Bad faith: Hugo Roy knew FSFE impersonating FSF before French tribunal, colleagues deceived
14:00 Tue, 03 Mar 2026
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock.
Lawyers are generally not responsible for the crimes of their clients. If the client lies in court and if the lawyer does not know about the lie then the lawyer can't be held responsible.
However, in cases where the lawyer knowingly and willingly helps a client to deceive the judge there can be extremely serious consequences for the lawyer.
For example, in some recent cases, lawyers have used artificial intelligence to create legal documents. In these cases, it is obvious to everybody the lawyer, not the client, was taking a shortcut.
In the case of the FSFE misfits, we can see that the French lawyer Hugo Roy did an internship with the FSFE misfits in 2009. In 2011, he was added to the General Assembly (GA) of the FSFE. The GA is the private mailing list where insiders and misfits have discussions plotting against the rest of the free software community. It is analogous to the debian-private (leaked) secret cubby house where the rogue debianists do things like making up false rape accusations.
In May 2017, the real FSF repeated their request for the FSFE misfits to stop using the name FSFE because of the confusion it is causing.
The request was shared with everybody on the GA mailing list. Jonas Oberg, the executive director, told us the real FSF was right and the FSFE misfits did not have the right to use a name that suggests affiliation with the real FSF and Dr Richard Stallman. In effect, the FSFE misfits are engaging in identity theft or a variation of Nigerian fraud every time they put the name FSFE on a document.
Here is the discussion from May 2017. Everybody in the GA, including Hugo Roy, saw this:
The comments of Jonas Oberg, the executive director:
Subject: Re: FSF asking us to change our name II Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:39 +0200 From: Jonas Oberg <jonas@fsfe.org> To: Bernhard Reiter <bernhard@intevation.de> CC: ga@fsfeurope.org
Hi Bernhard,
I largely agree with you, but I would like to ask for a clarification on this part:
> I don't see why. We should ask them to establish the agreed cooperation.
If I take an honest look at the framework agreement, I believe it's phrased rather favourable towards the FSF, and a lot of what we would like to see -- such as joint decision making on important issues related to Free Software -- isn't actually in the agreement aside from an intent to develop such a way in some hypothetical future.
And I can truly see why the FSF believes we are in violation of the agreement, [ ... snip ... ]
[ ... snip ... ]
So the framework agreement, as it stands, is not being honored from any side. [ ... snip ... ]
[ ... snip ... ]
Sincerely,
-- Jonas Öberg, Executive Director Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
A few months later, in the conflict of interest discussion, Hugo Roy confirmed he is a lawyer authorised to practise at the bar in Paris and employed by Baker McKenzie:
Subject: Re: conflict of interest Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:27:29 +0000 From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> To: ga@fsfeurope.org
Hi,
----- TL;DR: there should be some transparency on these issues within the GA at least, and this is what we've been doing. So for those who don't know: I am an attorney and I do advise clients who happen to be large proprietary software vendors too. -----
I don't see anything wrong at the moment with the way we currently handle it. What I mean here is: no problem obviously appeared and I haven't given it much thoughts. Also, (maybe I parsed the thread too quickly so excuse if I mischaracterize anything but) I don't think anyone here suggested that all information disclosed pursuant to a Conflict of interest policy would necessarily be public, or even made public by default.
However, these issues do not always appear explicitly, it is sometimes more pernicious than this (not intending any malice to be implicit here).
I would *not* be comfortable if I were to find out on my own by coincidence that a GA member is a Microsoft, or a Red Hat, or a Facebook staffer.
I think it's important that, within the GA group, we have some visibility on these things. We are a small group and we should know each other. And that requires also some transparency --- because this is a fact that we don't all necessarily know each other well, if only for the fact that some members joined recently.
Now, someone rightly pointed out that for those who are self-employed, this would make more sense if it disclosed largest clients; but this is hardly possible (large clients tend to require confidentiality).
