International School of Geneva Whistleblower: A Playbook SLAPP Case?

An International School of Geneva whistleblower has responded to a short letter from Judge Sabina Mascotto about a hearing on September 2nd which she is being forced to attend. The whistleblower had asked numerous questions about the hearing, especially since it is part of a process which Mascotto herself has deemed to be illegitimate. Even though Mascotto has still not clarified the purpose of the hearing, she has briefly informed the whistleblower that it will go ahead on September 2nd.

The whistleblower feels that this is yet another example of lack of respect for procedural law in Olivier Jornot's courts. Just since 2021, the whistleblower has spent over 50,000 chf on lawyers who - she is far from alone in feeling - have worked against her best interests. The costs, and not just financial costs, since 2013 have been irreparable.

The International School of Geneva Board recently reneged on its 2023 promise to independently review all whistleblower cases at the school since 2012.

In 2021, alleged SLAPP complaints were filed against the whistleblower by Francoise Markarian, who didn’t even have a valid power of attorney at the time. This was within weeks of the Geneva Police acknowledging two serious criminal complaints by the whistleblower which were added to the whistleblower's complaint file, P/17792/2021, dating back to 2013 when then Director-General, Vicky Tuck, apparently concealed key evidence which had been emailed to her, through a formal grievance process. Pascal Emery, the Geneva state representative on the Board exonerated Tuck after unilaterally assessing complaints about tuck at Tuck's behest - apparently at the ongoing expense of the whistleblower.

Markarian, who claims to be representing the interests of the International School of Geneva, has even made clear the purpose of these apparent SLAPP complaints to lawyer, Me Jacqueline Mottard:

"Me Markarian let me understand that their aim was not to have you condemned?but to make you stop this campaign ...

Mascotto has not only failed to justify the purpose of this hearing, its format and who will even be present. She has not responded to any questions and it appears to have all the hallmarks of previous judicial processes the whistleblower has experienced in Olivier Jornot's?Geneva courts to date.?She hopes to be proven wrong.

The whistleblower may be representing her own best interests since she contends legal independence has been impossible to achieve and her own lawyers have even worked against her best interests (evidenced by confirmation from the Geneva Bar Commission that one of them is subject to a 'separate procedure'). An EU Commission Procedural Law Unit letter on the case, labelled 'non_comp' notes this.

Where is the list of who will be present at this hearing and who will be representing the International School of Geneva, including any witnesses?

Where is the valid procuration for Francoise Markarian, signed by the Board of the International School of Geneva?

Where is the evidence and documents submitted by the International School of Geneva?

Where is the confirmation that Mascotto has received the outcomes of confirmed (by at least the Geneva Police) criminal proceedings in the Ministère public relating to all the whistleblower's criminal complaints, in? file P/17792/2021, dating back to 2013 & submitted well ahead of FIVE alleged SLAPP complaints by Markarian?

Where are the outcomes of THREE of these FIVE criminal complaints as the whistleblower has been criminalised for TWO of FIVE of them yet is expected to pay Markarian's costs?

Daniela Chiabudini - the tip of the iceberg

A judgment by Chiabudini, Court of Justice Judge dated August 18th 2023 seems to require investigation by Mascotto as it seems to lack impartiality, amongst other things. The soon to be published 76-point appeal against Chiabudini's endorsement of Lorena Henry's criminalisation of a whistleblower (and supporting evidence) has been provided to Mascotto. The whistleblower hasn't even met Henry or Chiabudini.

·?????? Chiabudini has confirmed, in writing, that the Ministere public has only taken into account the whistleblower's status as defendant and not as complainant in file P17792/2021, when the whistleblower's criminal complaints dating back to 2013 were in file P17792/2021 long before the allegedly false vexatious complaints filed by Markarian on behalf of the International School of Geneva (even though she had no power of attorney to file these complaints and the Board has publicly denied initiating litigation).

·?????? Chiabudini has apparently misrepresented & weaponised medical data obtained without a procuration, omitting to mention that at least two expert opinions refer to 'psychological terrorisation' in diagnosing the whistleblower.

