01.23.16
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 8:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Debian, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 7:54 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Palabras de advertencia acerca de la dirección tomada por la Fundación Linux, donde el impacto de Micro$oft ha crecido considerablemente y el rol de la comunidad ha dismínuido o completamente decimado.
Hoy es un día especial. Es día del Pinguino, pero poniendo aparte Linux y su mascota, no hay mucho que celebrar por que la Fundación Linux se esta pudriendo. La Fundación de Software Libre FSF es para la Fundación Linux lo que astronomía (ciencia) es para la astrología (negocio basado en seudo ciencia) y habiendo tratado de BORRAR GNU FROM LA HISTORIA* (fenomeno común), la Fundacion Linux ahora borra e ignora el rol que individuos han asumido en el desarollo del sistema. Intentamos o por lo menos guíamos a pensar que la kernel, Linux, está silenciosamente ´conquistada´ por un consorcio de corporaciones, muchos de los cuales tienen LEALTADES MIXTAS (no sólo a Linux).
“Intentamos o por lo menos guíamos a pensar que la kernel, Linux, está silenciosamente ´conquistada´ por un consorcio de corporaciones, muchos de los cuales tienen LEALTADES MIXTAS (no sólo a Linux).”Cubrimiento de la OEP nos ha impedido de cubrir acerca la Fundación de Linux como solíamos hacer, incluyendo PAGOS DE MICROSOFT, SERVICIOS PARA MICROSOFT, y abandono de las obligaciones del GPL por que éstos fueron trás los ejecutivos de Microsoft que manejan VMWare.
Matthwe Garred sugirió un punto importante y preguntó: ¨¿La Fundación Linux abandonó cualquier semblanza de comunidad representativa porque tiene MIEDO DE LAS OBLIGACIONES DEL GPL (Licencia Pública General)?¨
Ya hay cubrimiento proveniente de la denuncia originaria [1], que ha sido mencionada en muchos lugares hasta ahora, e.g [2, 3]. Hemos recibido la evidencia de arriba que sirve a reforzare esas denuncias que la Fundación Linux sigue navegando a cualquier lugar donde este el dinero (compañías que tratan de controlar o dominar Linux). La Fundación Linux NO representa Linux users (OSDL difícilmente pretendió hacerlo) pero muchas compañías de hardware que quieren influenciar el/los proceso[s] desarrollador. La Fundación Linux abandonó las obligaciones de la GPL por el caso de VMware. Esto es un buen ejemplo de E.E.E. El último disfraz de open de Microsoft, por instancia, le ayudó a obtener control/dominio a costo de V8, en el mismo modo que un pie dentro de la Fundación Linux (con la ayuda de Novell) dejo a Microsoft injectar código violatorio a la GPL dentro de la kernel (Linux), promoviendo el PROPRIETARIO Hyper-V a costa de FOSS hypervisors.