It seems that this applies to me. I'm an attorney and work at a large firm (Baker McKenzie) ---this probably does not give you interesting info for the purpose of a conflict of interests. However, I'm not at liberty to disclose my or the firm's clients --- although I can say that they do include large proprietary software vendors, which should hardly come as a surprise; I am advising on IT law issues after all.
Best, Hugo
Shortly after that, Hugo Roy was actively involved in appointing another French lawyer to file the lawsuit in France against the Ministry of Defence. Hugo Roy relayed information to the other lawyer. Hugo Roy knew that the name of the Free Software Foundation Europe would appear in public court documents. He knew people would see this name and associate it with the real FSF and Dr Richard Stallman. It appears he did not give any warning about this impersonation and ongoing dispute to the lawyer who presented the case in the court.
Subject: Decision to sue on the French Army - Microsoft contract Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:32:56 +0200 From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> To: team@lists.fsfe.org
Sorry in a hurry.
Have we reached a decision yet? -- Sent from my mobile
Subject: Re: Fwd: MICROSOFT CONTRACT (French Minister of Defense) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:41:49 +0561 From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> To: Alexis Fitzjean O Cobhthaigh <afoc.avocat@gmail.com>, france@lists.fsfe.org, Matthias Kirschner <mk@fsfe.org>, team@lists.fsfe.org
Hi everyone,
I got in touch with Nexedi and April today, to ensure that launching this action would not have adverse effects on them. Everything seems fine --- Alexis, feel free to add your opinion.
Best, Hugo
↪ Matthias Kirschner / octobre 27, 2017 11:57: > Hello Alexis, Hello Hugo, > > as just agreed with Hugo: yes, please go ahead with it. I fully trust > you on this. Let's coordinate on some of the details about it next week > (I'm back on Wednesday). In case there is anything urgent before, > please call me). > > All the best, > Matthias > > * Hugo Roy [2017-10-27 09:06 +0200]: >> 1) We should file a request to the CADA as soon as possible to try to get >> the obliterated parts of the contract. >> >> We should go fast on this one. It's pretty easy and I'll do it *pro bono*. >> I'm not sure it would be very usefull, but it worth a try. This should be >> filed within two months from the reception of the answer of the ministry >> (could you confirm the date ?) >> >> 2) I think we'll have to file a case before the administrative tribunal of >> Paris (*before monday october 30*). > > [...] > >> For this part, I can lower my hourly fee to 125 before tax (150 tax >> included). And, if we file the suit as a precaution and then you choose to >> withdraw it a week later, I will bill nothing. > > -- > Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe > Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290 > Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join) > Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html) >
Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: Affaire Microsoft Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2017 01:13:04 +0561 From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> To: team@lists.fsfe.org
Hi everyone,
FYI the brief submitted to the Paris court on the Microsoft case. I will put all the case files in the internal SVN.
Best, Hugo
Subject: Re: Re: Affaire Microsoft From: Alexis Fitzjean O Cobhthaigh <afoc.avocat@gmail.com> Date: 31/10/2017, 12:02 To: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> CC: france@lists.fsfe.org
Bonjour à tous,
La requête a bien été enregistrée, par le tribunal administratif de Paris, sous le n° 1716711.
Je vous mets en pièce jointe un exemplaire, au format PDF, de la requête telle qu'elle a été déposée hier soir.
Je reste naturellement à votre disposition si vous souhaitez que l'on échange, par écrit ou de vive-voix, sur ce dossier.
Alexis
Le 30 octobre 2017 à 22:07, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> a écrit :
La requête a été déposée aujourd'hui. Alexis, tu peux nous envoyer le PDF officiel lorsqu'il est prêt ?
Merci
PS: garder france@ en copie autant que possible - désolé je n'ai pas eu le temps de le faire aujourd'hui
---------- Message transféré ---------- From: Alexis Fitzjean O Cobhthaigh <afoc.avocat@gmail.com> To: Frédéric Couchet <fcouchet@april.org> Cc: Hugo Roy <hugo@hugoroy.eu>, Étienne GONNU <egonnu@april.org> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:00:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Affaire Microsoft Bonjour à tous,
Comme convenu lors de notre discussion vendredi avec Hugo (en copie), vous trouverez en pièce-jointe le projet de requête sommaire que je m'apprête à déposer dans la journée pour la FSFE. J'ai fait au mieux dans un délai si réduit, étant précisé que l'argumentation pourra être complétée ultérieurement.