Right to a fair trial?

·?????? Chiabudini has written that the lawyer, Me Nehanda MAURON-MUTAMBIRWA, was appointed on “28 fevrier 2022” whereas, in fact, Me Arnaud Moutinot was the whistleblower's lawyer for two criminal hearings in March and May 2022 with the first prosecutor, Mme JUDITH LEVY OWCZARCZAK. Moutinot has now been confirmed by the Geneva Bar Commission to be subject to a ‘separate procedure’ following the whistleblower's well-evidenced concerns about his alleged lack of impartiality and that he had solicited her business without disclosing that his father, Laurent Moutinot, was a former Geneva head of state in the same political party as the Pascal and Anne Emery. Me Nehanda MAURON-MUTAMBIRWA was force- appointed by the second prosecutor in this case, Henry, on February 28th 2023, coincidentally not long before Henry delivered two criminal verdicts against the whistleblower. LEVY OWCZARCZAK should have delivered five verdicts almost a year earlier. The whistleblower claims that her evidence shows that MAURON MUTAMBIRWA appeared to be less than impartial and she eventually recused herself to the Geneva Bar Commission. Henry admitted that this appointment had been unjustified, but there has been no recourse for the whistleblower over the impacts of this unjustified forced appointment on the case. Chiabudini refused the requested recusal of Henry, who went on to make further decisions which allegedly lacked impartiality, including unilaterally endorsing her own decision to criminalise the whistleblower. It appears that the prior forced appointment of Me Stephen Street by the first prosecutor, LEVY OWCZARCZAK, had also been unjustified and in apparent violation of the right to a fair trial.

·?????? Chiabudini also fails to mention lawyers Me Francoise Markarian, Me Nathalie Subilia, Me Philippe Grumbach, Me Jacqueline Mottard, Me Sylvain Savolainen and Me Arnaud Moutinot.

Naturally, the whistleblower requests that decisions are made based on all the written evidence submitted to all Geneva public bodies, including all Geneva courts and the Geneva Bar Commission (since 2013) and includes all the evidence of all International School of Geneva whistleblowers. There are verdicts in the case of another International School of Geneva whistleblower and the written testimonies of two members of staff, including a whistleblower. They alleged mobbing & lost their jobs in seemingly harrowing circumstances, also when Vicky Tuck was Director-General.?

Consideration of this evidence and all child protection concerns raised by whistleblowers at the school is essential, since it sheds light on the nature of the disclosures of whistleblowers and how their reports have been handled by school.?

The comical evidence

The whistleblower has been criminalised by Henry for coercion and defamation, based on evidence which apparently should never have been accepted by the Ministère public because it was nearly two years out of date.

She has been criminalised after being falsely accused of making sexual abuse allegations, “elle prétendait que l’Ecole n’avais pas investigué unpretendu abus sexual reporté sue un eleve de 6 année en 2015” . The evidence referred to is the following sentence taken from a letter the whistleblower wrote to Board school member, Nicholas Wissinger (in November 2019, two years before this criminal complaint was filed), “The alleged violation related to the physical abuse of a Year 6 student in 2015, whose parents seemingly held a meeting with the middle school management on May 22nd 2015”. This evidence had already been considered in court by the first prosecutor, LEVY OWCZARCZAK, who concurred that ‘physical’ does not mean sexual. The whistleblower has repeatedly clarified, including after being threatened with three years’ imprisonment by Markarian in 2019 (based on the same false allegations and no evidence provided), that the physical mistreatment referred to in that letter is alleged strangulation, which is specifically defined under Swiss law as ‘physical’ mistreatment (DIP directive 13.9.2019). After Mme JUDITH LEVY OWCZARCZAK dismissed this evidence and agreed that ‘physical’ does not mean ‘sexual’, misrepresented evidence was apparently presented at the next hearing on May 16th 2022, taken out of context and without the evidence to which it refers (public documents) from an email the whistleblower wrote to her lawyer MONTHS after Markarian had filed these criminal complaints.

Desperate measures to criminalise and discredit a whistleblower?

