Day 16, Friday October 27: last day, last lawyer speeches and last words from the defendants

from Paris-luttes.info

Today, it was the turn of B., S. and F.’s lawyers to plead.

The day began at 11 a.m. on the courthouse square, where a gathering was held in support of the defendants! Speeches were made by various groups supporting the December 8 case and other anti-terrorism cases, by relatives of the defendants, by feminist groups, and by groups from the mutual aid, truth and justice network (Réseau d’Entraide Justice et Vérité : network of collective organizations against violence and state crimes, NdT)… It was ended in song, while delicious wraps of support were enjoyed by the two hundred people present.

Inevitably, the courtroom was full to bursting, with a good fifty people unable to get in but staying out in front anyway.

Pleadings

The lawyers point out that all the defendants have experienced the whole procedure very violently, at the end of which we just find the spectre of ultra-left-wing terrorism. But why, how could they be terrorists? Where is the plan? Where is the intention? In May 2020, when the investigators saw these facts, the project could not necessarily be ruled out. But afterwards, throughout the surveillance, the investigators clearly saw that there was no plan to continue with these supposedly problematic acts. We don’t arrest them at the time, because we don’t think they’re doing anything that dangerous, and to wait and see what their plans are. One of them is denied accreditation for several months, probably because he or she is on file, then miraculously obtains accreditation, all of a sudden, in the hope that its use will advance the investigation. But no, it doesn’t, he doesn’t do anything with it except for professional use. So, we see that there’s no project and we arrest them, considering that in May 2020, yes, these were very, very dangerous facts.

They set out to prove that there was no plan, no terrorist criminal association, that the airsoft games were not paramilitary training, that the defendants had not been inspired by a charismatic leader to arm themselves and get their hunting licenses even before meeting this so-called leader. Finally, no, F. did not go to Rojava with the aim of returning to import the armed struggle, that this was pure fantasy on the part of the DGSI.

As on the previous day, it is explained that they acknowledge having produced explosives (which they have always called “firecrackers”, but given that firecrackers explode, the word chosen by the courts will be “explosive”) for one of them, and having played airsoft for the other, but they dispute the narrative surrounding these acts. There is no tracking, no named or supposed target.
They show the errors and biases of the investigation, with a few examples. A handwritten notebook with descriptions of paramilitary training, when in fact it was the notebook of a cop who had come to search. The one from an expert saying he’d never heard of this explosive recipe in Europe, whereas a visit to YouTube shows that it’s used all over the French countryside. Learning that the recipe is very complicated to make, whereas the basic product used to make firecrackers can explode in a wide range of conditions, and without using the right recipe. That having anarchist brochures makes you a terrorist.

The investigation was carried out solely for the prosecution, making it an unfair trial. They pointed out that all the defense’s requests (access to videos of police custody, sound recordings, hard disks, etc.) had been refused during the investigation and at the hearing; and that the judges’ questions suggested that they had been made only to confirm the DGSI’s construction. Certain elements are not in the file, including 99% of the wiretaps, and documents have even disappeared, even though they were in the hands of the investigators. As one of the lawyers put it: “it’s hard to contradict the emptiness [of the investigation]”.

The defense deconstructed the terms “terrorist” and “ultra-left”: the first is a term that governments use to designate an enemy with whom no dialogue is possible (and who can therefore be deprived of certain rights in the process); the second has no precise definition, but is a sign that the defendants are being tried for their political opinions. The defendants have political opinions, but there has been no intimidation or terror, which is what is supposed to happen in a terrorist criminal association.

The pleadings also focus on the conditions of detention, and in particular LibreFlot’s 16 months in solitary confinement and 43-day hunger strike to get out. They all asked for acquittal on the charge of terrorist conspiracy. They are asking that if the defendants are sentenced for the offences they admit to (illegal possession of weapons, manufacture of explosives, refusal to use encryption codes, etc.), they be recharacterized as non-terrorists, and that no ban on carrying weapons or registration in the criminal record be imposed, so that those who practice shooting sports or fireworks can continue to do so. They also demanded that they should not be registered on the FIJAIT (Fichier des auteurs d’infractions terroristes, terrorist offenders file, NdT), and that sentences should be such as to prevent them all from returning to prison, taking into account the 3 years they have just (very badly) lived through.

The defendants speeches

Finally, the defendants take the stand one after the other. They reaffirm that this “disproportionate judicial storm” has been ruining their lives for three years, and that they are not terrorists. They express their fear of being judged, of being branded terrorists, and of having to carry this stigma for years to come. They need time to rebuild their lives, and aspire to “live in harmony with each other”, and are “proud of the struggles waged and the ideas defended”. “The future is not violence but solidarity”!

Despite the chairwoman’s reprimands, the audience applauded each speech, concluding with shouting “LIBERTÉ! LIBERTÉ!” (FREEDOM, FREEDOM!)

Deliberation is scheduled for Friday December 22 at 10am.

DAY 16 – another report to complete the one from paris-luttes

from mastodon @soutien812

DAY 16

This second day of pleadings ended in tears, rage, applause and cries of FREEDOM! FREEDOM!

After a long and touching defense speech of rare humanity by Ms BOUILLON on F’s life, his isolation in prison and his hunger strike, we still won’t have the final word on the #8december affair. The President of the Tribunal, Brigitte Roux, has postponed the verdict until… December 22nd.

Reserve your day now! Until then, let’s redouble our solidarity and actions! Several support evenings are already planned.

