Letters to Olivier Jornot (1)

Letter to Olivier Jornot from 2022!

Please find attached the proof that I have filed two oppositions, one to Mme Lorena Henry's decision to criminalise me, and the other (made on the same day, April 19th 2023) to her decision to exonerate David Hawley and Laurent Falvert (Ecolint) - both in file P17792/2021. These decisions were expected to be delivered by the previous prosecutor by the end of May 2022, after I had attended two allegedly dehumanising criminal hearings.

As you know, I had repeatedly formally requested that the merits of allegedly false allegations signed by David Hawley and Laurent Falvert be assessed BEFORE I was CRIMINALISED over these alleged falsehoods. You will see from my letter to ?Mme JUDITH LEVY OWCZARCZAK ?of 22nd May 2022, in the apparent absence of ?any representation by my lawyer (whose failed to mention that his father is a former Geneva head of state when he called me to solicit my business in early 2022 after my lawyer unexpectedly abandoned my case), that I have requested a copy of her formal decision not to investigate the merits of these complaints first. I have repeatedly challenged the decision that allegedly false allegations and numerous criminal complaints in file P17792/2021 should be assessed first, yet these requests have been ignored by the Ministère public (letters to Mme JUDITH LEVY OWCZARCZAK and M Olivier Jornot etc). I contend that the Ministère public has criminalised me, instead of prosecuting my criminal complaints - including over these apparently vexatious falsehoods signed by DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT. Mme JUDITH LEVY OWCZARCZAK left the Ministère public in October 2022, without reaching conclusions in my case and without providing her written decision. In spite of this, the Ministère public has investigated the allegedly false allegations of DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT first and deployed the judgement that I am “coupable de diffamation” in a further judgement, dated the same day, as one reason to conclude that DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT are innocent of false allegations.

“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”.

The Ministère public considers that, because I am found guilty of allegedly false allegations, it cannot 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 by Ecolint, including in November 2019, when I was also threatened with three years imprisonment.

On March 7th 2023, a lawyer EMAILED me to inform me that she had been appointed to represent me by Mme Lorena Henry and provided a document dated February 28th 2023, which fails to provide the required specific reason for her appointment. After my repeated respectful requests for clarification over her appointment, on April 25th she informed me of the following: “I tried contacting the Prosecutor’s office concerning Ms. Henry’s response regarding my nomination, to no avail. I will try again tomorrow as the secretariat informed me that she has hearings today.”

On Sunday April 30th 2023 she sent me a copy of a document from Mme Lorena Henry, dated March 7th 2023, which Mme Lorena Henry had already sent me following my request to her for clarification over this mandate. However, this document does not provide any justification under the following legislation, as is the case with the document she had previously provided.

Art. 129 (SCPC, Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) Right to choose a defence lawyer: The accused is entitled, in any criminal proceedings and at any stage of the proceedings either to instruct a legal agent as defined in Article 127 paragraph 5 to conduct his or her defence (right to choose a defence lawyer) or, subject to Article 130 (SCPC), to conduct his or her own defence.?

The lawyer, Me Mauron-Mutambirwa, appointed by Mme Lorena Henry emailed me these two decisions by Mme Lorena Henry, dated 19th April, received by her on 21st April. She emailed these decisions to me on April 24th and I finally received them in the post on 26th April 2023. ?She advised me that the appeal dates were May 1st and May 2nd, which I have duly met myself.

I have not yet been provided with the reason for this forced mandate by Prosecutor Mme Lorena Henry, over which I have raised concerns about conflicting interests since Me Mauron-Mutambirwa is also a member of the Geneva Ministère public. Me Mauron-Mutambirwa unilaterally changed her mandate last week in a manner which would appear to work against my best interests, since she will no longer be considering the majority of the file P/17792/2021, which the Geneva Police has repeatedly confirmed was established following my criminal complaints, made before those of Ecolint and which are apparently subject to ongoing criminal proceedings.

I am not alone in having noted several apparently serious flaws in Mme Lorena Henry’s judgments, many of which are contained in my opposition to the exoneration of David Hawley and Laurent Falvert. This includes that David Hawley and Laurent Falvert have been cleared of a criminal complaint that I did not make - because Mme Lorena Henry has used seemingly misleading wording. She is right that they are not guilty of the complaint she claims I have made, but she has not responded to the actual complaints that I made, very clearly in French, in my criminal complaint dated March 14th 2022. This clear complaint of mine is proven by Ecolint’s own evidence against me.

Ecolint’s allegation: Elle y pretend fallacieusement que l'ecole, ses organses actuels et ses anciens organes auraient couvert des abus sexuels qui auraient ete commis en son sein et qu'ils auraient ainsi failli a leurs obligations de protection des enfants.

She falsely claims that the school, its current organs and its former organs would have covered up sexual abuse that would have been committed within it and that they would thus have failed in their obligations to protect children.

De meme, elle prétendait que l’Ecole ?n’avais pas investigué un pretendu abus sexual reporté sue un eleve de 6 année en 2015. Elle accusait ainsi l’Ecole – en sus d’autres divers actes criminels –d’avoir faille à son devoir envers des enfants et d’avoir en quelque sorte couvert ces prétendus cas de maltraitance infantile.”?

Similarly, she claimed that the School had failed to investigate an alleged sexual abuse reported to a Grade 6 student in 2015.

And BELOW is the ONLY evidence provided to support Ecolint's allegations, signed by DAVID HAWLEY and LAURENT FALVERT - along with a copy of a letter from Ecolint’s lawyer in November 2019, making these same false allegations and warning me that I could go to prison for three years for making them. This is specifically what I wrote in my letter to a Board member, describing an allegation I have raised in good faith between 2015 and 2023:

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.