The whistleblower has repeatedly clarified that she had not been aware of any sexual abuse allegations. Markarian has nonetheless repeatedly made false allegations claiming otherwise - without evidence - including in allegations signed by former Director-General, DAVID HAWLEY and Director of Finance and Administration, LAURENT FALVERT (without a valid power-of attorney). The evidence shows that a power of attorney was signed by DAVID HAWLEY over a week later - lacking Board signatures.

The Oxford English Dictionary and the DIP’s definition of "physical" in a school context both clearly indicate that "physical" does not mean "sexual." Despite this irrefutable evidence, non-native English speakers have decided that "physical" actually means "sexual," disregarding all the clear evidence to the contrary. As a result, non-native English speakers, including the courts, have taken it upon themselves to redefine the English word "physical" to mean "sexual," thus attributing a false meaning to it that even contradicts the document ‘enfants en danger et ecoles privees’ which specifically mentions strangulation as a form of ‘physical’ abuse. Without this distorted interpretation, there is no evidence to support the decisions of Henry & Chiabudini.

The whistleblower has been criminalised, yet the alleged strangulation (reported from 2015) was apparently never investigated - even though there have been other reports about that same staff member and a parent reported her to DAVID HAWLEY in 2019/2020.

At least Henry and Chiabudini have received the evidence relating to another whistleblower case, including verdict JTPH/439/2021, which deemed the school to fail to respect its own child protection policy. The evidence apparently includes a series of messages between a student (a minor) and a staff member, a letter from school management to the parents of the student and other apparently incriminating evidence.

The whistleblower was unaware of the evidence in case JTPH/439/2021 at the time of being charged and was even shocked by police questions relating to sexual abuse in November 2021.

Were the International School of Geneva and Markarian unaware of the existence of sexual abuse allegations and does the school investigate child protection allegations?

The first prosecutor LEVY OWCZARCZAK didn’t deliver her verdict within the two-week deadline after a second hearing, and the whistleblower's own lawyer (confirmed by the Bar Association to be subject to a separate procedure) never apparently followed up on this or questions. He dropped the case after she asked him why he hadn’t informed her that LEVY OWCZARCZAK had left the Ministère public in October 2023 without making a decision.

In spite of numerous requests to the Ministère public that it assess whether the complaints were false before criminalising her, LEVY OWCZARCZAK decided against this, but also failed to provide the requisite formal letter justifying her decision. Almost a year after the deadline for delivering a decision the whistleblower was subjected to the second forced state lawyer, Me Nehanda MAURON-MUTAMBIRWA by Henry, just in time for Henry (a prosecutor she has never met) to criminalise her and exonerate DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT on the same day, April 19th 2023, claiming that because the Ministère public had criminalised her, it couldn't find the accusations of DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT false, in spite of the evidence.

“Ce faissant, le Ministère public considère qu’il ne peut pas etre retenu que les accussations? portées par DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT seraient fausses”.

So the Ministère public apparently concluded that, because the whistleblower was found guilty of allegedly false allegations, it could not be held that the accusations brought by DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT could be false - in spite of the evidence which would appear to prove they are indeed false and that they have been made before, including in November 2019.

The Ministère public has condemned the whistleblower following the allegedly false allegations of DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT, and then decided that her allegations cannot be true because she had been condemned and criminalised at the same time.

DAVID HAWLEY had been the director of Pearson College in Canada for eight and a half years until December 2014, so how could he find himself embroiled in these whistleblower cases, and possibly others, especially when he publicly denied knowledge of this case?

https://www.pearsoncollege.ca/news-media/presidents-corner/responsibilities/statement/

Henry wrote that “l’auteur peut objecter de n’a voir pas su le dénouncé innocent et invoquante sa bonne foi” which is completely implausible since the whistleblower made the very same complaint about the very same false allegations, with DAVID HAWLEY in copy in November 2019, when threatened by Markarian. Henry does not refer to it even though it forms part of her formal complaint about HAWLEY and FALVERT.