The quality of the pleadings and the lawyers’ in-depth knowledge of their clients have made it possible to nullify the extreme demands of the #PNAT.

Where the prosecutors show a carnivorous cruelty and don’t budge from their scenario, it was necessary, long and hard, to go back over the real facts, the chronology, the personality, of each accused to put them back in their context.

The reports will soon be available on the support blogs.

A huge thank you to all our friends and comrades who have supported and accompanied us through this police and judicial delirium. Nothing is won yet, but we hope that the terrorist charges will be dropped. The future of struggles depends on it.

Day 15, Thursday October 26: closing arguments for 4 of the defendants

from Paris-luttes.info

The last two days are devoted to the lawyers’ closing arguments. Contrary to what was announced at the start of the trial, the judges will not deliver their verdict on Friday evening, but either early next week or at a later date. We’ll probably know that on Friday, the last day of the trial. On Thursday, the lawyers for L., M., C. and W. are present.

The first lawyer begins by explaining that everyone comes to this trial as they are, with their backpacks on, as she says. Herself, her client, the other defendants, everyone. Everyone came as they were, and introduced themselves, answering questions as best they could and according to their personalities. The gist of the case and the defense is: there was no violent action, just friendship and solidarity, there was no terrorist criminal association (Association de Malfaiteurs, AMT).

The DGSI and PNAT wanted to put together a story, but no one was there to clarify and explain it: they refused to let the investigators come and testify and explain the elements of the investigation. They wiretapped these people for 2 to 3 years, with nothing concrete and explainable coming out, apart from the 2020 accusations. Indeed, no facts subsequently confirmed that there would be a plan of violent action underway or about to be made. But they’re so overwhelmed at PNAT, you’ll have to take their word for it. There’s no doubt about it, they’re saving lives “it’s Superman by day, Batman by night”.

At the time of the defendants’ arrest, Darmanin boasted that he had foiled an imminent ultra-left-wing attack. The lawyer points out that it was acknowledged during the investigation and this trial that there was nothing imminent, and that no attack was foiled – everyone agrees on that.

All the lawyers, for each defendant, will come to explain how there is no AMT, and no possible AMT a fortiori for the person they are defending. “There’s a middle ground, the material facts (airsoft game, production of firecrackers, possession of weapons), but no beginning and no end. There is no group, no project, no objective”. In addition, it is necessary to demonstrate terrorist or at least voluntary action and intent, to each one’s project. If the Black Bloc becomes terrorist, the PNAT has a bright future ahead of it, as does tagging ACAB in a bar toilet.

Words about the end of the world, isolating oneself, insulting the police came out of the wiretaps, to justify that these buddies are dangerous, but we have to remember the period: after a year of yellow vests (Gilets Jaunes), a pension reform, the murder of Georges Floyd, confinement, the global security law (loi Sécurité Globale)… A lot of people were saying these same things.

In relation to the much-quoted wiretapping, it’s pointed out that the villain in airsoft games is called “the enemy”. So here’s why this word is heard, and it doesn’t necessarily evoke a supposed internal enemy: the police. What’s more, it’s hard to consider an attempted 2-day airsoft game, which isn’t completely done for lack of equipment for each person, as paramilitary training. If they had wanted to train, they would have done so much more, and we would have heard it on the wiretaps.

As for the explosives, how can we consider that they wanted to make explosives in a premeditated way when they wanted to make firecrackers once the stock was finished (and the stores closed because of confinement) by taking what they had on hand and ordering, with their credit card, on the Internet, at a moment’s notice, the missing hydrogen peroxide, and by looking up the recipe on the Internet, and doing this inside their home, without any particular protection.

In this case, there is zero demonstration, zero proof, zero causal link with a violent action. The conviction sought by the PNAT is defamatory for them. The FIJAIT (Fichier des auteurs d’infractions terroristes, terrorist offenders file), which would put them on file and impose obligations for 20 years, has been requested, even though they are not a danger to anyone. Among other things, they would have to declare in advance any travel abroad, and any change of address, for a period of 10 years. The lawyers show, by repeating the facts evoked in recent weeks, that there is no link between the acts and a potential project, so there is neither material nor intentional element. What’s more, the supposed clandestinity does not exist. All of them made all their purchases, administrative requests (for shooting permits, for example) and travel arrangements in their own name.

Confessions made in police custody are called into question because of the problematic way in which they are made, and the “technical breaks” (the whole “off” of the police custody) that take place, without being noted, and above all whose content is not noted, even though we can see that there is no continuity between the answers before and after these breaks.

Next, the question of probation. The PNAT gave no reasons for this. All have strictly complied with their judicial controls.

This Friday, there will be a support gathering in front of the court from 11am, followed by the lawyers’ closing arguments of B., S. and F.’s lawyers.

DAY 14 – another report to complete the one from paris-luttes

from mastodon @soutien812 (1st part, 2nd part)

Today we are witnessing the #PNAT requisitions. From the outset, Benjamin CHAMBRE declares that everything said on the stand is a story constructed by the defense to conceal the reality, which would be that of the #DGSI.

All evidence of the prosecution’s incoherence is swept aside, the lawyers designated as accomplices, the witnesses and supporters scorned, the journalists complacent. Never before have we seen such a rapid flow of lies.

We half-recognize the same rhetoric we hear from the far right: lawyers equated with their clients, the media disproportionately “left”, and the ultra-left a historical threat, going back 200 years to political violence in the world, to justify the alleged dangerousness of the #8december defendants.