(In May 2015, after making complaints to the Board of the International School of Geneva about VICKY TUCK - as advised by Board members - I was waiting for the Board to consider the irrefutable evidence Vicky Tuck had concealed evidence of my defamation through a formal contractual process and apparently overseen a campaign of organised escalating 'psychological terrorisation' when I respectfully challenged this. I had not expected Vicky Tuck to ask Geneva state representative on the Board, Pascal Emery, to unilaterally assess my complaints about her and to medically diagnose and defame me - a woman he has never met ?and when he is not ?medically qualified - in order to exonerate her.

Moreover, there is apparently, a legal requirement to report concerns or suspicions about child abuse or mistreatment, which I believe staff, students and and parents have fulfilled.

Lorsque les consequénces ?du manquement sont graves, l’enseignant d’un école privée risqué toutefois des sanctions pénales, en particulier celles prévues par l’art 27 du code penal (exposition), et engage sa responsabilité civile

“When the consequences of the failures are serious, the teacher of a private school nevertheless risks criminal sanctions, in particular those provided for by art 27 of the penal code (exposure), and engages his civil liability.”)

(Legal opinion corroborated by several lawyers)

When the previous prosecutor, Mme JUDITH LEVY OWCZARCZAK, agreed, in court, ?that ‘physical’ does not mean sexual (further corroborated by ‘strangulation’ being defined as a form of physical child mistreatment by the department of Pascal Emery's wife), Ecolint then allegedly misrepresented evidence from an email I wrote months after they filed their criminal complaints. Ecolint has, in case (JTPH/439/2021), been deemed to fail to respect its own child protection policy. I attach my complaint to Mme Judith Levy Owczamczak, about this alleged misrepresention of evidence.

Although I was made aware that a number of apparently confirmed and alleged breaches in respect of the child protection policy in 2019 via the attached Unia communication relating to AM, I have only recently become aware of the details of at least one of these child protection cases via the below communication made by the School’s Staff Association (released on Monday 30th November 2021):

(Communication in body of letter)

Based upon the above communication, it would appear that the International School of Geneva may potentially be concealing serious child protection allegations, including of a potentially sexual nature, instead of investigating them.

It is clear, yet again, that it is not me who has made allegations of sexual mistreatment and that the authors (David Hawley and Laurent Falvert) must have known – by the time that Ecolint made this false accusation for not the first time - that the statement was false and that they apparently acted recklessly in making it. Furthermore, and what makes this statement even more apparently reckless is that the school had already been deemed by a court to fail to respect its own child protection policy. Mme Lorena has this verdict (JTPH/439/2021), as well as the evidence relating to it, including the messages between a student and a member of staff at Ecolint.

Furthermore, I have apparently been charged with coercion (Art 181: Any person who, by the use of force or the threat of serious detriment or other restriction of another's freedom to act compels another to carry out an act, to fail to carry out an act or to tolerate an act, shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty), for requesting independent investigations. See below the evidence of Coercion provided by Ecolint.

Subject: Britton: Attn: David OGDEN (6 -2): C2098715/190625-00//01092/18/110219-5256/ BCA-13539-19-0101-00: CHS REF: 28199/ MGLA110219-5256 To: David Ogden <david.ogden@ > Cc:?

?

?

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.

I have also been charged with defamation, yet Mme Lorena has not yet provided the outcome of numerous criminal complaints, which led to the establishment of file P17792/2021 and which the criminal complaints of Ecolint were added to as the SCPC and ECHR article 6 stipulate. Neither has my right to have all data relating to this case been granted. Please see the attached confirmation from the Geneva Police Commandant, Mme Monica Bonfanti which refers to a serious complaint filed in 2018 and included in this file, which she confirms is subject to criminal proceedings. Mme Lorena Henry has an obligation to provide the outcomes of all my criminal complaints which were already in file ?P17792/2021 well before Ecolint’s apparently vexatious false counter-complaints. Mme Lorena Henry also has an obligation to consider the outcomes of these proceedings and other proceedings and then to decide if I am the one who should be criminalised.

?

?I am waiting for the following:?

?

• A legal reason (130 SCPC) for the appointment of Me Mauron-Mutambirwa by Mme Lorena Henry, which I intend to challenge.
• An official notification of the changed mandate of Me Mauron-Mutambirwa from Mme Lorena Henry, including reasons why her mandate suddenly changed on April 25th to include a very limited scope of file P17792/2021. As you know under Article 6 of the ECHR (the right to a fair trial) all the evidence in this file needs to be considered as context - not just the limited scope of file P17792/2021 which apparently favours Ecolint and certain of ?its past and present members.
• A copy of the written legal reasons why three serious criminal complaints by Ecolint were not upheld by Mme Lorena Henry. Two were upheld, and they can be easily challenged, but I have not received the written outcome of the other three, which were: Injure (Art 177), Menaces (Art 180 CPS) and Utilisation abusive d'installation de communication (Art 1797 ?CPS).
• Updates on all criminal complaints filed by me, the Geneva Police, the London Metropolitan Police etc. in file P17792/2021, including during this allegedly dehumanising criminal process.
• Data held by Swiss authorities referred to by the Serious Organised Crime Division of the Irish Police, and all relevant data held by other organisations in all jurisdictions.
• An acknowledgment of my opposition to two decisions by Mme Lorena Henry relating to file P17792/2021, which have been duly submitted in French.
• A review of file P/14448/2018, in which the law cited for dismissing the complaint did not correspond to the law cited in the complaint and in which Pascal Emery's behaviour in the assessment of my grievance was excused in order to defend it. Information on who regulates Geneva lawyers.
• An update on my request for a Federal Prosecutor to review files P17792/2021 and P714448/2018.?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?