“Par la présente, je souhaite vous rappeler que j'ai déposé une plainte pénale auprès de la Police genevoise le 15 janvier pour les fausses allégations de l'Ecole Internationale de Genève à mon encontre, survenue en novembre 2019 puis de nouveau en 2021”.

Henry falsely writes that the whistleblower claimed that DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT made these false allegations in ‘lien avec des publications’ (?), which would appear to misrepresent clearly expressed complaints, in French, about DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT, so that they can be dismissed as false. Similarly, there have been translations which seem to have been very liberal - even misleading.

The whistleblower has also been criminalised for COERCION based on the below email to former Board member, David Ogden (UN Representative), after requesting that the Board investigate the allegations of whistleblowers as more evidence became available. If David Ogden or anyone else had felt so ‘coerced’ by this email of November 10th 2019, why did they wait until September 2021 to report it?

?

Dear David,

?

Re: David Ogden/Board of International School of Geneva

?

Please find below my latest communication to the present Chairperson of the Board of the International School of Geneva, Mr Koudriaev, which I shall forward to all present Board members as well as to staff at the International School of Geneva - and ultimately to the press. In the absence of any response from the Board to my attached requests for investigations, I feel that it is now in the public interests for us to disclose how this private school treats teachers with impeccable records who attempt to fulfil their civic responsibility in reporting behaviours which at least impact the educational experience of students and may even compromise the psychological and physical wellbeing and safety. of students. This below communication, of course, only touches upon the crime and mistreatment I allege my family has been subject to since June 4th 2013 when a proven false allegation was made against me by SR, SW, BK and 'unknown'.

Requests by the whistleblower for September 2nd

The outcomes of complaints about Geneva Attorney-General, M Olivier Jornot, which were referred back to the Geneva judiciary by the Swiss Deputy Attorney-General by June 2023, should clearly be made available. Without these outcomes, the impartiality of Mascotto's court which is overseen by Jornot could be called into question.

All letters to Jornot, LEVY OWCZARCZAK and Mme Lorena should be considered - including procedural law breach allegations, as well as their responses, or lack thereof.

Verbatim minutes from a May 22nd 2017 Tribunal Prud’hommes civil hearing should be introduced.

Data from M Christian Coquoz, the president of the Geneva Court of Justice, and clarification over whether Jornot is facing any procedures, is necessary.

Clarification over why a small number of Geneva prosecutors, including LEVY OWCZARCZAK, Henry and Chiabudini, seem to have been assigned International School of Geneva whistleblower cases and have apparently ignored serious allegations and evidence (including relating to child protection) made by whistleblowers, including in case JTPH/439/2021.

Confirmation that this will be an open court and that journalists and members of the public will be able to attend.

Urgent consular assistance from the Irish and British consulates over blacklisting (legal), being prosecuted instead of HER criminal complaints, being criminalised by a prosecutor and judge she has never met behind closed doors, and allegedly being denied at least access to justice, access to independent legal representation and right a fair trial. The whistleblower claims that she has reported alleged acts of retribution since 2013, including that she felt that the safety of her family was at risk.

A postponement is necessary, given that the date of this hearing is the first day of the new school year and contacting witnesses may present challenges.

Outcomes of confirmed?(by the Geneva Bar Association) procedures against any Geneva lawyers should clearly be made available, as well as a clarification over why complaints about Markarian have been 'presidentially' filed. Does this mean they have been filed by Jornot?

All data relating to a lengthy investigation by the Cantonal Medical Office in Vaud over a forced psychiatric evaluation with the unauthorised presence of Canadian businessman, Michael W Birchard, in March 2015, should be made available. This is particularly the case, since three weeks later Geneva State representative on the Board, Pascal Emery, medically diagnosed the whistleblower (when he is not medically qualified and has never met her) to exonerate British citizen Vicky Tuck of at least concealing documentary evidence through a formal grievance process. This unilateral assessment of his was apparently at the behest of Vicky Tuck herself and with the benediction of at least executive members of the International School of Geneva Board, Mark Poole, David Ogden (UN), Nick Thornton and Melaye Ras Work. Since both the factually incorrect report of Dr Marc Séchaud and the insulting defamatory letter of Pascal Emery have been weaponized against the whistleblower in court (after being shared by her lawyer, Me Nathalie Subilia, against her best interests), and given that concerns about medical insurers, data and at least one invasive procuration in other Geneva private schools has been validated, this data cannot be ignored in criminal proceedings.?Neither can the repeated unauthorised attempts to obtain medical data from doctors, including by a Geneva cantonal doctor and by the insurer of a Geneva private school.

