Judgement in the Civil Litigation Against McDonald’s and a Franchisee
The events surrounding the civil litigation, an authentic sham trial, which happened from 2006 to 2008, have been extremely distressing, and I wish to highlight several crucial aspects.
On December 15, 2023, I submitted to the European Court of Human Rights comprehensive explanations of how I found myself in this predicament, you can access the detailed account that I have provided. Please note that the first communication I submitted to the Court has been heavily redacted and the Court’s records pertaining to this case have been sealed due to the extreme sensitiveness of some information.
Then, on December 20, 2023, I submitted to the European Court of Human Rights sets of requests for interim measures. In paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), I explained:
(3) My first request for interim measure is for the European Court of Human Rights to adopt an inquisitorial approach, rather than adversarial, for the establishment of the facts.
(4) Indeed, as explained in Karen Reid’s book, A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, 6th edition, in section 1-016 (Establishment of the facts), “The Court has power to take evidence and hear witnesses […]. It is rare that the Court is unable sufficiently to determine the factual basis of an application on the documentary material provided by the parties. Where a matter has been adjudicated in a domestic system, at first instance and on appeal, it is likely that the crucial facts have become common ground between the parties or that the differences between them are unlikely to be resolved further. […]”
(5) I accuse the French judicial system, in certain specific cases which are pertinent to my situation, of condoning a recurring pattern of the serious crimes of “faux et usage de faux en écriture publique” (the forging/doctoring/altering/falsification of a court/public/legal/official documents/decisions and subsequent criminal use of such documents/decisions).
The judgment claims to have been “pronounced in the first instance, by contradictory decision and made available at the court registry in accordance with the notice given at the end of the debates.” However, this is patently false. The adversarial principle was never respected! I was never given the opportunity to examine the evidence presented by McDonald’s, nor was I allowed to submit new arguments in response to the claims made by McDonald’s attorneys.
As I explain in paragraphs (101), (102), and (103) of one of the December 15, 2023, submissions:
(101) I want to highlight several critical points that underscore the gravity of the situation. During the legal proceedings against McDonald’s, there was a blatant disregard for the adversarial process. I was unjustly denied access to the evidence McDonald’s presented and the opportunity to respond to their deliberately misleading argumentation, possibly based on false evidence. This fundamental breach resulted in my losing the case, which is astonishing given that I can conclusively prove the frauds committed by McDonald’s in 2011 and in subsequent years.
(102) It’s essential to state unequivocally that the French judges handling this case displayed not only dangerous incompetence but also evident corruption. They falsely claimed in their judgment that the adversarial process had been upheld, which is an outright fabrication. It’s impossible for the adversarial process to be respected if I was never allowed to see McDonald’s evidence or respond to their misleading argumentation, possibly based on false evidence. Their claim is an egregious lie, undermining the very foundations of justice.
(103) This case was nothing short of a sham trial, a mockery of judicial integrity. The judges must have been influenced in some way, as they were fully aware of my financial inability to continue the case yet proceeded as if this critical fact was irrelevant.
Given the egregious violations of my fundamental rights as protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, I must nevertheless address some critical aspects of the judgment. Please note that I am responding without ever having had access to the evidence presented by McDonald’s. I created this page on May 13, 2024. Before I delve further into the specifics of what transpired and discuss the falsehoods perpetuated by the French judiciary in this case—a judiciary that exhibits either dangerous incompetence or corruption—I will need to upload additional information on other pages. This will facilitate easier cross-referencing of various sections and allow me to highlight the evidence more effectively.
To gain a clearer understanding of the sequence of events in this case, I invite you to view a detailed timeline at the following link:
https://www.ECTHRwatch.org/timeline/mcdonalds/
This timeline provides a comprehensive overview of the key milestones and developments.