“Hemos recibido la evidencia de arriba que sirve a reforzare esas denuncias que la Fundación Linux sigue navegando a cualquier lugar donde es te el dinero (compañías que tratan de controlar o dominar Linux).”NO HAY ¨Nuevo¨ Microsoft. ¨Microsoft no añadió apoyo al OpenDocumente Format para iOS y Mac OS X,¨ por instancia. Microsoft sólo quiere PROMOVER SU CANDADO PROPIETARIO. Eso es lo que Microsoft hace dentro de Android, dentro de Linux, incluso dentro de Debian estos días. Hay por lo menos un empleado de Microsoft infiltrado dentro de Debian,¨ iphk nos advirtió, citándo esta página de Microsoft. ¨José Miguel Parrella,¨ dice es un ¨desarrollador de Debian y miembro del equipo de estrategía (recuerden E.E.E) ´abierta´de Microsoft.¨ -¿Cómo puedes combinarse lo LIBRE con lo PROPIETARIO, ESCLAVIZADOR´?- Recuerden que la Fundación Linux está llena de ¨antiguos¨ empleados de Microsoft), incluso en posiciones de gerencia. Debian en luz de algún acuerdo con Microsfot (no tuvimos tiempo de cubrir) debe estar al cuidado ya que esta sucediendo un E.E.E. La Fundación Linux también esta en riesgo de convertirse obsoleta (a nuestros usuarios boycoteemos sus certficaciones), (perdida de apoyo público) porque públicamente ¨APOYA LAS CORPORACIONES NO A LA COMUNIDAD,¨ para citar el títular de hoy de Susan Linton, fundadora de Tux Machines. Para convertir a la Fundación Linux un fuerte jugador a favor de copyleft (e.g. GPL obligaciones) ayuden a elegir a la FSF- y SFLC Karn Sandler. Ella está postulando a la Fundación Linux Board de Directores. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
The Linux Foundation is an industry organisation dedicated to “promoting, protecting and standardising Linux and open source software”[1]. The majority of its board is chosen by the member companies – 10 by platinum members (platinum membership costs $500,000 a year), 3 by gold members (gold membership costs $100,000 a year) and 1 by silver members (silver membership costs between $5,000 and $20,000 a year, depending on company size). Up until recently individual members ($99 a year) could also elect two board members, allowing for community perspectives to be represented at the board level.
-
Matthew Garrett, kernel contributor and social activist, today posted of his discovery of a little change at the Linux Foundation. The foundation left regular users and individual developers behind for large corporate sponsors years ago, but today Garrett said they made it official. One little clause was removed from the by-laws, but it removes so much more from the foundation.
-
The Linux Foundation has given its clearest indication yet that it caters to corporates rather than the community, by making it impossible for community representatives to be elected to its board.
____
* In a very recent Linux Foundation video, GNU is only mentioned as a joke (“they make me say it”).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The latest EPO protest photographed
This picture was taken in the Erhardtstraße in Munich, in front of the EPO seat
Summary: The unrest at the EPO escalates as after many public protests/demonstrations even strikes are in the making
YESTERDAY evening we gave some details about the latest EPO protests and more that have yet to take place. The anger is justified and the actions have been rather effective for numerous reasons we covered here before.
Based on the latest status report, which we have seen thanks to some readers, there is a strike petition is managed by an independent lawyer. It’s probably going to happen considering the success of recent petitions.
Call for strike in accordance with Circular 347 “Lawfulness at the EPO”
The undersigned, noting:
- the dismissal of two elected staff representatives on 15 January 2016 and the severe downgrading of a third
- their lack of confidence that the procedure conducted against these colleagues complied with sound European legal principles based on Human Rights
- the sustained deterioration of the legal framework under which EPO staff work since the current President took office
request:
- the immediate suspension of the disciplinary measures against the three staff representatives
- a truly independent review of the cases against the staff representatives by a body that enjoys the full trust of both the management and the staff of the EPO
- the revocation of all recent changes to the Service Regulations and their implementing texts concerning the legal framework, including:
- Social Democracy
- Strike regulations
- Internal Appeals Reform
- Health and sick-leave regulations
- Investigation guidelines
- Reform on invalidity
- the initiation of open and fair negotiations between management and staff representatives, led by an internationally recognised mediator/conciliator
For the above reasons, the undersigned call for the organisation of a ballot among all staff at the EPO on the question of a single day of office-wide strike during the month of March 2016.
In addition to that, we have become aware of another action/protest. It took place a day before the Munich protest (pictured above). We’ve learned from sources about actions at The Hague for example. “The announced GA that took place Tuesday 19.01,” we’ve learned, “was [went] very well a ended and the with all seats filled (ca. 700-800 persons).”
“Munich,” in addition to that, “joined by colleagues from Vienna,” had “the announced Demonstration on the 20.01 in front of the Bayerische Staatskanzlei” and it “was as usual peaceful and very well a ended with 1300 participants according to the police.