Vos éventuelles remarques et suggestions sont bien entendu les bienvenues. J'envisage un dépôt dans l'après-midi, moyennant quelques modifications et corrections mineures.
N'hésitez pas à m'appeler à mon cabinet au besoin pour en discuter.
Bien à vous,
Alexis FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH Avocat au Barreau de Paris / Attorney at the Paris Bar Chargé d'enseignement à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas c/o SCP MARLANGE-de la BURGADE 5, rue Daunou 75002 PARIS afoc.avocat@gmail.com Tél : (+33)1.53.63.33.10 Fax : (+33)1.45.48.90.09
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL/CONFIDENTIEL
This message contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the named recipient of this message, please destroy it without reading, copying or disclosing its contents to any other person. Cet e-mail contient des informations confidentielles protégées par le secret professionnel. S'il ne vous est pas destiné, nous vous remercions de le détruire immédiatement, sans le copier, ni révéler ou transmettre son contenu à quiconque.
Le 28 octobre 2017 à 16:08, Frédéric Couchet <fcouchet@april.org> a écrit :
Bonjour à vous,
>>>>> Étienne GONNU <egonnu@april.org> writes:
> J'en profite également pour une autre précision: sur quelle liste, > ou avec qui, le sujet de l'action de la FSFE a t'il été évoqué via > courriel ? Je n'en trouve pas trace dans mon courrielleur.
pareil, je n'ai aucune trace d'un quelconque échange sur ce sujet, mais nous avons pu louper quelque chose :)
Librement, Fred. -- April - Promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre
https://www.april.org
Subject: Fwd: 1716711 - FSFE vs Ministre des armées (Ministry of Defense) - Mémoire en défense (defence) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 17:15:07 +0200 From: Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org> To: team@lists.fsfe.org, legal@lists.fsfe.org CC: france@lists.fsfe.org
Hi everyone,
Short update on the case against Microsft (all the docs are in the internal SVN).
We got the response from the Government. Seems like they are treating this with a lot of attention. Alexis who is our attorney on the case is preparing a draft that will be shared with france@ on Monday, we will also share it with April (and possibly others) for feedback.
You will find attached Alexis' email on this in case you're interested, and also the French response by the Government.
Our response to the Government has to be sent to the Paris Court before April 30, which leaves us (fsfe) a bit less than a week to review Alexis' draft.
If you have any questions, shoot!
Best, Hugo
Subject: 1716711 - FSFE vs Ministre des armées (Ministry of Defense) - Mémoire en défense (defence) From: Alexis Fitzjean O Cobhthaigh <afoc.avocat@gmail.com> Date: 06/04/2018, 18:56 To: Matthias Kirschner <mk@fsfe.org>, france@lists.fsfe.org, Hugo Roy <hugo@fsfe.org>
Hello everyone,
Please, find attached the defense of the Ministry. That's great because now we know where we are going. No surprise :
1) The Ministry argue that it's not the Administrative Tribunal of Paris but the one in Melun (a city very close to Paris). That's not a big deal : even so the competent court is the Administrative Tribunal of Melun and not the one in Paris, the Tribunal of Paris will just send the case to the one in Melun (nothing to worry about any lack of jurisdiction or inadmissibility on that point).
2) Without surprise the Ministry argue that FSFE has no standing because it's not a Microsoft competitor. No surprise here.
3) The Ministry write, on several pages, that everything is normal about this contract. No surprise either here. The Tribunal will have to decide. But usually, the ministry write only 6-7 pages on simple cases before Administrative Tribunal. So that confirms there is obviously a case, even so it's not going to be easy. My opinion : they are really not happy about our case.
