Luzern Lion Monument, Albanian Female Whistleblowers: Swiss jurists were cowards
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock.
Fri, 16 Jan 2026
In a previous post, we looked at how Debianists wanted to use Swiss police to find and arrest whisteblowers who use Proton Mail. As it turns out, the Swiss police had already arrested the Albanian female whisteblowers at Zurich airport in 2017.
After being released from custody, the whistleblowers visited the famous Lion monument in the city of Luzern.
This is Anisa Kuci and Kristi Progri from the famous Open Labs hackerspace in Albania, now working for GNOME Foundation:
In medieval times, Swiss guards were mercenaries who bravely offered protection to kings and queens in all the royal courts of Europe. Their role was similar to that of the Cuban guards assigned to protect the president of Venezuela.
Today, the only remaining Swiss guard unit protects the Pope in the Vatican. The other units were all disbanded.
The Lion monument honors 760 guards who lost their lives in the service of the French royal court. They were overrun by a much larger force, they held their ground only to be massacred during the French Revolution in 1792.
While the Swiss guards were commended for their bravery, Swiss jurists, such as those we examine on the JuristGate web site have been nothing but despicable cowards.
When the Software Freedom Institute was founded in 2021, IBM Red Hat was terrified and sent lawyerists to harass the Institute. The Institute had purchased Swiss legal protection insurance and immediately asks the Swiss jurists to help defend the Institute from IBM Red Hat. The Jurists were terrified and made up excuses, running away to hide behind the skirts of mother Helvetica:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Red Hat, Inc. v. Daniel Pocock / Software Freedom Institute SA - FA2201001980642 - Commencement - E-mail 3/3 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:18:22 -0800 From: PT Partners <info@ptpartners.ch> To: daniel@softwarefreedom.institute
Chère cliente, cher client, cher partenaire,
Votre message a bien été réceptionné. Nous vous répondrons aussi vite que possible. Suite à l'envoi de votre courriel, merci de ne pas écrire de mails supplémentaires jusqu'à la prise de contact de l'un de nos collaborateurs.
En raison des féries judiciaires, nos délais de réponse minimums sont suspendus. Nous vous reviendrons cependant au plus vite.
Cordialement,
-- Mathieu Parreaux Associé
Parreaux, Thiébaud & Partners Département juridique Avenue des Grandes Communes 8 1213 Petit-Lancy 022 342 38 94
Second response, four days later...
Subject: Re: Fwd: Red Hat, Inc. v. Daniel Pocock / Software Freedom Institute SA - FA2201001980642 - Commencement - E-mail 3/3 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 06:39:55 -0800 From: Mathieu Parreaux <m.parreaux@ptpartners.ch> To: daniel@softwarefreedom.institute
Bonjour,
Merci pour votre courriel. Je le traiterai aussi rapidement que possible. Mes délais de réponse sont de 1 à 3 jours ouvrables. Si vous êtes un client Platinum et que le cas est urgent, vous pouvez me joindre sur mon portable personnel.
Cordialement,
-- / [L’excellence au travers des actes]/ / /__ / Mathieu Parreaux
Managing Partner https://www.ptpartners.ch/
Siège de Genève____ Av. des Grandes-Communes 8 1213 Petit-Lancy 022 342 38 94
A skeleton response was prepared by the Institute and sent to the jurists to help them get started:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Red Hat, Inc. v. Daniel Pocock / Software Freedom Institute SA - FA2201001980642 - Commencement - E-mail 3/3 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:01:54 +0100 From: Luc Zimmermann <l.zimmermann@ptpartners.ch> To: Daniel Pocock <daniel@softwarefreedom.institute> CC: PT Partners <info@ptpartners.ch>, Mathieu Parreaux <m.parreaux@ptpartners.ch>
Cher Monsieur,
Merci de votre message et ses annexes.
J'ai répondu audit message ce jour sur la chaîne d'e-mails principale/pertinente.
Avec mes sentiments dévoués,
/ / /__ / Luc Zimmermann
Titulaire du brevet d'avocat https://www.ptpartners.ch/
Siège de Genève____ Avenue des Grandes-Communes 8 1213 Petit-Lancy 022 342 38 94
Le mar. 22 févr. 2022 à 15:39, Daniel Pocock <daniel@softwarefreedom.institute> a écrit :
Bonjour
Ils demandent un réponse ce semaine, jusqu'à 28.02.2022
J'ai trouvé quelque preuves et j'ai ecrit un skeleton du réponse, ci-joint
Daniel
The following morning, Luc Zimmermann sends an excuse about not helping victims of UDRP harassment in Switzerland.
Subject: Re: Fwd: Red Hat, Inc. v. Daniel Pocock / Software Freedom Institute SA - FA2201001980642 - Commencement - E-mail 3/3 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:32:52 +0100 From: Luc Zimmermann <l.zimmermann@ptpartners.ch> To: Daniel Pocock <daniel@softwarefreedom.institute> CC: PT Partners <info@ptpartners.ch>, Mathieu Parreaux <m.parreaux@ptpartners.ch>
Cher Monsieur,
Merci de votre retour.
Je prends bonne note qu'il ne s'agit pas du même cas que celui pour lequel je vous ai adressé un e-mail séparé de réponse le 22.02.22 (à 16h01).
Nous prenons en charge des cas qui relèvent du droit suisse, p. ex. un litige à l'étranger qui a un for en Suisse et a pour droit applicable le droit suisse, de sorte que, comme dit, ici, nous ne pouvons entrer en matière.
Vous remerciant de votre compréhension, je vous prie d'agréer, cher Monsieur, mes salutations distinguées,
/ /
/__ / Luc Zimmermann
Titulaire du brevet d'avocat https://www.ptpartners.ch/
Siège de Genève____ Avenue des Grandes-Communes 8 1213 Petit-Lancy 022 342 38 94
The jurist who sent these excuses, Luc Zimmermann, is also a member of Le Centre (The Center) political party and he has a prominent role in the Geneva Municipal Council. The same political party has been linked to conflicts of interest in the prosecution of the Crans-Montana tragedy.
The Institute's director had to spend a whole Sunday preparing the response to the UDRP harassment on his own.
The legal panel ruled that the UDRP case was created for the purpose of harassing the Institute and it was an abuse of the administrative procedure.
In these circumstances, why were the Swiss jurists so cowardly?
In their marketing, they claim that no case is ever rejected.
Consider the irony: the cowardly jurists were unwilling to defend the UDRP case even though the Institute was on the right side of the law. Yet it was the jurists themselves who were usurping the reputation of the legendary Tissot boss Francois Thiébaud. █
Conflict of Interest disclaimer: the author has resided in Switzerland, he has taken the Swiss citizenship oath and, from time to time, been party to legal and contractual relationships involving parties referenced in the JuristGate reports. The nature of these relationships is often declared within the research reports although we can't rule out the possibility some relationships or influences have not been explicitly itemized within every report.