TAUBIRA Christiane, asking her to contact the General Inspectorate of Judicial Services following his letter to the IGSJ on November 5, 2014 and their response. He contacted the Minister of Justice on May 4, 2015 by registered mail. To date (November 11, 2018) he has not received any response from these steps.

 ********** 

* December 7, 2015 He wrote to the Chief of Staff of the Prefect of Ain to help him obtain a response from the Minister of Justice TAUBIRA Christiane on his dispatch of February 23, 2015 and his various reminders remained in vain . It took more than 4 and a half months for him to obtain a written response with always the same answer « independence of powers ». He thinks that sensible people can’t leave him like this given the size of his business… 

********** 

* January 18, 2016 On the advice of a gendarme, he requested the opening of a preliminary investigation (judicial information and administrative information) following his file submitted to the prefecture on December 7, 2015. This investigation was closed on April 27, 2016 by the Bourg-en-Bresse public prosecutor’s office without any examination. 

********** 

* May 11, 2016 He appealed the decision of April 27, 2016 to close the preliminary investigation by the TGI of Bourg-en-Bresse to the General Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of LYON, arguing on this classification. On September 27, 2016, Substitute General CHAPLAIN David of the CA of LYON replies to him: « Your various letters do not bring any new element, except to criticize the judicial and administrative treatment of your requests, whether it is the Prefecture, the gendarmerie, the judicial institution or the services of the Keeper of the Seals. Consequently, the various criticisms at the level of the general prosecutor’s office on this point will not be followed up. » 

**********

 * May 28, 2018 New complaint with civil action filed with the Dean of the Investigating Judges of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Bourg-en-Bresse (01). Complaint strongly supported by reports by scientific experts, articles by journalists, a list of new facts and elements on the potentiality of recovering what he experienced which would have been recorded for a significant period by a person he knows but who refuses to collaborate this person would have negotiated for him being affected by « ricochet » in his case. ‘inform’ on August 3, 2018. So new classification of his case without any instruction by dismissing his elements. 

********** 

* November 12, 2018 He seized the Minister of Justice Mrs BELLOUBET Nicole to intervene with the General Inspectorate of Justice with regard to the processing of his file by the French justice and triggers an investigation in this respect and that if French justice refuses to investigate his case that it compensates him for his damage by the CIVI. As of November 5, 2019, no response from this Minister or these services, which are of course unreachable. (almost a year later) 

********** 

* June 18, 2020  The Investigating Chamber of the LYON Court of Appeal confirmed the « Refusal to inform » order of Judge BATAILLARD Carole of the Bourg-en-Bresse TGI rendered on August 3, 2018 by arguing that the facts cannot be qualified, which is totally aberrant and contrary to the facts that on several occasions had qualified these facts in particular as torture, which is flagrant. So we don’t want to investigate his case. So more than 2 years lost since his last complaint of May 28, 2018….

********** 

* July 22, 2020  He contacted the Minister of Justice DUPOND-MORETTI Eric to intervene in his case. He asked him in particular to seize the General Inspection of Justice which only he can seize it. The Minister cannot let his affair pass in view of its stakes for the individual freedoms of presumably everyone. As of June 2, 2021, no return in any form. He made several telephone reminders to his Ministry but of course we refused to give him anyone. He also left several messages on the website of the Ministry of Justice and that of the Prime Minister CASTEX and indeed no return (we never acknowledge receipt of messages posted on these 2 websites…) 

********** 

* August 3, 2020   He sent his file to the National Central Bureau of INTERPOL France in NANTERRE. He had no feedback from this approach despite the extent of his file and the stakes on the individual freedoms of probably everyone. We refuse to give him anyone on the phone. They do not want to deal with individuals (although in January 2004 he had nevertheless been received in NANTERRE by an INTERPOL commander who was ready to take his file if the Examining Judge of the time KRAMER-DAURAT made him an international rogatory commission, and well 2 days after having made this request to this magistrate she issued a dismissal order)

 ********** 

* January 25, 2021    he transmitted his file to the General Secretariat of INTERPOL in LYON explaining his unsuccessful steps, in particular with the Central Bureau of INTERPOL France and the Minister of Justice DUPOND-MORETTI Eric. got no feedback. On the phone we refuse to give him anyone, we don’t deal with individuals. In view of his file, it is more than surprising. We do not understand… 

********** 

* February 9, 2021    He seized by email the Deputy Yaël BRAUN-PIVET president of the law commission at the National Assembly so that she seizes the Minister of Justice DUPOND-MORETTI Eric so that he responds to my file sent July 22, 2020 remained without any response. After a first engaging response on the interest of his case, nothing came of it despite his detailed explanations. His parliamentary attaché Mr PINCHON after several reminders gives him a “Norman” answer and kicks in touch to do nothing.  

********** 

* March 26, 2021    He submitted a letter to the Brigade Commander, Lieutenant TASSIN, so that he could intervene in his case by directly contacting INTERPOL, because INTERPOL refuses to deal with individuals. He made two reminders to the MIRIBEL gendarmerie brigade to find out what had been done with his file by this brigade commander. No response to this title… 

**********

 * May 14, 2021     No response from Lieutenant TASSIN, commander of the MIRIBEL Gendarmerie Brigade. He sent her a follow-up by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, sending her the entire file submitted on March 26, 2021 to the MIRIBEL brigade. As of June 2, 2021, he has had no news from this brigade commander. 

**********

 * January 11, 2022     He wrote to the President of the Republic MACRON Emmanuel (his file consisted of 310 pages). Initially by a telephone follow-up, the Presidency of the Republic replies to him that he will not have an answer because his letter of file was described as « confused remarks », it is without comment (you will find the letter to MACRON Emmanuel on its WEB page ). Then following his insistence he finally received a letter reply from the Presidency of the Republic of Mr BLONDEL Brice again invoking the separation of powers to do nothing. What courage and sense of individual liberties,

However, he had explained in his letter that he could not invoke the independence of powers with regard to the stakes for individual freedoms. He replied by email to the presidency of the republic on February 9, 2022 and reminded him of the terms of the Article 424-1 of the Penal Code: « The fact, for anyone having knowledge of a crime of which it is still possible to prevent or limit the effects, or whose perpetrators are likely to commit new crimes which could be prevented, failing to inform the judicial or administrative authorities is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 Euros. 

****************** 

This is how French justice and institutions have positioned themselves on his extraordinary case.

The only answers that we make to his case is the psychiatrization of his file or his refusal to inform by denials of justice in particular

.It is obviously a sensitive file. The investigation of his case should lead to illegal wiretapping. What he was able to observe is that the criminals who subject him to these phenomena are able to reproduce the voices in real time of people who are in his environment (not necessarily people he knows), which implies that they know how to locate them and know how to reproduce their voice so they have listened to them before in his opinion in order to be able to broadcast and make their remarks with the accent of these people.

From where how many people are we to be listened to and for how long?

Only the instruction of his case will be able to reveal it. We therefore ask you by his request to defend the individual freedoms of everyone. 

We ask you to help him because he cannot cope alone. He needs either testimonials or a petition to revive the institutions (justice, President of the Republic, Minister of Justice). 

If justice refuses to investigate his case as it has done so far, it should recognize his status as a victim and compensate him for the damage suffered.

He has created an Internet page where a good part of his steps and the answers that have been given to him to explain his case are scanned because the French justice refuses to instruct him: www.ain-justice.fr 

He has also produced a testimonial book to this title “  Le mur des çons  ” available at the FNAC which he is sending you.

Özler ATALAY YÜKSELOĞLU – Independent Journalist