06.14.16
Battistelli is Sending Threatening Messages/Letters Again, in Another Desperate Effort to Cover Up His Campaign of Defamation Against EPO Whistleblowers (Updated)
Summary: Battistelli tolerates neither truth-tellers nor reporters, based on his latest (rumoured) actions, which should definitely demonstrate that he needs to be sacked a fortnight from now
Battistelli is off the rails again. His defamation campaign against a judge must apparently remain a closely-guarded secret, unless he controls the media and issues defamatory pieces just weeks after signing that infamous (and secret) FTI Consulting contract. We covered that last year.
“News from the disciplinary case,” one source told us, “which started today at the EPO: inside sources say that Mr. Battistelli sent a threatening message to the Enlarged Board of Appeal dealing with the case, to the effect that they should not let the public be present during the hearing. The EBA is said to take this very seriously and to have forwarded the president’s threat to the chairman of the Administrative Council.”
“…Mr. Battistelli sent a threatening message to the Enlarged Board of Appeal dealing with the case, to the effect that they should not let the public be present during the hearing.”
–AnonymousAs we noted last week, a very small room was chosen, presumably by intention (to discourage public participation).
Is this finally (hopefully) the last straw that would lead to the sacking of Battistelli in 2 weeks? Remember how he also bullied delegates (Administrative Council). That was last year. How much more of this can Mr. Kongstad tolerate? As Board 28 put it, there is now a "crisis" and the entire Organisation, not just the Office (both are called EPO), risks collapse.
“As Board 28 put it, there is now a “crisis” and the entire Organisation, not just the Office (both are called EPO), risks collapse.”Earlier today, in the early morning in fact, we got the following tidbits of information about the hearing (or so-called ‘trial’): “EPO Boards of Appeal trial started some +/- 40 minutes ago. Start of proceedings against mr x. In room 109, one of the smaller rooms. [so they shifted to an even smaller room, not Room 131 which had been booked] Space for about twenty people. Apparently no press! One blogger present! Word is the Administrative Council is split into three factions. One around the Swiss delegation that wants to try to amend the proposals to get something acceptable. One (unidentified) that wants to reject outright. And the death eaters. Voldemort will not allow amendment, so there are likely to be two by the end. ‘Boards of Appeal trial’ in Munich against a judge, whose ‘crime’ seems to be saying the truth about the EPO…”
The main question at this stage is, has any of those attending brought a recording device and, if so, will that person share the audio with the press/bloggers? If only one blogger is present, then it’ll be easy to witch-hunt/punish that person. This is probably what Battistelli and his goons want. It’s also quite likely the reason a very small room got allocated at the 90th minute, in spite of Room 131 (which is also not that big) being available/reserved.
Eponia is quite a crazy place and Battistelli wishes to make it even crazier.
“Is AMBA next to receive threatening letters?”“Surely,” wrote one commenter this morning or last night, “there must be some limits to what can be added to the service regulations, prohibiting post-service employment without compensation seems dodgy to me. Surely as well, there must be some way to impeach Battistelli or to lift his immunity.”
“Meanwhile at the EPO,” said another comment, “AMBA have produced another polite but scathing critique: http://amba-epo.org/”
We covered this the other day. Is AMBA next to receive threatening letters? Recall last month's letters. █
Update: “President wrote to the board,” we learned, “and said public should not be allowed. But public are in for the afternoon. Public were excluded for the morning.”
So much for fair ‘trial’ (or hearing). What is Battistelli so afraid of? To most people it’s a rhetorical question.
Content is available under CC-BY-SA