The outcomes of investigations by OCIRT into allegedly dehumanising treatment of the whistleblower in four Geneva private schools, including three unjustified dismissals (in spite of impeccable evaluations) should clearly be made available, along with all personal data. This includes data relating to the role of the UK Foreign Office in Geneva legal counsel, Me Antoine Bohler who also (as it turns out) served on the Board and as legal counsel to Institut Notre Dame du Lac, a school from the whistleblower was dismissed from one day before the start of 2019/2020 academic year. Me Bohler had declared, in writing, his conflicting interests on various levels in 2018 and the whistleblower did not sign a convention for a settlement, so this convention and all the evidence relating to Geneva private schools, should be made available. In another case of allegedly unfair and related dismissal, an internal email exchange between the owner and a member of human resources speaks volumes.

Data held by the Cour des Comptes should clearly be made available since there was an intervention by its former president, M Stanislaus Zuin at the DIP, the department overseen by Pascal Emery's wife.

All related data relating to the external reporting of potential non-compliance with financial reporting standards by the International School of Geneva should be made available.

Reporting of legal costs paid by the International School of Geneva should be made available, especially since questions have been asked about if, why and how the school is funding whistleblower litigation on behalf of management and FORMER Board members. Any related data in connection with a mysterious 9.5 m dormant foundation, ‘non-pension’ benefits paid to close family members of management, hefty severance payments to directors should also be made available.

Any related NDAs non-disclosure agreements should be made available. Apparently at least 10 have been signed at the school.

All data held by the Geneva Police should clearly be made available, particularly given that Mme Monica Bonfanti, head of the Geneva Police, and others have shed light on the fact that my criminal complaints dating back to 2018 were in file?P17792/2021 well ahead of those of those filed by Markarian (without any valid power-of- attorney). The Geneva Police has repeatedly duly advised that whistleblower complaints are subject to criminal proceedings, as have others.?

All data held by Geneva Police and the Ministère public?in relation to file?P/14448/2018 should clearly be made available, including all evidence submitted by the Geneva Police to the Ministère public in case P/14448/2018, which not only?cites? the incorrect law, but endorses pascal Emery's assessment of complaints about Vicky Tuck.

?All data relating to Victim Support Geneva, including requests by Victim Support Switzerland, the Geneva Police and Victim Support Europe should be made available, especially as the whistleblower have yet to receive any support in compliance with my rights. Mme Muriel Golay, formerly of OCIRT, was apparently at the helm of Victim Support Geneva at the time.

All data and evidence relating to the pensions of International School of Geneva whistleblowers should be made available. Markarian has not provided a legible power-of-attorney that shows who is instructing her to now represent the interests of the International School of Geneva pension fund, and the Board has not clarified why a pension fund would need to be represented by a lawyer. Data relating to all whistleblower pension fund concerns relating to Geneva Private schools should also be made available.

All data relating to a property development from 2016?which looms over the home of the whistleblower should be made available, since the whistleblower's complaints to the police (referred to the Ministère public in September 2021) also related to the disappearance of a document at the office of notaire Rodriguez & Brechbuhl. This was apparently added to file?P17792/2021, relating to the International School of Geneva, by the Geneva Police.

All data relating to blacklisting (legal) since August 22nd 2013, the evidence of which was?provided to the whistleblower after her?legal insurance was unilaterally cancelled, should also be provided, not least the identity of the perpetrator of this discriminatory?act of blacklisting a whistleblower and alleged abuse of power.

All impact statements should be considered and those who have witnessed these impacts be called to testify.

A translator needs to be provided, and preferably not the same one who has turned up in two court hearings.