He defines the terrorist threat: zadists, blackblocs, antifascists, anticapitalists, etc. It equates this threat with the ultra-right and jihadism.

PNAT’s political project is undoubtedly pre-fascist, and it’s up to everyone to confront it.

Strength to the defendants and their supporters.

Join the gathering this Friday at 11am in front of the Tribunal (Porte de Clichy).

Don’t let us be anti-terrorists!

*******

The second part of the #PNAT closing argument is recited by Déborah COHEN. She will rewrite the whole fiction to which the authorities cling, reusing ad infinitum all the snippets of conversation and words violently extorted by the #DGSI.

A story full of lies that are unbearable for loved ones. By pure strategy, she violently reaffirms F’s terrorist projects and the complicity of each person under investigation, making it possible to make the accusations stick, which would collapse without this supposed “leader” who recruited and trained his friends.

She meticulously denied all the arguments of the defense and disqualified a “collective defense as a whole” devoid of coherence.

This recital of unhealthy and deliberately erroneous imagination lasted 2 hours.

Sentences requested: registration with the #FIJAIT (terrorist offenders file), and 10-year ban on holding weapons.

L.: 2 years suspended sentence
M.: 3 years, including 2 years’ probation
C. 3 years, including 3 years’ probation
B. 3 years, including 3 years’ probation
W. 4 years, including 3-year suspended
S. 5 years, including 3-year suspended sentence
F. 6 years’ imprisonment with deferred committal order

Sentences out of touch with the real facts. And above all, the opening of the grail so eagerly awaited by the government: a conviction for militant terrorism.

Day 14, Wednesday, October 25: PNAT closing arguments

from Paris-luttes.info

The prosecutor (man)

The prosecutor begins by quoting from the manifesto of the Fire Cell Conspiracy, a document found in the belongings of two of the defendants: “We want to destroy civilization and the power relations that gangrene personal relations”. Sure, it’s scary, but the strings are thick and, above all, what does it have to do with anything? According to him, the main accused has been to Greece several times, before and after Rojava, and this text would shed light on each of his actions (the authors of this brochure are Greek). Sic
He finds that the line of the defense, which is united, is “we must save soldier F”, sometimes to the detriment of the other accused, and this is where he thinks this notion of leader comes out.

He complains that the investigation wasn’t easy, they were encrypting their communications, moving all the time (that’s the goal of living in a truck) and on top of that there was confinement so it was hard for the cops to hide… All the cops and magistrates were exemplary from start to finish, the defense was mean and all it did was construct a narrative and impose a political agenda. He dares to claim that the defense used a strategy of intimidation (by putting the prosecutor in solitary confinement for fifteen months?), and that it chose the elements that suited it: so the DGSI has the right, but only them. Strangely enough, he hasn’t proposed an extra six-month trial to examine each and every item seized in 3 years of wiretapping, shadowing, observations, etc etc.

He advertises the anti-terrorist intelligence services: we’ve foiled this, then that, etc., followed by a presentation on the Ultraleft, which he believes situates the defendants’ radical political commitment, Rojava, which would be the new Palestine in terms of militant training, but violent. Just to show, in case there was any doubt, that he specializes in terrorism, he name-drops every armed struggle group in Europe since the 80s, from the RAF to the NAPAP. And, of course, Action Directe (AD)! But of course, “there’s no confusion when we talk about AD, we know how to tell the difference”. It’s bad enough that it’s not credible, but he actually sees a connection between AD and this affair shortly afterwards!

He makes an outrageous pseudo-lapse when he says [LibreFlot] for
Merah, but it’s always the same story: LibreFLot is a “charismatic leader” fallen into “revolutionary messianism” who wants to recruit everyone who wants to recruit everyone to put France to fire and sword… In each of the zines mentioned, the prosecutor picks out anything that might be the facts evoked during the proceedings.

He says that all the dangerous elements mentioned in the proceedings have been checked and that all the activities mentioned are indeed dangerous and problematic, not isolated acts.

In short, it lasted a good two hours, the defense is a bunch of nasty manipulators.

The prosecutors go round and round. One is a fan of the Action Directe story. The other is obsessed with F. and “training against the police”.

-I’ve done my research!
Action Directe
Anarchism
Greece
Anarchist attacks
then Daesh it’s the same!
-Police
Rojava, Rojava
armed group, armed group
the police are targeted

The prosecutor (woman)

The prosecutor restarts the whole story from 2017…

She rereads extracts, tells us that the alcoholism was a conscious strategy of disempowerment, pulls out heaps of details carefully selected from the mountains of data collected, and indulges in completely inappropriate personal remarks. She tells us that the expert was impartial because he “corrected the liters to centiliters” (and therefore said they had made “few explosives”)… To convince us that fertilizer explosions are dangerous, she mentions the port of Beirut again (a warehouse in the country’s largest port, nothing to do with the quantities seized).

She makes a point of expressing her surprise at the “evolving declarations of the detainees”: of course, we don’t react the same way when someone tells us in police custody that our buddy has been caught with his finger on the trigger, ready to kill someone, as we do in court after 3 years of investigation, but the DGSI can come up with myths as big as that, it doesn’t matter. She is surprised that the attempt at dissociation didn’t work in the end, and that the defense is collective, sometimes to the detriment of the defendants’ interests: you absolutely wanted to invent a terrorist group, and you seem to have found a collective defense strategy.