“A petition was handed over to the German authorities, repeating the claims that had earlier been approved by staff in a General Assembly on 17.11.2015, now calling on the Bavarian government to use its influence to find solutions to the present situation.”
There was also action in Berlin as “despite the freezing weather, the second “Mahnwache” in this new year was well a ended,” we’ve learned.
Based on the above, despite the sacking of representatives, the actions are only intensifying, demonstrating yet again that EPO managers fail to understand the Streisand Effect. Their union-busting efforts backfire in a very major way and may culminate in strikes (cessation of work) in a couple of months from now. It gets even worse for EPO managers, for reasons we shall mention later (in a separate post). █
“Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
–George Orwell
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 5:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What people say behind the mask of anonymity
Summary: A series of anonymous comments from the IP Kat blog say various things about the EPO management which ought to be recorded permanently, just in case of further censorship attempts
THE LEVEL of unrest at the EPO has increased following the dismissal of staff representatives. The comments in IP Kat are quite telling. Anonymous commenters flock there to express anger.
One person wrote the following comment the other day:
Interesting theory I heard from an HR services company.
They often encounter CEOs that push for contract prolongation, and directly afterwards start doing more and more questionable things, and make themselves totally unwanted by staff, until the board of contractors fire him. The golden handshake simply is larger that way…
They often see it with CEOs well beyond retirement age. Those do not make themselves unemployable by others, as they actually want to retire, but also want a big golden handshake.
A real problem exists for those who (silently) supported the CEO, as those get burned by his tactic and become unemloyable for other companies, but won’t get such a nice golden handshake.
But the EPO is a political body, this tactic seems to be more difficult to achieve, if that even is the case.
Here is an apt response to the HR aspect (we have a lot more coming some other day regarding EPO HR):
¨Further, the service regulations can be changed at will, as the EPO personal recently found out: career cuts, suppression of invalidity insurance, etc… When you enter the EPO, you sign a contract which you have to respect under penalty of being fired and have your pension cuts… and the EPO can change its end of the deal whenever they want. This kind of contract have a legal name, but nobody realized what they were really offered when they entered the EPO. Now they realize but they can’t get out.¨.
When this is true the advertisement asking for new examiners and other staff of the EPO should mention this. Also the SUEPO has an information task. Everything possible should be used to change these rules. Such contracts are against all existing national rules and laws.This is something for the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) is a supranational or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols. The contracting states, in particular The Netherlands and Germany are tolerating the terrible situation in the EPO.
There is also discussion about the legal status of the EPO, for instance:
Dear Mr Kilroy, the European Patent Office does not adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights. Your request is therefore irreceivable.
Sorry to be blunt, but you are not the first person to suggest to go to this or that court, etc… Much have been tried, and the EPO always won in the last instance on the simple ground of immunity. How long will it take before people start to realize that there is no legal recourse whatsoever against the EPO?
The problem is with the system. There is NO legal recourse.
This is valid for all parties: staff, European patent attorneys and applicants. It is just that it has only be used against staff at present.
Regarding immunities:
The President does indeed seem to believe that the EPO is totally immune from national law, but this is not what the EPC says. Art 8 EPC: [the EPOrg and EPO employees] “shall enjoy…the privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of their duties”. Those “duties” surely mean the granting of patents and nothing more.
Similarly Article 3(1) of the protocol on privileges and immunities states: “Within the scope of its official activities the Organisation shall have immunity from jurisdiction and execution”, and Article 3(4) “The official activities of the Organisation shall, for the purposes of this Protocol, be such as are strictly necessary for its administrative and technical operation, as set out in the Convention.”
So: only official activities are immune, official activities being things strictly necessary for performing the EPC. This is not a blanket immunity, despite what the president might say!
What would happen, for example, if a crime such as assault or theft was committed in the EPO premises in Munich? Clearly this is not immune according to the above definitions, and the Munich police would be involved.
