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.