In conclusion, she charges all the accused, and here’s her version: LibreFlot is working, yes, and even actively, on armed struggle. Of course, there’s no terrorist group or imminent plans for violent action – that’s why we’re in the magistrates’ court and not the assizes. But long-term plans do exist, and she sees a “terrorist enterprise for serious disturbance of public order”. This enterprise is led by a charismatic radicalized violent man who mobilizes people who agree with him and who join in. All were volunteers, were aware of F’s wishes, of his alleged discussions about killing policemen, and voluntarily took part in explosives tests or paramilitary training. According to her, there was no questioning during the trial on the part of the 7 defendants, they have no regrets and are interested in political violence. The defendants seem, according to the prosecutors, not to believe in justice and the police and continually question it.

Sentences required:

-Request that the seals not be recovered.
-Application for registration in the FIJAIT (Fichier des auteurs d’infractions terroristes / terrorist offenders file).
-10-year weapons ban for all.
-For the 3 who refused to provide encryption keys, a fine of 1500 euros.
-For LibreFlot, 6 years’ imprisonment with deferred committal order.
-For the others, from 2 years’ imprisonment with simple suspended sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment with 4 years’ suspended sentence. The 6 people concerned will not be returning to prison (even the prosecutor says so); they all have a maximum of one year’s imprisonment, which covers their pre-trial detention or will be converted into another sentence (electronic bracelet, for example).

Day 14, Wednesday, October 25 : Before a report on the prosecution’s closing arguments

from paris-luttes.info

The sentences requested by the prosecutors: prison for all, but only LibreFlot would actually go back.

The sentences will have to reflect the seriousness of the facts, but take into account the fact that there was no victim, no imminent project. Even prosecutors, they say, know the harshness of prison, pre-trial detention and solitary confinement. They see two levels of responsibility: LibreFlot and the others that followed.
All are asked to be banned from carrying weapons for 10 years.
For the 3 who refused to hand over their encryption keys, a fine of 1,500 euros.
And from 2 years’ imprisonment suspended for one year to 5 years’ imprisonment suspended for 4 years. So these 6 people won’t be going back to prison (even the prosecutor says so), they all have a maximum of one year’s imprisonment.
LibreFlot has been asked to serve 6 years with a deferred committal order.

DAY 13 – another report to complete the one from paris-luttes

from @soutien812 mastodon

We enter the final week. The Court finishes dealing with the issue of “encrypted” communications. And the question of the famous “project” is botched in a single day. Amazing.

Judge Brigitte Roux evacuates the room after barely an hour. The defense protested, so that the family could stay, and indignation erupted. An hour later, the room was allowed to return, except for one woman who intoned “On est là…!” (“we are here”, famous yellow vest song against Macron, NdT) on her way out.

The day is profoundly pointless. “Do you have any plans for violent action? – Bah no”, this type of exchange goes on all day. The PNAT is already listening to nothing, no more questions about the famous project, nothing. They’re preparing their indictment, which is due to be vomited out the next day.

The judicial status is also reviewed. Everyone is given a list of judicial reviews, the period of incarceration, and so on. An opportunity to recall the violence of the conditions of detention and how each person’s life has been destroyed by this purely political procedure.

Day 13, Tuesday October 24: last day of hearings before the closing arguments. The substance and the judicial reviews.

from paris-luttes

if you want to help for translation, please contact translation-812(a)riseup(.)net

On Tuesday, the courtroom was packed to the rafters with supporters! The hearing was a long one: first of all, it was a question of the substance of the case, with all the defendants taking the stand again (except for 1 who had already done so on Friday). The judges and prosecutors had to look into what the DGSI might have seen as terrorist “projects”. As we shall see, there was nothing tangible and the discussions went round in circles. Then, in the evening, we discussed how the defendants had respected their judicial controls, as well as their current situation and future “plans”.

Substance of the case : how it’s going overall

For each person, it’s always the same. Save yourself the trouble of reading these few lines if you’ve followed the previous hearings. The DGSI has constructed a narrative in which the defendants are alleged to have masterminded a terrorist attack against the forces of law and order, with weapons and explosives. There are no concrete elements or the beginnings of any plans, so the judge questions the defendants on the basis of nothing more than wiretaps of discussions between drunken men, the contents of fanzines found on hard disks, explosives testing by an artificier, airsoft games, answers given in anti-terrorist custody…

Then the prosecutors keep asking the same questions: they want to know what the defendants think about revolutionary violence. They just want validation of the DGSI’s story. To do this, they use the same wiretaps, the same brochures, the same custody hearings. The prosecutors ended up sulking: they stopped asking questions to the last 2 interviewees, perhaps fed up with the whistling from the room when they spoke (the president had the room evacuated for 30 minutes to punish us). Then the defense and the defendants demonstrated, question after question, that the case had been put together out of thin air, that it was a pure construction of the DGSI and the public prosecutor’s office, that it was easy to take elements here and there to say whatever you wanted.

Private conversations obtained through wiretapping

On the subject of conversations in which investigators detect terrorist plans, even though these are debates or discussions that are sometimes a little alcoholic, one lawyer comes back to the “phatic function of language”: very often, people talk just to talk, to make conversation, with no other purpose than the conversation itself. It is therefore problematic for investigators to take the content of such conversations from granted. On the other hand, since this is a court of law, a lawyer will point out that there is nothing illegal about having such conversations in private.

