Virginie against the Leviathan: interview by Ariane Bilheran 2/2

A. Bilheran's Lucarne (Skylight), in Antipresse 399 - July 23, 2023.

Website of Maître Virginie de Araújo-Recchia

In the first part of this interview, Ms. Virginie de Araújo-Recchia gave us the details of the incredible search and arrest of which she was the victim in France. As if her personal example were not enough to demonstrate the totalitarian nature of the regime, she broadens the perspective to the treatment of all those — lawyers, opponents, whistleblowers—who today dare to denounce the excesses of the "rotten Western world".

PART TWO

Virginie de Araújo-Recchia

In April 2020, having become aware of the faltering nature of our democracy, you began to post alerts on social media about the measures taken, which seemed to you to go against logic, the law and our primary duty to respect the dignity of the human person.

In November 2020, you wrote a report entitled "Dictatorship Report 2020, State Terrorism, Attack on Fundamental Interests and Crimes Against Humanity."

You have also filed numerous complaints, the majority of which have been unsuccessful and have been dismissed. Prosecutors and investigating judges are under pressure to dismiss cases.

You are currently in the Court of Cassation. Why are you there and how could your case unfortunately set a precedent?

Following the unreasoned decision (clearly tainted by errors in the classification of facts and an excess of power) issued by the President of the investigating chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, which granted the investigating judge the possibility of seizing certain documents without this request itself being justified, we filed an appeal before the Court of Cassation. At no time was the seizure of the documents subject to review or any justification on the basis of an expert report, which was drawn up using a keyword search, which was completely unsuccessful from the point of view of demonstrating the commission of the offense sought. This is not contested by either the investigating judge or the prosecutor. I note that the expense linked to the cost of such an expert report is not negligible in light of the meager budget of the Justice system. This report, which demonstrates the absence of involvement in any offense, could at least have been taken into account rigorously and put an end to this matter. In these circumstances, I could not bring myself to admit the slightest violation of professional secrecy and the secrecy of correspondence in this case, given the potential future repercussions. We are living today in the context of a manifestly totalitarian regime. It is therefore perfectly logical that specialists raise their voices to remind us of the values, principles, and rules that apply, and that many French people note the irregularities and offenses committed and attempt to alert the rest of the population, knowing that the mainstream media serve as a model of propaganda within this rotten Western world.

These whistleblowers are currently subjected to a whole range of intimidation processes, including legal proceedings, professional proceedings, censorship, and worse. The public authorities have used accusatory inversion to label them as sectarian, terrorist, for having misinformed the population, which is completely grotesque given everything that is emerging and what was perfectly known from the start. The files I am currently filing to demonstrate this are over a thousand pages long, not counting other materials. Consequently, if lawyers, who have at one time or another challenged one of the measures taken by the public authorities since 2020, come to advise one of these whistleblowers, my case demonstrates that they can quite simply be considered, like their clients, as opponents of the regime, and no longer as lawyers. This seriously diminishes the legal protection of citizens, particularly political opponents.

There is now a possible confusion between lawyer and client, an assimilation based solely on opinions that may partially converge, even if the lawyer has not committed any offense and the investigation file does not provide proof of it. I should point out that I have never defended criminals, as far as I know, and that is a choice. Nevertheless, in France, the principle that everyone has the right to a defense must be respected. You will therefore see that certain famous lawyers known as "big shots" are frequently interviewed in the media, and that they clearly defend proven criminals, following a court decision or admission of the facts, without any consequences against them. In fact, none of these lawyers has been taken into custody on suspicion of complicity with the perpetrator of the acts, under the pretext that it was their client. However, it is often observed that the lawyer may be prepared to do anything to defend his client, even to the point of lying or distorting the facts, using all means of a procedure, while he knows perfectly well that his intervention will allow a criminal to be released. Thus, given that the qualification of terrorism is now more and more commonly put forward, and that opponents of globalist totalitarianism are considered in any case to be criminals both at the national level and according to international organizations such as the WHO, the shift is not only hypothetical.