Witnesses, including the Board, may be able to shed light on who advised Vicky Tuck over a formal grievance raised by the whistleblower in 2013, the genesis of the case, and of the involvement of state officials, including Pascal Emery, in all whistleblower cases.

The Swiss Attorney-General's office is now examining the file, and I await its outcome. Mascotto's court is apparently, like the Ministère public, another first instance court under the jurisdiction of Jornot. Thelin, from the final instance court has confirmed that the whistleblower has no right of appeal at second instance court level, because of her standing as a whistleblower, so it seems that the file now urgently finally needs to be judged at Federal level. Thelin's response?provides further evidence that she is apparently still being discriminated against in Geneva, further to being blacklisted (legal) since August 22nd 2013 and having to be subjected to forced?state legal representation confirmed to be unjustified, and this further process which Mascotto has also confirmed is unjustified.

The whistleblower has also requested that the Board of the International School of Geneva provides all contextual data well ahead of September 2nd.

· update on the confirmed criminal proceedings following the complaints the?Geneva Police and others have referred to the Ministère public on the whistleblower's behalf, related to the International School of Geneva, dating back to 2013 in file?P/17792/2021.?

· Clarity over whether?anyone on the list included in?file?P/17792/2021 (including Mark Poole, David Ogden, Pascal Emery, Diane Bedat, Jamie Williamson, Laurent Falvert and other former Board members) are?defendants?in file?P/17792/2021.

· Clarification over whose?interests is lawyer, Markarian,?is?protecting, especially since she had no valid power of attorney to file alleged SLAPP proceedings against the whistleblower in 2021.

· Confirmation that the whistleblower's pension?rights are in order.

· Clarity over why?Markarian is now representing the interests of the school pension fund - especially in light of a past procuration sent to another whistleblower to sign over her pension rights to cover school costs.?

· Clarity over who?has signed any?power of attorney?of Markarian and who is instructing her.?

· The corrected version?of the?'verbatim' meeting minutes from the 2023 AGM.

· Responses to?questions and disclosures of the petitioning parents in their 'note on Ecolint Finances and related matters' of January 2024, including?about?a 9.5m dormant foundation, benefits paid to family members of management, if and why the school is funding litigation on behalf of management and former Board members.

· A breakdown of the?228K CHF spent on two whistleblower cases?including related?fines?and costs other than legal and court costs.

· All personal data, including testimonies provided to OCIRT, and the minutes /recording of a meeting?relating to the whistleblower's case held in December 2019 which are apparently held by a lawyer in Geneva.

· Clarification over whether?cases of child protection reports by parents have been 'settled' rather than reported?& whether cases have been settled?ahead of any parents potentially testifying in whistleblower cases.

· The requisite transparency to the community over an?OCIRT report?following?a thorough labour investigation spanning 2014, 2015 & 2016?which resulted in the case being referred to the FINANCIAL BRIGADE of the Geneva Police by the Swiss Federal Police.

· Transparency over interventions by cantonal and federal bodies, as described in a letter from the Swiss Federal Audit Office.

· Clarity over?why the new Director-General, Conrad Hughes,?re-appointed?Falvert, Director of Finance & Administration who has been described as 'intimately' involved in whistleblower cases.

· Clarify over?the role of Mark Poole, who invested in the start-up business of Vicky Tuck's son in 2015 - in an apparent conflict of interests?

· Clarify over?who has records in several jurisdictions - including, Switzerland,?Ireland and the UK?- including, apparently, in relation to my husband.

· Clarify if any Board members were dismissed and if?any former Board members?then left?Geneva for Ireland.

The records held by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Services, the Irish Police Serious Organised Crime Unit, Irish Prisons and Sussex Police - as well as data held by public authorities - raise further questions, especially as Jornot is apparently denying the whistleblower access to outcomes of proceedings in Switzerland (also referred to by the UK Foreign Office in an internal email exchange).

?

The Irish Police Serious Organised Crime Unit make clear that its data relates to this.

?

Who is Jornot protecting?and what is this latest hearing called by Mascotto about?

?

?