Time and time again, judges and prosecutors want to know the defendants’ “relationship to violence”, based on the wiretaps. Speaking of prosecutors and judges, some are asking for prison sentences, while others are sending people to prison – if that’s not violence! And a real one, not based on randomly transcribed sound recordings.

Are zines proof of a violent act?

Here again, it’s hard to see what’s wrong with possessing zines or photo-montages. Defendants are questioned about documents – some of them among tens of thousands – stored in files they sometimes never have opened.The metadata of the files would prove it, but it’s a shame the DGSI pretends not to know how to “right-click -> properties”.

When it comes to the content of political zines [1], judges and prosecutors have the following strategy: find a common denominator between an accused and a zine (for example, they defend a “horizontal organization”, the “basic of a libertarian activist”) to try and prove that the accused planned to carry out the act in the way described in the zine. It seems they’ve never read a book with a critical mind. On this point, the defendants criticize the strategy of the judges and prosecutors. F. even responds on the substance, and the fact that his anti-authoritarian principles do not lead him to take power by force – a technique reserved for “Bolsheviks”. Besides, it would be “fanciful” to believe that we could face NATO’s firepower.

Answers given in police custody

We don’t go into too much detail in this report and on the credit that can be given to the answers given by the defendants in police custody. One lawyer describes the “mechanics of reinterpretation” at work in the case of a defendant: the DGSI implied to him off the record that F. had been arrested “with his finger on the trigger”. So, during his interrogation, he was able to reinterpret some idle talk F. had made 6 months earlier (about “killing cops” among other things) in the light of what was implied. And so he mentions this kind of conversation with F. during the custody.

For further analyses of how to obtain confessions in police custody, see the zine published by supporters. [in french – if someone want to translate it into other languages, contact us!]

Travel abroad

This went pretty quickly, because F. visited several European countries in 2020 to talk about his experience in Rojava, to give tips to people thinking of going there, and to prevent people from going on a whim, unprepared. In fact, he’s never made any secret of the fact that he’s made the trips with his truck or paid for the tickets with his credit card.There was talk of another trip to Athens by two of the accused, but here again judges and prosecutors were unable to give any details of potential encounters with foreign “cells” (the word used for a collective that wrote one of the zine in question).

Digital hygiene

Only two people were charged on Tuesday, while 2 others were questioned on Friday, justifying the use of encrypted tools and “digital hygiene”. One of them was interested in this because he was interested in computers, and wanted to have better hygiene with regard to the advertising we may receive afterwards. Unfortunately, he has never followed this hygiene too closely, but he thinks it’s good that people are using this software to protect themselves from GAFAM. The other first to protect himself from GAFAM, then on his return from Syria, for fear of the Turkish secret services and potential reprisals from the Grey Wolves (Turkish fascist organization). Finally, fear of the French intelligence services and Daesh.The prosecutor ironizes: does F. feel “that important” to be the target of all these services? But why is he talking, all F.’s fears are legitimate given the surveillance he has undergone and where he finds himself today. In addition, the defense points out that the Home Office (ministère de l’intérieur, in french) claims to be monitoring “2 to 3,000 ultraleftists“, which justifies the defendants’ fears. He didn’t give out his phone or computer codes when he was in police custody, because he kept his mouth shut. Then, when he refused to give his codes to the investigating judge, he explained that, in addition to the fundamental principle of respect for his private life, he was afraid that the DGSI would pass on information about people photographed in Syria to other secret services.

Judicial reviews and conditions of detention

At the end of the evening, the defendants take the stand one after the other to talk about respect for judicial review (JR), their current situation, and the progress of pre-trial detention (PD) for the 5 defendants who have been on remand (up to 15 months). The prosecutors weren’t even listening, and were already absorbed in writing their closing arguments. Normal, there was only exculpatory evidence.

The judge seems to want to move very quickly on the conditions of detention, but the defendants and their lawyers are keen to address them at the hearing. The PD was the “worst experience” of their lives for those who had been detained. They all describe the horror of detention itself, to which are added the humiliations of systematic strip searches after visiting moment (sometimes as guinea pigs to “train” ELAC – Prison Security Team), the filth of the cells (cockroaches, bedbugs), the comments and arbitrariness of the prison guards… Prison “ruined their lives”. For LibreFlot, most of his time was spent in solitary confinement. He was sent there because of a “white note”, surely to put pressure on him. It’s the “worst thing in [his] life”.It really is a “tomb”. With his lawyers, he describes the hell of solitary confinement and the impossibility of accessing healthcare, or taking part in activities offered to other inmates. He was only released after a hunger strike, “risking death to stay alive”, spending several days in critical condition in hospital. His solitary confinement was ruled illegal this year by an administrative court.

Sitting back in her armchair, the judge says about C. “some of these searches weren’t necessarily necessary, were they?” The art of euphemizing to hide the violence to which she contributes. Then she tells them that the problems of detention (systematic searches, isolation) are not her responsibility, and deflects onto the prison institutions. The defense points out that they ended up in prison precisely because of the judicial institution… Similarly, when one of the accused denounces the abuse of a SPIP officer (Correctional Service for Integration and Probation) during interviews, the judge says that it’s a pity, but that’s it. There’s never anyone to take responsibility when the time comes. Everyone passes the buck, and all that’s left in the end are broken lives.