4) More surprinsingly, the ministry ask that FSFE be condemn by the Tribunal to 3000 euros for procedural costs, which is a lot for that type of case.
For French Team :
C'est intéressant qu'ils aient produit dès à présent car cela va nous permettre de répliquer utilement, plutôt que de produire un nouveau mémoire "dans le vide".
En résumé, il y a 3 points sur lesquels répondre : - l'intérêt à agir de la FSFE ; - le moyen sur l'absence de publicité et de mise en concurrence ; - le moyen sur l'abus de position dominante.
Ce qui est intéressant c'est que, même s'ils contestent la recevabilité de notre recours, ils ont quand même jugé utile de répondre substantiellement sur le fond et, surtout, d'ajouter à titre subsidiaire que, si le TA estimait notre action recevable ET fondée, il faudrait qu'il prenne en compte l'intérêt général pour moduler les effets de la décision qu'il rendra. Cela montre bien qu'ils ne sont pas très à l'aise et, à tout le moins, qu'ils nous prennent au sérieux. S'ils étaient sûr d'eux ils n'auraient pas pris la peine de produire une défense aussi substantielle.
Autre point : demander 3 000 euros de frais de procédure, de la part de l'Etat, devant le TA, contre une ONG, c'est très rare et cela montre bien que ce recours les agace et, peut-être que cela les inquiète aussi.
Enfin, le recours est signé par Claire Legras, qui est la directrice des affaires juridique du ministère en personne. C'est très rare que ce soit la DAJ qui signe devant le TA, ce qui montre bien qu'ils nous prennent au sérieux.
A titre plus subsidiaire, s'agissant de la communication d'autres documents, le ministère mélange un peu tout. Sa réponse se place sur le terrain des règles applicables aux procédures CADA (les documents demandés doivent être désignés de manière suffisamment précise) et non celles, autonomes, qui régissent les pouvoirs d'instruction du juge administratif (les parties peuvent suggérer des documents mais c'est le juge qui, in fine, décide desquels il demande la production). Je préparerai également une réponse sur ce point, en précisant que l'on souhaite la production des notes préparatoires sur lesquelles le ministère a décidé de ne pas recourir à une procédure d'appel d'offres préalable.
Je vous remercie de me faire part de vos observations d'ici vendredi 13 mars prochain. De sorte que je puisse ensuite avoir le temps de les intégrer et de vous envoyer un projet la semaine suivante, pour un dépôt qui doit intervenir, en toute hypothèse, avant le 30 avril (date de la clôture de l'instruction).
Regards, Alexis
Alexis FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris / Attorney at the Paris Bar Chargé d'enseignement à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas c/o SCP MARLANGE-de la BURGADE 5, rue Daunou 75002 PARIS afoc.avocat@gmail.com Tél : (+33)1.53.63.33.10 Fax : (+33)1.45.48.90.09
In 2019, Hugo Roy was removed from the GA of the FSFE misfits. They did not give a public "Statement on Hugo Roy". Did he resign because of the attacks on my family or did he resign because of the sexual harassment lawsuit started by Galia Mancheva?
In 2020, a court in Berlin made a judgment about the sexual harassment case. The name of "Free Software Foundation Europe" is included in the legal documents. Once again, any casual observer who looks at the German legal documents will see the name of the defendant and they will think it is about the real FSF and Dr Richard Stallman.
The judgment was finally issued against the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) on Hitler's birthday.
People will look at the judgment against FSFE and they will feel it is a judgment against the real FSF and Dr Richard Stallman.
Therefore, we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the Administrative Tribunal of Melun was deceived to publish a judgment using the name stolen by the plaintiff.
When Hugo Roy engaged the other lawyer to present the documents to the court, knowing the plaintiff did not have the right to use that name, Hugo Roy knew the court and the public would be deceived. Therefore, if he did not warn the court and the other lawyers about this problem, if he concealed it from them, he acted in bad faith and he breached the ethical responsibilities that lawyers have when interacting with the court.
Please watch my crowdfunding campaign video and discuss it with your community today. █