Recall the Snowden/Manning mass shooter comparison from a month ago (widely debunked)

Summary: The miserable efforts of Team Battistelli to discredit whistleblowers have truly reached an all-time low, with character assassinations which seek to portray whistleblowers as assassins

THE EPO's management now pulls dirty tricks highly reminiscent of the CBS smears from last month (see snapshot above). These thugs just keep throwing lots of something at the wall and hope that lawyers will spend a lot of time cleaning up (legal fees to soar, costing the accused a fortune) and maybe -- just maybe -- something will remain stuck to the wall due to an oversight somewhere. It also fatigues the media, which will likely be as lazy as always and just latch onto hit-baiting buzzwords like "Nazi" or "sniper".

"Yes, it's guilt by connotation and endless repetition."In accusations against staff representative Elizabeth Hardon we found some of the most laughable accusation we have ever come across. They are totally obsessing over the word "sniper", which is mentioned no less than 16 times!

Yes, it's guilt by connotation and endless repetition. Meet the "sniper"! What a convenient stigma for brushing aside one's human rights.

Who wrote this nonsense? What an incredible 'coincidence' that the same people who allegedly expose the abuses of those in positions of power just happen to be closeted armed Nazis or something along those lines (fictional, as board members strongly rejected these accusations and firmly threw aside the so-called 'evidence'). It's an imaginary narrative, perpetuated using people whose background includes wars in the middle east (where torture and dirty tricks are used to extract fake 'evidence' that suits an agenda).

Elizabeth Hardon has already responded briefly to the ludicrous allegations (we have seen them all). Her letter says:

Dear [...],

We all know the famous quote “Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.” In order to allow staff to see for itself whether justice is being done in my case, I will share the essential parts of my disciplinary procedure with you [...] Please be aware that this is the administration’s version of the “facts” - not mine. I emphatically deny all the accusations against me, which I consider to be malicious and absurd, in particular the harassment complaint that was filed by [...], not by the alleged victims and the accusation of complicity with the suspended DG3 member, the accusa ons against whom were considered unsubstantiated by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. This makes me complicit in a "crime" that doesn't exist.

Elizabeth Hardon

So the EPO is now throwing accusations by proxy to slander one's name, not by direct evidence or even direct accusation. How low can these people stoop? That's like someone bringing an accusation or a legal case against Battistelli based on something someone once heard from Battistelli's high school mate (without that mate being present or a participant at all).

"Behind it there may just be union-busters, not actual investigators."There are many political parallels to be made here. It's a vicious attack on character. That's the strategy. Remember the Julian Assange cat 'story'? It was posted by stenographers in the media 4.5 years ago (after Cablegate from Manning). Just see one of the many articles about it, for example "Julian Assange, Cat Hater" in the New York Times (which previously smeared or belittled Assange by talking about his body odor).

To us, in our humble assessment, it seems like another modus operandi. Behind it there may just be union-busters, not actual investigators. In the text we find bits like these: "10. The Control Risk Group prepared a separate report relating to the position of the defendant on this matter (Annex 4)) It concerned allegations of harassment relating to her conduct at a meeting of the Munich which took place on 10.12.2014."

"Shame on Control Risk Group. Will they attempt the same against bloggers and journalists too?"So 'British Blackwater' is now in the justice business? How hilarious is that?

Control Risk Group is a union buster with a long track record in Europe -- a provably notorious track record. They probably start with the story/narrative/accusation and then try to fit some pieces into in, with the intention of driving a wedge between staff 'leaders' and those who follow them, right before destroying their lives altogether.

Shame on Control Risk Group. Will they attempt the same against bloggers and journalists too?

What's the "sniper" thing all about? Apparently a joke. I habitually make jokes to my wife about the likelihood that someone at the EPO's management will hire a sniper to target journalists. Is that so unreasonable a joke? It's quite a common kind of joke.

If these are the standards for accusing a member of staff and labelling that person a violent physical danger, then we can only assume that similarly crafty and artistic methods are being used to defame the judge and overwhelm him with a huge number of ludicrous claims, thereby increasing legal fees (watch what the prosecutor had done to Aaron Swartz shortly before he committed suicide).

"It's a nasty strategy which warps the case from one where justice prevails to one where the depth of one's pocket becomes the sole contributor towards the outcome."The 22-page text accusing Hardon (with a lot of repetition) was written not by Web-savvy people^* but by expensive, rather unskilled staff^** (maybe lawyers from the outside) for the purpose of defending Team Battistelli at any cost, especially by passing a huge burden of legal costs to the defendant. We saw this done extensively in the Swartz case. It's a nasty strategy which warps the case from one where justice prevails to one where the depth of one's pocket becomes the sole contributor towards the outcome. In other words, it's tilted, by design, into a fight over who's more wealthy. When it's the EPO indemnifying/reimbursing the President (or Team Battistelli) with approval of budget coming from Team Battistelli, this is a no-winner to anyone but Team Battistelli.

For more similarities check out the case against Thomas Drake (whose example Edward Snowden learned from and thus avoided). His government drove him deep into the ground -- and out of money -- by throwing amazing (and invalid) charges, after he had merely blown the whistle (first internally) regarding improper NSA practices, as he should have done, as per the oath he took.

"Denying the EPO of funds by boycotting it might be the most effective option at this stage."The EPO's management once again shows its complete stupidity (it not senility) because this is a Streisand Effect 101. Whenever they attempt to strike at the staff internally there will be a much bigger reaction externally. They don't seem to have learned from experience and they are digging themselves deeper and deeper inside a hole, having just spent nearly a millions dollars on reputation laundering.

The EPO is now a lunatic organisation. People can't easily fight this lunatic because despite it being a lunatic it is a well-funded lunatic. Toxic combination. Denying the EPO of funds by boycotting it might be the most effective option at this stage. It would be a form of protest, calling for if not demanding serious reforms. ⬆ ____ ^* They don't even get the domain name right. It's techrights.org (usually), not techrights.com (which is set up as a universal redirect).

^** Skilled staff with some dignity and self respect would not be willing (even if capable) to produce such abhorrent attacks on good people.