What will be the outcome? Lawyers will likely not want to take the risk of defending an opponent of the regime (or at least of the measures taken), for fear of suffering the same fate as me. This was probably a signal to my colleagues, so that everyone falls into line, even if the findings are obvious, and lawyers, by their profession, have always participated in debates of public interest, quite simply because they are one of the best placed to provide exegesis of the texts.

Have you received a lot of support, and if not, why do you think?

I have some significant support in France and many abroad. As far as the legal profession is concerned, the vast majority of my colleagues have abstained. It is their choice, as I have made mine. I have noticed that some have publicly questioned my good faith and integrity, in defiance of the fundamental principle of respecting the presumption of innocence, without having been informed of the details of the case. I have taken careful note of this. Only the National Council of French Bars (CNBF) expressed very brief concern about this trend in the context of a newsletter, in passing in a sentence that I was nevertheless able to note.

You participated in Reiner Fuellmich's expert commissions. Can you explain your role and the purpose of these commissions?

I was a member of the team of international lawyers (fully independent) in charge of conducting the Grand Jury hearings on behalf of the International Court of Public Opinion (sessions in February/March 2022). I was again a member of the team of international lawyers (fully independent) in charge of conducting the Grand Jury hearings on behalf of the International Court of Public Opinion (sessions in May-June 2022). Given the slow pace of the procedures carried out in each State, both at the European and international levels, we were able to see that none of them was adapted to the emergency in which we found ourselves. Since at no time did the public prosecutor take up the cases, we decided to give the floor to the victims and experts, within the framework of a procedural model that can be found in the United States. However, we have kept in mind the principles of natural law which pre-exist the rules of positive law and the State.

Following these interventions, we shared our conclusions in law and held a vote to determine public opinion: it was in favor of seeking accountability. We were thus able to make public interventions, which we still consider fundamental today, and which were able to be relayed in several countries, thanks in particular to the translation teams. We hoped in this way to convey to the populations and jurists of the different countries the elements necessary to initiate proceedings. We indicated from the outset that this was a model, and not a procedure as such before an international body recognized by the system in place. This renders null and void all the accusations we have suffered, saying that we were a "controlled opposition", because we were not conducting procedures. In my case, this is false, because I led the proceedings, but in the case of this commission of inquiry, the clear and stated objective was to provide all the tools and expert opinions so that citizens and lawyers could take action at the level of their national jurisdiction. I would like to point out that in this participation in the grand jury, which represents hundreds of hours of work, I was entirely voluntary, as was the writing of my Dictatorship report and my participation in the various conferences for the protection of citizens' rights.

Today, my colleague Reiner Fuellmich began discussions with the leaders of the Hapu of Nu Tireni Congress in New Zealand, which, according to the texts, has never renounced its sovereignty to the Crown of England. This Congress now wishes to reactivate the Court of Justice attached to it, given the circumstances and its legitimacy. The same is true in Peru, Australia, and Canada: this momentum comes from peoples deeply connected to their traditions, their ancestors, their cultures, nature, and spirituality. I hope that the peoples of the Old Continent will follow this path.

Speech by Maître Virginie de Araújo-Recchia in Lisbon on 09/09/2022

Author

Ariane Bilheran

Ariane Bilheran, graduate of the École Normale Supérieure (Ulm), philosopher, clinical psychologist, doctor of psychopathology, specializes in the study of manipulation, paranoia, perversion, harassment and totalitarianism.

Rational and methodical, but also a musician and poet, Ariane plumbs the depths of the human soul with as much ardor and patience as she contemplates the stars, to pierce the mysteries of the universe. In the Antipresse, she hosts her own column, the Lucarne, but also the Abécédaire du totalitarisme and the Portraits.

La Lucarne by Ariane Bilheran in Antipresse

"There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in", sang Leonard Cohen. Ariane Bilheran has created skylights from these cracks to both receive the light of the world and to project the light of the spirit onto the world. Ariane's Lucarne (Skylight) is a captivating and passionate exchange between spirit and matter, between harmony and dissonance, joy and pain—in short, a dive into the heart of the world.