When it wasn’t prison, the accused were subject to highly restrictive judicial reviews (JR): they had to clock in police station, were forbidden to leave a sometimes very restricted territory, were forbidden to attend demonstrations, and were required to follow up on all kinds of work (they had to work in the “fields or in the factory: rotten jobs, miserable pay”), in order to accentuate social control. These 50 shades of JR have turned their lives upside down: “professionally and personally, my life is screwed up”. The way loved ones look at you when you’re accused of terrorism, the obligation to live in certain places, the impossibility of doing jobs you used to love, the fear of punishment for the slightest breach… In the reports submitted by the people who followed them, we see that it’s the defendants’ way of being that is being judged. Incidentally, there was nothing to say about them: they all respected the constraints imposed on them. But if any psychologist judges you to be potentially on the bangs, watch out!

The hearing ended at nearly 11pm, and on our way out, a surprise awaited us on the courthouse forecourt: a thunderous batucada of support!

This Wednesday, the hearing doesn’t resume until 2.30pm with the prosecution’s closing arguments.

Notes :

[1] : https://paris-luttes.info/suivi-du-proces-du-8-12-17417?lang=fr#nb1

Tag 10 – 18.10.2023 : Die Tage vergehen und gleichen sich…

from de.indymedia.org

Wir erwarten eine weitere Anhörung zum Thema Waffen. Jedoch wird die Anhörung dadurch eröffnet, dass einer der Anwälte Schlussfolgerungen zu Protokoll gibt (um die Fachsprache zu verwenden).

Er kam noch einmal zur Vernehmung des Sprengstoff-Experten zurück. Dieser hatte im Zeugenstand ausgesagt, dass er eine Genehmigung für als geheim eingestufte Beweismittel hatte. Der Anwalt beantragt daher, die Verschlusssachen, zu denen er Zugang hatte, zu versiegeln und die Angelegenheit der Deklassifizierungskommission zu überantworten. Diese Eingabe wird ebenso wie die anderen, dem Gericht in der Hauptsache übermittelt. Somit werden die Richter*innen nicht vor der abschließenden Beratung über sie entscheiden – nicht sonderlich spannend.

Der Feuerwerker, dessen Job es ist, Knallkörper herzustellen, egal was der berühmte Experte für “typische Mischungen aus dem irakisch-syrischen Raum” davon hält, kehrt in den Zeugenstand zurück. Er soll sich nun für Waffen rechtfertigen, die er vor allem für seinen Job als Requisiten benötigt und für die er keine Munition hat! Sie würden mit ihrem Kaliber keinem Fuchs den garaus machen, geschweige denn einem dickbäuchigen Bonzen, der nur ein einziges Mal in einer Diskussion unter Betrunkenen erwähnt wird.

Nun geht es für den benannten “Spezialisten” zurück zum Softair-Spiel. Zumindest das hat er “manchmal” tatsächlich gespielt.

Die Richterin kommt auf die “entspannte” Haltung des Angeklagten während der Verhöre beim DGSI zu sprechen, bei denen die Beamten ihn durch seine Maske lächeln sahen (es ist Teil dieses Berufs!). Ja, wir alle reagieren auf unterschiedliche Art und Weise auf Stress. Er hat sogar aufgelacht, als die Polizei ihn als den “treuen Leutnant des charismatischen Führers” betitelten. Aber es ist ganz egal, wie oft er ihnen erzählt, dass sie befreundet sind und keine Mitglieder einer hierarchischen Gruppe – oder überhaupt einer Gruppe. Dass sie horizontale Verbindungen bevorzugen. All das interessiert diese Leute nicht. Die Geschichte ist geschrieben, es müssen nur noch die Rollen verteilt werden. Er weist allerdings darauf hin, dass er keineswegs “entspannt” war, weder beim DGSI noch vor dem Untersuchungsrichter oder in der (9-monatigen!) Untersuchungshaft. Somit sind ihm alle seine Antworten unter Stress und Zwang abgerungen worden und rein gar nichts wert.

Es ist dieselbe alte Leier: Dennis den Lausbuben zu spielen, indem er im Wald mit einer Zwille von Decathlon auf Konservendosen zielt, wird zum belastenden Beweismittel.

Er hat Freude an Softair, hat es schon in jungen Jahren gespielt und später gemeinsam mit Freund*innen… insgesamt 2 (!) mal. Intensives Training für den Bürgerkrieg, Frankreich hat Angst! Unabhängig davon, wie oft er erklärt, dass er in den Abhörprotokollen oder den gefundenen Notizen nur von Airsoft gesprochen hat, sind Richter*innen und Staatsanwaltschaft entschlossen, dies unbedingt mit dem Thema Waffen zu verknüpfen.

Zu Waffen im Übrigen: Frage der Richterin, ob er jemals echte Waffen benutzt habe, auf dem Schießstand, bei der Jagd oder bei anderen Gelegenheiten. Antwort: Nein, abgesehen von einem Mal auf einer Reise nach Guyana. Danach seien ihm fast die Zähne ausgefallen, weil er sie – anders als die erfahrenen Jäger, die ausgiebig darüber lachten – nicht richtig halten konnte. Er hat es nie wieder versucht und besitzt auch keine.
Unter den gänzlich objektiven Belastungsfaktoren sind nun sehr (sehr) ausgewählte Auszüge aus seinem Notizbuch an der Reihe. In dieses Buch wurden viele Dinge notiert, etwa zum Fensterputzen oder Kaffeekaufen, aber nein! Wir betrachten nur die wenigen Seiten, auf denen Rojava erwähnt ist. Denn ganz offensichtlich hat er in seinem Leben an gar nichts anderes mehr gedacht. Dass er auch schon länger davon sprach, ein Grundstück zu kaufen, ist nebensächlich. Eine schäbige Krypto-Mao-Broschüre, die sich in seiner Tasche befand, weil er sie aus irgendeinem Infoladen (die Definition von Infoladen [Franz. “infokiosque”] musste den Richter*innen und Staatsanwälten erst erläutert werden, sic) mitgenommen hat, wird für die Staatsanwälte zu seinem Nachttischbuch. Jedoch hatter er die Broschüre erst im Gefängnis gelesen hat und distanziert sich rigoros von ihr.

