A live interview on Facebook halfway to expected delivery

In this interview, I explain how it came that it is written on the Internet that I was sentenced, while in fact the said judgement was null and void.

السلام عليكم

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم، أقدم لكم، يا إخوتي المسلمين الأعزاء في مايوت وجزر القمر، ملخصا مخلصا لقضيتي. أشكركم على تقاسمها مع كل ما تبذلونه من المعرفة، والصلاة بالنسبة لي، من خلال نعمة الله.

Hi Everyone
In the name of God the Merciful, I offer you, my dear Muslim brothers in Mayotte and the Comoros, a sincere summary of my case. Thanks for sharing with all your acquaintances; and pray for me, through God's grace.

On November 15, 2013, I gave an interview to a Mayotte radio station called KWEZI FM. I had just been out of detention for only three days, and I had an electronic bracelet on my ankle. After five months of confinement, I had a lot of anger in my voice because I was confronted with the blindness of the judicial system and the prejudices of the press. I trusted the host of the program, thinking that he would ask questions for the sole purpose of allowing me to explain the case; but the one was rather trying to trap me. His stubbornness in asking skewed questions is a reflection of the whole procedure I have undergone. This interview is online since 2013: I have just incorporated some photos and videos to make it more enjoyable to watch on my website. I would like you to know that the judge had me incarcerated anew, after I gave this interview. Supposedly, I aimed at destabilizing the civil parties. Yet, nothing in the French law prevented me from talking to the press, especially as the lawyers of the civil parties were talking too. One of them, Mansour Kamardine, denigrated me everyday and demanded my dismissal on the grounds that I did not deserve to be a lawyer. But the funny thing is that unlike him, I did obtain my lawyer's diploma.

In this video, I expose the origin of my troubles in Mayotte, where I had to defend some asylum seekers from the Great Lakes region of Africa, against a female lawyer protected by Freemasonry who had diverted for her personal profit, the compensation allocated by the administrative court to these poor people. From then on, I became a persona non grata in Mayotte. This started in 2011.

I made the mistake of recruiting in my office, Hakim Chekri, a former drug addict, to whom no one in France wanted to offer the opportunity to swear in as a lawyer. Like a snake biting the feeding hand, he stuck the knife in my back.

Called by Samiati Ali Ahamed whom he was sexually attracted to, he accepted recklessly to be her privileged witness. So, he told a complacent judge, that when he picked her up on the side of the road, he drove her to Mamoudzou where they smoked a cigarette. the funny thing is that the distance from the place he picked her to Mamoudzou is twelve kilometers; and Hakim said incredibly, that Samiati was crying alla long the road, on his scooter. But she has already waited for him more than sixteen minutes long on the side of the road, where surprisingly, no one, motorist or pedestrian, saw her and came to her rescue.

As he said, Hakim Chekri hastened to call Florence Journiac, my former employee whom he knows to hate me, and told her what he naively accepted from Samiati; and so with Randa Hassan, another hate lawyer, they organized a meal to determine Samiati Ali Ahamed to accuse me.

While he knew Samiati's personal relationship with me very well, he calculated that it was in his interest to be quiet and let me be arrested by the police, so that he would be in my place at the head of an important law office, which would allow him to captivate all my clients.

Likewise, when Samiati said that I was definitely leaving for Canada, he could have told the police that this was untrue, since he knew very well that I was traveling only for three months, and that on my return, I had planned to recruit another collaborator. Obviously, as a real traitor, he just wanted to see me arrested, to have himself peace with the prosecutor Philippe Faisandier who suborned him because he wanted Hakim testify against me, in the benefit of Martina Mussi, an Italian adventurer who came to mmy office, pretending falsely that she had been a lawyer in Paris.

Since I have got arrested, Hakim Chekri had the plaque and the answering machine in my office changed to his own personal name, as if it were his property. He insisted that the website of my firm be removed from the search engines, proving thereby that he was not acting as a mere collaborator of a lawyer temporarily detained and likely to return home at any time; but rather that he viewed himself as a boss.

Not only did he keep the scooter I bought for him and of which he had not finished the refunds, but he also kept hor his own profit, the fees paid by several clients; and left Mayotte without accounting for his management to anyone. He also dared ask access to my bank account, to be able to strip me; and when he was denied this access, he sued me in court and lost.

In a previous post, I have already exposed that the judge refused to display a photo-board so that my neighbor could possibly identify Samiati Ali Ahamed; and to justify this refusal, he said that Samiati had admitted that she already came to my apartment, contrarily to what she said in the first place. I have stressed that this admission was nowhere on the record when the magistrate made this statement; and that very clearly, Judge Jean-Pierre Niel - so to call him - was receiving information from the lawyers of my accusers, before the accusers themseives officially made before him, the statements supporting the information.

But this would not be the sole unsound an incomprehensible violation of my rights committed by the magistrate, as he also refused to have revealed the phone number of the mother of Nadia Moussa Mohamed who accused me of rape. In fact, this woman who does not speak French, phoned her daughter while the latter was busy doing to me what you can imagine, so that her mouth was busy. Nadia used my phone afterwards to call back her mother. But the judge refused to have the number identified, for the sole purpose of paralyzing me in my defense, since from the outset, he viewed me as a culprit.