However presumably the EPO management/lawyers, if challenged, would argue that breaching human rights is “strictly necessary” for the operation of the EPO – say because various staff activities were somehow impeding the grant of patents.
But note the double-standard here when the president alleged that the suspended board member possessed in the EPO building an item that could be classed as a weapon “under German law”. So clearly national law can be applied when it meets management’s needs.
(German weapons law, by the way, includes in its definition of a weapon portable objects which, due to their properties, method of operation or how they work, are able to remove or reduce humans` ability to attack or defend, *even if not intended for that purpose*. So with the “defendant” gagged and unable to respond, an innocent piece of exercise equipment becomes a “weapon” – when the EPO decides for once that German law is relevant, after all…)
More on the same:
Kilroy (18:00) raises an interesting point, and one that has been bugging me ever since these allegations started leaking out of the EPO.
If we are to believe Team Battistelli, the suspended DG3 member and assorted staff members have been engaged in all manner of “deplorable” activities: slander, defamation, intimidation, threats of violence, hacking, hoarding of fascist propaganda, stockpiling of weapons, and so on and so forth to ever more fanciful extremes.
Perhaps some or all of these are offences under, say, German or Dutch law. But the EPO repeatedly asserts total immunity from any jurisdiction. So according to what law do these activities – even if they *have* taken place, which is far from being proven to any degree, let alone beyond reasonable doubt – constitute an offence within the walls of the EPO? German law does not apply in Munich HQ, nor Dutch law in the Hague branch, or so we are asked to believe. That being the case, how have the accused employees committed any offence?
Presumably the ServRegs are the source of “law”. Now, I can believe that these might foresee the need to deal with everyday workplace disciplinary matters such as bullying and harassment. But did the authors really have the foresight to include, say, storage of propaganda, or weapons? I find this hard to believe.
Can any insiders shed any light here?
“FormerExaminer” writes:
The immunity from the ECHR applies to the EPO, and all cases I have heard of have attempted to bring the EPO to court.
However, the member states are not immune from the ECHR, and they could be brought to court for signing an agreement (the EPC) which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
And then this:
The member states, in particular the Netherlands and Germany, are not immune from the ECHR. They could be brought to court for signing an agreement (the EPC) which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There are a lot of such incompatibilities as follows inter alia from the Judgment of the Dutch Court of Appeal
(26/02/2015) The Office has progressively and severely eroded a number of fundamental union and human rights. The countries are aware of these incompatibilities and wrongnesses and tolerates them and accept the catastrophic situation within the EPO.
More on the lawlessness:
A reason more for very soon a diplomatic conference to change this for Europe, the small industries/applicants and the examiners wrong and dangerous EPC. The absence of applicable law and the absence of a competent tribunal should be changed soon.The european states are “constitutional states” in which the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the law. It is the opposite of a state based on the arbitrary use of power.
Now regarding the role of the Administrative Council (AC):
It becomes clearer, why the AC members sit on their hands. The more they protest, the more vindictive BB gets, venting his ever-growing pleen against those employees that incur his displeasure.
If you sat on the AC, with one vote in 38, what would you do?
One person responded with: “err, grow a pair?
“The AC: spineless, careerist, self-interested. To misquote a misquoute: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Here is a more polite response to that:
If you sat on the AC, with one vote in 38, what would you do?
The Rule of Law, respect of Human Rights are not a matter of “votes” (“… and the results are … 18 for and 20 against – the proposal to abide to the Rule of Law and Human Rights at the European Patent Office is therefore rejected by this Administrative Council. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. We will now pass to the next important topic on the agenda … oh yes, the colour of the moquette in new building at the Hague …”).
It’s not a matter of “what would you do?”.
It’s a matter of “what you should do”.
Now a similar scenario involving WIPO (we covered this before) is brought up:
The member states are more immune from the ECHR than you think. Violations in international organizations are not that uncommon. Just staying in patent world: what happened to the staff representative fired at WIPO last year?