Unter dem Vorwand, dass bestimmte Themen in seinen aufgeschriebenen Gedanken wiederkehren (es ist freilich eigenartig, dass sich jemand mit Erster Hilfe für Schwerverletzte auseinandersetzt, bevor er sich in eine Gegend begibt, in der sich noch immer Positionen des IS befinden), werden uns Auszüge serviert, die eine autoritäre Ausrichtung des Angeklagten darstellen sollen. Es interessiert sie nicht, dass jede Frage vollkommen im Widerspruch zu den (anti-autoritären) Prinzipien steht, die er von Beginn an unermüdlich verteidigt hat. Fragen werden ihm außerdem durchschnittliche 4 – 5 Mal gestellt. Eine besonders häufig wiederholte ist diejenige, wer sich denn hinter den Decknamen in den Notizen verberge. Eine Frage, die keinen Kompromiss duldet!

Zitat des Tages wäre dann wohl Maos “die Waffen ergreifen, wo sie sind” und alles Verfügbare skrupellos ausnutzen: Genau das tut die Anklage, indem sie indem sie immer genau die Auszüge auswählt, die ihr in den Kram passen. Indem sie außenvorlässt, dass sogar in der Abschrift angegeben wurde, dass sie “betrunken und spaßig” aussahen und mitnichten den Schlag des Jahrhunderts vorhatten. Indem sie die Mao-Broschüre auswählt und nicht die über gewaltlose Kommunikation oder Pflanzenhygiene. Oder indem “Seite 4 und 5” aus den massenhaften Notizen ausgesucht werden, ohne dass ersichtlich wäre, wohin den die anderen 3 verweht wurden. Ein hübscher Flickenteppich, der vom DGSI nach dem Muster “zu geheim als dass jemand wissen kann, wo die Informationen herkommen” gezeichnet wurde.

Auf die Wahrheit, wie eine andere autoritäre Figur mal verlauten ließ, müssen wir warten und dann schauen: “Die Geschichte wird richten!”

übersetzt aus: https://paris-luttes.info/suivi-du-proces-du-8-12-17417?lang=fr

Beteiligt euch an der Solidarität mit den Angeklagten des 8. Dezember!

Kundgebung am Freitag, 27. Oktober, 11.00 Uhr vor dem Tribunal de Paris (Neuer Justizpalast, Porte de Clichy)

Day 12, Friday, October 20: If you use Signal (Il suffira de Signal..)

from Paris-luttes.info

Witnesses

An activist from Rennes testifies for C. They met during the Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes) in 2018. Later, they rubbed shoulders during preparations for feminist mobilizations on November 25, 2019 and March 8, 2020; also in the preparation of mobilizations with the Justice and Truth for Babacar committee [1] but also in mobilizations with undocumented migrants, notably with the requisition of an apartment building in winter 2020. She describes the desire to build a fairer world, the ideals they uphold, but also the growing repression and criminalization of these groups by the state. She paints a portrait of an activist who rejects ancestry relations and advocates non-violent means of action, a world away from the apocalyptic vision constructed by the DGSI and the public prosecutor’s office.

Next, a witness for S. takes the stand. He is a fire chief at Disney and has been his colleague for over 7 years. He describes S. as a very good, serious and trustworthy fireworker. With the help of the lawyers, his intervention demystified many of the elements developed by the prosecution on the 1st days.
The fireworks diploma is obtained after 5 days’ training, 3 of which are devoted to the laws in force. Otherwise, all the real training takes place in the field; there is no school for show pyrotechnics or cinema special effects in France, and the latter remains a very closed field. All pyrotechnicians are passionate about their craft, and seek to progress. So, yes, it’s normal and common to experiment with explosives when a special effects order has to be met, just as it’s normal for a pyrotechnician to be constantly walking around with his tools. Yes, “do it yourself” is omnipresent, because you have to know how to repair and adapt to customer requests, which implies modifying standardized products, because when it comes to special effects, what is required does not, by definition, exist before the order is placed, “you have to be MacGyver”. In fact, he did just that when the army commissioned him for an event.

Of course, the fireworker is in contact with dangerous products, and yes, he can transport and store them in reasonable quantities, but these limits are indicated in the diploma. So having 2kg of black powder at home – which you can easily recover by opening firecrackers bought in the shops – is really no big deal. And what could be more trivial than finding fireworks equipment in a fireworker’s car, apartment or even bag? Finally, the lawyer got him to react to a sentence from the explosives expert (whose field of expertise is definitely the DGSI’s small, well-defined lab, with a precise order and a well-defined result in advance, tailor-made to fit into the picture of the perfect terrorist – the customer is king there too). A week ago, the expert, proud of his science, proclaimed: “Artifice is one thing, explosive is another”. Here again, the artificer sets the record straight: it doesn’t make sense that “an artifice is an explosive anyway, which is why there are rules and diplomas”, which S possesses… quod erat demonstrandum.