Where the first paragraph of Article 173 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure required him to reach out to the Chamber of Instruction, the investigating judge corrected himself, the errors he found in the indictments of the prosecutor, so that they are not annulled - for example, if an indictment says that on a specific date, an incriminating fact would have occurred, but that date is objectively incorrect, the judge writes in his indictment order "Running the month of ...", which makes it possible to cover the inaccuracy of date and thus correct the indictment. With respect to several alleged offenses, he also indicted me without finding any evidence, and even despite the fact that the civil party said, very precisely, that at a specified date, the facts that were imputed had ceased.

Similarly, for him not to be bothered by the diary of another civil party which was seized under his authority on a rogatory commission - for he expected to find therein any incriminating elements - the judge for once, paradoxically, reached out to the Investigation Chamber to cancel this seizure on the ground that it no magistrate was present when the diary was taken; but while he falsely appeared to be strictly observant of the procedure, he came to search my office and my home, irregularly alone, without clerk, while his clerk had indeed done the trip with him from Reunion Island to Mayotte. Of course, he wanted to be in position to cancel the minutes in case any evidence compromising the accusers would be found, so that he could have the procedure cancelled on the ground that her clerk was absent. In this regard, cocooning excessively the accusers, addressing their lawyers in an obsequious way or finishing his emails to them by the phrase "Kind regards", as if he were sending them his "Kisses", the judge organized a hearing of a civil party alone, after a confrontation, just to allow her to catch up with the aspects of the confrontation on which she had been in trouble. He also removed a piece of evidence that I had given to him as a seal, namely a tube of shower gel, which was used in my home by one of the women whose malicious and venal complaint for attempted rape, has been the catalyst for my torments.

Moreover, to reject my demand so that a lady who was my neighbor could possibly identify one my accusers on a photo-board, since this neighbor of mine saw her on a wall of my residence, the judge told me that the civil party had already confessed having come to my home, so that such an identification by the witness was no longer necessary. However at the time the magistrate was making such a statement, there was still no document in the record to support this admission. It was after two months thereof, that the said civil party would confirm what the judge was already saying. Besides, on the event of this admission, the judge theatrically offered water to an accuser to whom he wanted to give the chance to catch her breath, because she could no longer co-ordinate her lies while confronted to my pressing questions. It appeared to me that the magistrate was no longer looking for the truth. The confrontation that day, was not a videoconferencing one; otherwise, he would have said nothing at all, if the attorney of the civil party had written any answer on a piece of paper and slipped it to her, or prompted herself to rescue her by nudges.

Moved by openly assumed bias, the magistrate paid no attention to the explanations and documents that I produced for my defense: observations, letters, emails, testimonies, photos, and even videos, that at first, he refused to receive, because his prejudices vis-à-vis me were so strong, that the least evidence I provided was suspect, necessarily deceptive, obtained by fraud or trickery, etc.  Instructing only to charge me, he did not ask the civil parties any question that might put them in difficulty, even when it was obvious that they were lying; that there were gross contradictions between their statements before the investigators and those made before him; that they varied greatly in their statements in his presence from one confrontation to another; or worse, that they were contradicted by witnesses including a member of their own family.

For example, one of the accusers said that she did not have a consanguine senior sister, because I mentioned that senior sister as her alibi when she actually spent the night with me. While her younger sister was auditioned, she said spontaneously to the police that this older consanguine sister does exist. But the judge never tried to confront the accuser who was lying then, to what the younger sister innocently declared; never did he search for the said half-blood sister in order to check thoroughly who is lying or why, even though the full-blood junior sister, who had already brought a spare robe to my law office, said that the civil party was sleeping over during the period preceding her complaint; and never again since then, the judge has allowed hearing or any act of investigation in direct relation with the civil party without whom the prosecution would have quickly collapsed.

The judge was not either embarrassed at rephrasing the answers of the civil parties to make them more overwhelming, or mine in order to mitigate them or make ambiguous a vehement denial. Neither has the judge ever been inspired to collect the supposedly compelling evidences some accusers, just swaggering, claimed to hold (like SMS or emails written by themselves), even though I called on him several times for him to ask for the so-said evidences if ever they really existed. In short, for more than two years of investigation during which the life of an innocent lawyer has been ruined in a snap of fingers, this by a provisional detention followed by a very tough probation, and a provisional suspension followed by a disciplinary prohibition, nothing was ever produced as material evidence against me, nothing, and absolutely nothing, for half a dozen accusers all the same.

For example, the judge even allowed an accuser to read by videoconference, an email which she said she wrote herself, and which the judge has never seen or asked to see. He also never asked to see a pantyhose that another accuser said to have worn one evening when, driving my car (knowing that she was the passenger), I had allegedly made a hole in, with one hand, in order to finger her genital parts... while the other hand would have remained on the wheel of that car on the move. Although the judge noted that it would have been enough for her to keep her thighs closed to avoid this so-called rape, he ultimately decided to believe all the nonsense this pathological liar told and which revealed to be pure fantasies.

Looking back today, I think I was very lucky, because it was clear that the judge wanted to ruin my life. It was not the truth that interested him, but rather sentencing an innocent person.

He was not looking for any evidence, not even the evidence supposed to be against me. Indeed, the civil parties have randomly claimed that they had some SMS or e-mails written by themselves; but never has the judge asked to see these so-called proofs.

So far he kept me in Reunion Island, far away from my law office, all the rest did not matter for him. It was only because the president of the Investigation Chamber found that I could no longer pay my rent and that I was showing misery, that he ordered, out of pure pity, my return to Mayotte.

Otherwise for a long time, this return had been refused on the grounds that my accusers who were living in Mayotte, did not withdraw their complaints. At no time, therefore, have I benefited from the presumption of innocence, which is only a vain word.