I should also insist that the legal vacuum does not only concern examiners. To take a known example: after the criticism raised during the Inventor of the Year event, Battistelli decided to lower the priority for French searches in retribution against the speech of Ms. Lemaire (the EPO searches for the French patent office since the times of the IIB). The examiners had no choice, because they will get bad marks if they don’t process the files in the order the computer presents them, a change introduced last year.
Basically, French searches were delayed about 2 months in comparison to PCT searches for US applicants. One can easily figure out that this may put French applicants at a disadvantage, given that these early searches are used to take a decision to pursue or not the file during the priority year.
Do you think French applicants have a way to complain about that revengeful decision? No, they don’t. There is simply no applicable law and no competent tribunal.
Other patent offices are being mentioned too:
Of course there are some revolutionary souls amongst us who wonder why the EPO is search French national applications (or for that matter Belgian and Italian applications) and PCT applications filed at the USPTO when it has such an enormous backlog of European applications awaiting search and examination.
An examiner-turned-lawyer wrote:
…and before someone objects that human examination is needed: Battistelli is French and France had a registration system for patents. France tradition is that examination is not necessary.
Well, of course substantive examination is not actually necessary. The French and Swiss manage very well without it, thank you very much. It’s the applicant’s responsibility to make sure that his claimed invention is new and inventive. Nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone understands what’s expected of them. And you need a decent patent attorney, of course.
If you’re going to have examination, though, you had better make sure that it’s damn good. The worst situation of all is where you have a search and examination process which is held up as being top quality, and is therefore trusted by applicants, opponents, national courts, the UPC…, but is actually pretty shoddy. This leads to all kinds of trouble and expense, but sadly this kind of trouble and expense occurs far beyond the reach of the EPO’s quality monitoring.
I’ll say it again: poor examination favours large corporations at the expense of the little guy. Better not to examine at all if you can’t examine with really excellent quality.
On the matter of loyalty:
It is all in the service regulations actually. These specify that the staff should be “loyal” to the organization. There is some reason in that: somebody criticizing patents in the open would not be acceptable as a patent examiner, for example.
The slight change here is that the EPO changed “loyal to the organization” to “loyal to the president and his friends”.
Techrights is then cited as follows:
EPO Vice-President Loses Defamation Lawsuit — AGAIN!
Sinking deeper and deeper in the mud the EPO is.
Disgraceful all this is.
More about VP4:
All a bit surreal but must raise some questions somewhere. Surely…
The BoA member was accused of spreading defamatory stories about VP4. I can’t remember the full details but the issue seemed to include the allegations about cars which have been at the heart of the case in Croatia which has been settled. And not in VP4′s favour it seems. Maybe there’s another level of appeal to come?
But, in any case, the courts seem to consider that the Croatian lady’s statements were not defamatory. So presumably the BoA member could not be making defamatory statements either?? And the sacked Union chairwoman (even if she did give him help – denied by her I think) could not be assisting in any defamatory act?
A tangled mess. The EBoA may have been right in their analysis and maybe the AC was misled about the certainties? However it plays, nobody comes out of it well but, unfortunately, the only ones who suffer were actually ones who seem to be innocent.
It does raise, again, the question of what laws do apply within the EPO. The vague accusations of defamatory statement making do not specify under what set of laws. Clearly, Croatian law does not consider them defamatory. Does the EPO pick and choose these extra-territorial definitions or does the president make it up as he goes along?
This is an interesting little bit, which might actually have some factual basis:
new cunning action in sight by EPO top management : introduce 5 years’ contract for examiners by the June administrative council…
As a reply to that consider:
(Ref: 5 years contracts.)
That would be consistent with the EPO management pushing automation of search and examination at present. The EPO will need a lot less examiners in 5 years.
…and before someone objects that human examination is needed: Battistelli is French and France had a registration system for patents. France tradition is that examination is not necessary.