Means of communication and IT tools

Basically, for the DGSI, judges and prosecutors, using Signal, Protonmail and Linux is enough to be 1) highly info-savvy, and 2) shady. So Tails, you can’t imagine…

First of all, it’s up to C. and L. to justify their use of these innocuous tools, so commonplace and “boilerplate” for them, that “it’s like driving on the right, it’s all the same”. The questions asked prove above all that judges and prosecutors are, or pretend to be, well-versed in these tools. One judge speaks of an “arsenal of discretion” when it comes to using Signal, Linux and Protonmail; the judge asks whether a Tails presentation workshop might not have an aura of illegality about it… Their questions and the proceedings show that it’s necessary to be wary of surveillance, whether commercial or state, and to use this kind of software!

Both have refused to give their phone and computer unlock codes, and are being prosecuted for this refusal. They hold their position in the name of preserving their privacy. For both of them, refusing to give the unlock codes was the only thing they had left to preserve their privacy, to show that they didn’t agree with what they were being accused of, in the face of everything they were enduring in police custody and during the investigation. As they were being interrogated by the DGSI, they were convinced that their computers and phone would be decrypted anyway. It turns out that a certain amount of encrypted data could not be exploited. Just saying…

C. was also questioned about the brochures found on a USB stick: of the dozens that were on it, the DGSI retained only a handful, using its secret magnifying glass effect to create fear. The DGSI set its sights on the “Burn your school” brochure (a series of satirical tales about school), documents on anarchist principles, an article in Ballast about an imprisoned Turkish novelist and activist opportunely presented as belonging to the PKK, which she has always denied, a brochure on Action Directe and one on the Toulouse squat. And here C. is questioned about her possession of these brochures on a USB key… Everyone is taken aback that she has to justify this. But that doesn’t stop the judge/prosecutor duo: the president wants to know if it’s not a contradiction to keep “Brûler son école” (Burn your school) on a key when you claim to be committed to popular education; the prosecutor wants C.’s opinion on revolutionary violence in general (in relation to Action Directe), then wants to know if C. considers Action Directe to be “terrorists”. Their questions provoke stunned laughter in the room, to which the president takes great pleasure in berating the audience in a professorial tone and giving lessons in respect. But then again, if she and the prosecutor didn’t spout so much nonsense…

A developer of the Silence application/jurist with La Quadrature du Net then testifies on the subject of communication tools.

He gives an overview of encryption and the best practices of defendants with regard to digital tools. He uses slides, including quotes from the DGSI, taken from the case file. A few points that stand out: encryption is everywhere, consubstantial with the digitization of lives, and essential for protection against cyber threats. Encrypting your data is widely recommended, including by institutions, and far from being evidence of secrecy, as it means exercising your fundamental right to privacy. He then goes on to describe some of the software discussed in the dossier: Signal, Tor, Linux, Tails and e/os/. For each, he describes the principle and the advantages of using it to protect your privacy, particularly from GAFAM.

In passing, he points out the errors made by the DGSI in the quotations, errors which conveniently tend to build up a criminal image of the use of this software. These jabs at the incompetence of DGSI agents were not to the liking of the chairwoman, who did not hesitate to cut the witness off repeatedly if she was not happy with what he was saying. No doubt a mark of respect from the judge. To drive the point home and show who has the upper hand in the room, she reprimands him for using the word “criminalization”.

This is followed by a lunar moment in which an assessor seems to suggest that the witness become an expert for the courts (she must have loved the slides, we have to admit it was well done), then a hallucinating scene in which the prosecutor threatens the witness with legal action! He accuses him/her of having had access to documents in the case file and of having put quotes from the minutes in his/her presentation slides, in short, of violating the secrecy of the investigation. Ah, when the DGSI’s bullshit is unpacked in public, the PNAT is angry! Fortunately, the defense lawyers came to the witness’s rescue and sent the prosecutor back to the ropes. By pointing out that in the middle of the investigation, a well-known journalist from a brown media had knowingly violated the secrecy of the investigation, divulged identities and elements of hearings and searches, and that a complaint had been lodged against him: the witness can rest assured that the complaint ended up in the dustbin of justice. 2 weights 2 measures…

Detention conditions

The final witness of the day is the former Director General of ACAT, an NGO that fights cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, torture and capital executions. He testifies on the solitary confinement LibreFLot suffered in pre-trial detention. During his 15 months in detention, F. spent more than a year in solitary confinement by administrative decision, and only came out of it after a hunger strike. The witness describes the isolation, the deprivation of meaningful human contact, the visceral boredom. He gives a list of physical and psychological symptoms developed by all those who undergo solitary confinement, which explains very well the difficulties under which the interviews with the investigating judge were conducted: in all cases, solitary confinement inflicts severe suffering on the detainees, and the symptoms are long-lasting. This suffering was endured by F. himself, as evidenced by his prison correspondence. Isolation is an extreme prison practice [2], akin to cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment.

Next week: Tuesday 24th is as busy as ever. There will be the hearing of the other defendants on the communication tools, the hearing on the conditions of detention, and the personality investigations. Wednesday 25, prosecutor’s closing arguments.

Notes :

[1] : Babacar Gueye was killed by policemen on December 3, 2015

[2] : He calls it “dungeon”