One person has just added: “Regarding immunity and the rule of law within the EPO buildings, does EU health and safety law apply? If even arguably not, then how can we, as EU employers, send our staff there e.g. to Oral Proceedings, surely we are then in breach of our duty of care to our employees?
“PS UK should not ratify UPC and EU should not subcontract anything to EPO until these issues are clear.”
Regarding the part which asked, “…does EU health and safety law apply?” one person wrote: “Luckily it’s not required, because the President can rule on such matters.”
Another responded with: “While the answer to this question is unclear, it was noticed that, when stricter smoking regulations were introduced in Germany (designated smoking areas usw.) the EPO quickly adopted a similar policy.”
One person then responded with: “Well, the truth is that all EPO buildings are no smoking zones. The president however had the smoke detectors in his presidential suite on the 10th floor of the Isar building and those in a small room next to the auditorium, which he uses in interruptions of the AC meetings, disconnected. So much for his respect of the law, regulations and – worse – of his staff´s security.”
Another person replied with: “yet the smoke alarms are disabled in certain offices to ensure proper functioning of the office, and at least one person has been relieved of their position because of complaints when someone smoked on their working place…..
“Regarding national law applicable or not: I find it problematic to fire someone because of alleged violations against German law, when no court has decided that the used formulation in the SUEPO financial support clauses are illegal. There have been legal opinions presented by the union that these clauses are legal. The office claims they have a legal opinion of an independent attorney stating otherwise, but they refuse to present it to anyone. This is s.th. a German judge has to decide on, as it relates to German law. But German law is not applicable to the EPO, therefore such a judge’s decission is not necessary.”
The above comments contain new information which we cannot necessarily verify. We find it important to document these for future reference, in case IP Kat suffers the same kinds of SLAPP attacks that we were subjected to. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Patent maximalism: when one wrongly assumes that the more patents, the better
Summary: An outline of news about Monsanto’s EPO patent on melons and some other examples of overzealous patent maximalism
IT IS gradually becoming quite a busy month for EPO actions, even after a reasonably slow start (calm before the dismissals storm). There is a growing backlog of articles about the EPO right now, only some of which relate to the dismissal of staff representatives (we shall cover these later). Among the complaints raised by staff representatives is the declining quality of patents at the EPO.
“The maximalists (patent lawyers and their Web sites in this case) are obviously salivating over UPC.”According to this Web site of patent maximalists, “Litigation map helps EU strategy preperation” [sic]. “An online interactive tool which compares the patent litigation regimes across Europe has been launched by law firm Taylor Wessing,” it says. It seems like an ideal tool for patent trolls, especially under UPC regime, if it ever becomes a reality at all. The maximalists (patent lawyers and their Web sites in this case) are obviously salivating over UPC.
According to other news, after the EPO foolishly granted patents to Monsanto (foreign company pursuing patents on life), there is a revocation. As Agra-net put it: “The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked a patent held by Monsanto on cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus (CYSDV)-resistant melons for “technical reasons”.”
Fruitnet wrote: “Pressure from coalition of NGOs results in decision to rescind seed breeder’s claim to fruit’s potential resistance” (clearly a case of patent maximalism).
IP Watch wrote: “The European Patent Office on 20 January revoked a patent held by Monsanto on virus-resistant melons for technical reasons, much to the glee of opponents of patents on conventional plants.”
“It’s quite revealing and it reminds us who really benefits from such patents. It’s not at all about people in the particular area, e.g. programmers.”We already spent a lot of time (and space) writing about Monsanto about half a decade ago. As Richard Stallman put it around that time (in relation to patents on life, which led to protests in German): “The European Patent Office [...] working for the people who want to crush everyone’s lives with monopolies” (like Monsanto). Stallman also went on to talking about software patents, which European patent lawyers such as Bastian Best keep promoting [1, 2]. He is reposting or posting new links to old articles of his in Twitter these days. It’s quite revealing and it reminds us who really benefits from such patents. It’s not at all about people in the particular area, e.g. programmers. Watch this new press release from Bellerophon Therapeutics [2, 1]. More monopolies, more innovation? It may mean higher profit for the patent office (in the short term) and more money for patent lawyers.
Don’t rely on patent lawyers to explain the value of patents. To them, the more, the merrier. The patent boosters from IAM, for instance, are now saying that the “Latest filing statistics show the growing value being attached to Chinese patents by foreign entities” (it’s called a bubble, especially given the low quality of Chinese patents). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Some political news from France and from Croatia, where Benoît Battistelli and Željko Topić (respectively) come from
THE European Patent Office is under political fire from many directions these days. Some examples that are not publicly known (yet) may be shown here later this month or next month.
According to this new comment: “In a reaction of President Battistelli dated 20 November 2015 (http://www.pyleborgn.eu/2015/11/crise-a-loeb-reponse-du-president-battistelli/ ) on the letter of Pierre-Yves Le Borgn` député des Français de l`étranger dated 18 November 2015 send to Mr. Emmanuel Macron, Ministre de l`Economie et de l`Ìndustrie I read the following:
Battistell: ¨Tout d’abord, il est totalement faux d’affirmer que des « interrogatoires d’une rare violence » auraient été menés. Cela est d’autant plus facile à prouver que ces interviews sont enregistrées. Par ailleurs, il n’est pas acceptable de jeter ainsi le discrédit sur l’unité d’enquête de l’Office, composée de mères et de pères de familles dévoués a une tâche souvent bien difficile mais indispensable dans la lutte contre la fraude, le harcèlement et autres délits qui peuvent déstabiliser notre organisation.¨
In English ¨First of all, it is completely false to affirm that of them ” cross-examinations of a rare violence” would have been led. It is of as much easier to prove than these interviews are recorded. Otherwise, it is not acceptable to throw the discredit thus on the unit of investigation of the office, composed of mothers and fathers of devoted families having a task often very difficult but indispensable in struggle against the fraud, the harassment and other offenses that can destabilize our organization.¨
The commenter added this personal opinion: “Your behavior is disgusting Battistelli. You speak about fathers and mothers in the Investigation Unit. The disciplinary committee did not recommend dismissal for Ion Brumme because he has five children – one is just a baby – and a loan to pay on his house, but YOU Battistelli dismissed him. Shame shame shame. Battistelli writes further that these interviews of the Investigation Unit are recorded. Why was it not allowed to Mrs Els Hardon to make recordings? I am sure you have many things to hide. Of course you will never make public your, perhaps manipulated, recordings. The trial of Mrs Hardon of her disciplinary procedure is missing even elementary fundamental principles of the law.It also seems that Mr R. Lutz feels home in this dictatorial system.”
Not only Battistelli is having political problems.
Željko Topić, Battistelli’s right-hand man, is having his defamation case discontinued after it repeatedly collapsed (and caused great financial damage to the accused) while a new Croatian Government has just been announced.
“It looks like Mr. Topić’s old friend (the former minister Dragan Primorac),” one source told us, “did not make it into the new Croatian government.” (source: “Prime Minister-Designate Orešković Presents New Croatian Government”)
“He had originally been tipped as the most likely candidate for the Foreign Affairs Ministry,” we have been told, “but it could be that the whiff of scandal (relating to Topić) counted against him.”
“In case further prosecution is sought,” we replied, one can “guess there will be fewer strings left to pull from up above.”
We previously showed how Topić was, by the face of it, trying to select politically-connected lawyers for his case. “I am very curious about the other criminal charges allegedly or reportedly pressed against Topić,” I added. The mysteries surrounding Topić in Croatia can help explain union-busting, which seems to be the 'department' of Topić and Raimund Lutz these days. Recall what Topić did in Croatia when people expressed disagreement. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA