COMMENTS- Video "Who rules over you"


Newest comments first


It takes just ONE DAY (maximum two days) for a parodic or satirical photo which does not stand as violation of Google policy to be removed. J u s t  o n e  d a y, but the rulers kept it so long because they could not get NO satisfaction.


Comment serait-il possible une entreprise « si importante implantée dans le monde entier” de laisser tant de fiches Google My Business - plus d'une cinquantaine (combien!?#$!!) - incontrôlés, n'ayant pas revendiqué la propriété, si ceux-ci n'avaient pas été créés par elle-même? Même si on a effectué une vérification non autorisée d'une fiche My business, ce serait très facile pour une entreprise « de cette taille » d’identifier les propriétaires non autorisés et les poursuivre. Il serait, bien sûr, insensé de croire que la société Hutchinson n'est pas derrière cette publication délibérée des photos inappropriées (selon eux), comme il est ridicule et scandaleux d’accuser des personnes qu’ils avaient partagé des photos à partir de leur « Google album archive» d'être des pirates informatiques qui ont modifié les fiches d'identité d’une entreprise « très importante », d’une entreprise constituant un véritable fleuron de l'industrie du cirque.


Bie noté, Mickaël. Cela démontre, une fois de plus, la mauvaise foi de l’action de la société Hutchinson.

En ce qui concerne les sites « Google My Business », il est encore plus intéressant que la société Hutchinson est le propriétaire de ces sites. Leurs techniciens sont assignés en tant qu'administrateurs et ainsi ils disposent des outils nécessaires pour modifier les données de leur entreprise, publier des photos et des avis, supprimer ou répondre à des avis. Ce sont ces administrateurs de la société Hutchinson qui sont commandés par la direction de Hutchinson de publier certaines photos inappropriées afin d'incriminer plus tard, sans aucune base logique et preuves, ceux qui ont partagé (non publié) des photos via leurs comptes Google. Ils publient eux-mêmes des photos inappropriées et ils osent accuser les visiteurs d’être des pirates informatiques qui ont changé leurs données d’identité! Une autre honte! En tant qu'anciens employés de Hutchinson, nous sommes conscients du fait que Hutchinson a bien acquis la propriété des sites Google My business et ainsi elle est capable de contrôler toutes leurs données commerciales. Nous sommes également conscients de leur stratégie honteuse en vue d’induire les tribunaux en erreur dans des affaires juridiques antérieures concernant Google My Business en présentant des personnes qu’ils avaient partagé des photos à partir de leur « Google album archive » comme des pirates informatiques qui avaient modifié leur fiches d'identité! SEULS les propriétaires ou leurs représentants autorisés peuvent valider et gérer les informations relatives à leur entreprise sur Google My Business.

La santé des chômeurs, y compris des victimes de harcèlement qui ont été licenciés abusivement (licenciement nul et non avenue ou congédiement déguisé) et ils ont ensuite été placés dans «une liste noire», constitue une question de santé publique. La perte d'emploi est un événement traumatique. De ce fait, le but de santé et sécurité au lieu de travail pour lequel nous agissons est un but d’intérêt général et de santé publique.


Did you know that in “Google My business” of an entity any Google account holder is free to submit for review (not directly upload) photos, comments and suggest edits? We know that, but some entities including Hutchinson company did not know that LOL. Not even that?! Google My Business gives the tools to the entity which creates the account and verifies a business to manage the info provided about the business, the reviews and photos, reply to comments and get many “insights” regarding the visitors (how/when customers search for their business). The “My business” intends to facilitate interaction between a business and the customers and often promotes the freedom of expression and information (when the “My business” becomes “public”). If a company manages a “My business” account, then nobody else could have access to it and upload photos unless they were hackers. Everybody is free to submit photos to a business site, but it is on the discretion of the owner’s review team to select and upload a photo from an account or reject the proposed ones. The photos are uploaded to one’s account and not directly to “My business”. The same applies for the submitted reviews which the owner of the business can remove or reply to. It seems that some businesses get annoyed by that freedom due to negative reviews or some photos submitted, so they take steps to remove their profile from Google which might have been created by the public or Google (not verified by them). “How should I know?” If they get the ownership, then they can remove critical comments and keep only the fake or tailor-made 5* wordless ones (the freedom of expression is promoted well). Indeed, this was the reason that we created our Channel as our critical comments were eventually removed from “My business” (whose business was that?). Some proposed photos had been honored by being published by the business manager, not by us. We noticed that the Hutchinson’s Research Centre in Châlette-sur-Loing (not the plant) has been removed from the Google listing. This can be considered as a solution against the unfavorable criticism. Removing also the business itself can be an effective punitive measure for their harassment and abusive practices.


Laissez-moi faire valoir, une fois de plus, le caractère manifestement licite tant de la chaîne Youtube “Hutchinson SA” que du blog “hutchinsoncentrederecherche.fr” qui font l'objet d'une attaque malveillante menée par la société Hutchinson. Nous agissons dans un but de santé, sécurité et dignité au lieu de travail, un but d’intérêt général par le biais de la parodie, la satire et la critique légitime en disposant d'une base factuelle suffisante sans excéder les limites admissibles du droit à la liberté d’expression. Nous visons à dénoncer des conditions de travail malsaines et dangereuses, les pratiques de harcèlement bien établies des entreprises pendant la période d’emploi ainsi que lors du processus de recrutement. Les propos tenus s’inscrivent dans le cadre d’un débat d’intérêt général portant sur les actes de harcèlement et les pratiques abusives des entreprisesdont l’effet sur la santé et l’emploi justifie l’intervention de divers acteurs ayant pu être victimes ou étant d’une façon ou d’une autre concernés par ce fléau mondial.

Les logos parodiques ne relèvent pas du droit des marques, mais de la liberté d'expression. Sans aucun doute ils n’entraînent pas un risque de confusion dans l'esprit du public (comme c'est le cas pour le nouveau logo de la société Hutchinson qui ressemble au logo ancien d’Areva- une question de lignes rouges). Nous n'avons pas visé à induire le public en erreur quant à l’identité de l’auteurs de la communication, il n’y pas aucune intention d’usurper l’identité d’une société au sens de l’article 226-4-1 du Code pénal et de nous faire passer pour elle. L’objet du site n’est pas de faire croire au public qu’il s’agit d’une chaîne officielle de la société Hutchinson, ni de laisser penser que cette dernière est l’auteur des contenus publiés. Le caractère critique et parodique des contenus mis en ligne ne fait pas de doute pour le public. «Les travaux parlementaires de la loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la performance de la sécurité intérieure du 14 mars 2011 (LOPSSI II) précisent que le législateur a seulement voulu réprimer le fait d’utiliser le nom ou l’identifiant d’une personne, non pas pour la critiquer ou d’en faire un sujet polémique, mais pour se faire passer pour l’usurpé.» Apparemment, l’accusation d’usurpation d’identité est manifestement mal-fondée. Les sociétés Youtube et Google ont fait justement valoir que la demande de la société Hutchinson de suppression globale d’un support de communication, tel que notre chaîne Youtube et blog est mal-fondée et constitue une atteinte disproportionnée à la liberté d’expression. Leur plainte en acte de contrefaçon de marque («what was thaaat!?») est mal-fondée. C’est évident que notre objectif n’est pas de faire valoir un intérêt commercial. La discussion est tenue en dehors de tout contexte de concurrence commerciale. Tous les commentaires s’inscrivent dans le cadre d’un débat d’intérêt général et sont fondés sur des faits bien connus des employés que justifie ainsi la bonne foi de leurs auteurs. De plus, quelques propos des auteurs ne reflétaient que leur opinion, sans que ceux-ci n’abusent de façon fautive de leur liberté d’expression.

La société Hutchinson s'est manifestement avérée être mal intentionnée avec leur requête/citation directe dépourvue de fondement factuel, raisonnable et juridique. Son intention est de nuire à la liberté d’expression dans le cadre d’un sujet d’intérêt général par les moyens d’intimidation et des mensonges exaspérants contre les auteurs. Ils sont dénués des preuves/justifications que l'auteurs n'ont pu être contactés et des justifications de faits (article 6-I 5 de la loi du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l’économie numérique) qui peuvent faire apparaître un caractère fallacieux ou trompeur d'un commentaire. En revanche, les auteurs avaient apporté de nombreuses preuves dans leur procédure prud'homale. Ils ont aussi obtenu des preuves par la Poste que la société Hutchinson n’a jamais envoyé des citations ou sommations par lettre recommandée, ce qui ressort également du procès-verbal des huissiers désignés.


L’existence d’instruction est censée servir à éviter les procédures à caractère frivole en constituant un outil procédural pour lutter contre les poursuites-bâillons. Néanmoins, le plaignant a ignoré la procédure en cours par voie d'instruction (après son échec à livrer leur SLAPP aux auteurs l'année dernière) et a réussi à transmettre récemment par force leur poursuite-bâillons en prouvant ainsi davantage leur comportement abusif! Remarquablement, Mme Massis a indiqué leur intention de multiplier les procédures en intentant plusieurs recours et en fixant des audiences multiples visant de cette façon à charger les auteurs des frais supplémentaires afférents à la procédure judiciaire jusqu'à ce qu’ils ne soient plus en mesure de les assurer. Pour sa part, bien sûr, «this is about money». En effet, le facteur temporel, la durée excessive d’une procédure judiciaire est considérée comme l’une des composantes des poursuites-bâillons visant à déstabiliser la partie adverse financièrement et psychologiquement. C'est une autre preuve de leur mauvaise foi, de leur stratégie légère et malveillante.

Il est intéressant de noter que le recours intenté par Esso à l’encontre de Greenpeace était accompagné d’une demande en dommages et intérêts de 80,000 euro. Hutchinson a remarquablement demandé au juge la condamnation des auteurs (dont la capacité financière n’est pas comparable à celle de Greenpeace et Hutchinson) à 320,000 euro de dommages - 20,000 euro seulement pour Mme Massis - en dehors de la somme de 10,000 euro/jour, une somme quadruple de celui qu’Esso avait réclamé. La somme de 320,000 euro allouée en matière de parodie et critique de la bonne foi s'est avéré être « trop insignifiante pour nous réduire au silence » LOL.
Une plainte en acte de contrefaçon de marque ne peut être acceptée par une juridiction que dans un cadre de concurrence commerciale avérée. Les fondements légitimes qui peuvent être invoqués pour la contrefaçon («s'il peut en résulter un risque de confusion dans l'esprit du public», « pour des produits ou services identiques ou similaires à ceux désignés dans l'enregistrement. »), comme aussi pour le dénigrement, concernent les relations s’exerçant dans un cadre de concurrence commerciale (« […] en vue de vendre, fournir, offrir à la vente ou louer des marchandises présentées sous une marque contrefaite »). La demande de Hutchinson est manifestement dépourvue des fondements factuels, logiques et légitimes. Ils ont exploité les tribunaux afin de supprimer la liberté d’expression dans le cadre d’un débat public sur un sujet d'intérêt général et imposer l'autocensure par intimidation. Leur action manifestement intentée avec une mauvaise foi, une légèreté ou une témérité constitue un abus du droit d’agir en justice. Celon l’Article 32 et 32-1 du CPC « Est irrecevable toute prétention émise contre une personne dépourvue du droit d'agir. Celui qui agit en justice de manière dilatoire ou abusive peut être condamné à une amende civile d'un maximum de 10,000 €, sans préjudice des dommages-intérêts qui seraient réclamés. » De ce fait, les sanctions contre la société Hutchinson, laquelle est recouru à une poursuite-bâillon et a menti à plusieurs reprises à la justice que « les auteurs ne peuvent être trouvés » en se tenant à l'écart d’un procès équitable, augmentent totalement à 33,909,500 € d'amende plus une réclusion criminelle à perpétuité plus 136,5 ans d'emprisonnement.


Celon l’article 11 du code de procédure pénale « la procédure au cours de l'enquête et de l'instruction est secrète. Toute personne qui concourt à cette procédure est tenue au secret professionnel dans les conditions et sous les peines des articles 226-13 et 226-14 du code pénal. La révélation d'une information à caractère secret par une personne qui en est dépositaire soit par état ou par profession, soit en raison d'une fonction ou d'une mission temporaire, est punie d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d'amende. »
Encore une fois, comment Me Massis a appris de la lettre d’invitation du juge d’instruction? Ils voulaient se cacher dans la cour? La révélation d'une telle information à caractère secret met en danger la sécurité des auteurs invités.

Evidently, we are all willing to defend in a FAIR TRIAL our right to freedom of expression, our right to participate in public debates on a substantive issue of a public interest or concern, our right to impart information sharing our experiences with the community and denouncing corporate abusive practices. It is also our right to have access to a FAIR LEGAL PROCEDURE which includes the principles of equality of arms and of general interest. We have been accessible since the creation of the channel, nobody ever tried to escape a legal process, nobody believes that our parodied work and comments in good faith are illicit, but the resort of Hutchinson company to malicious, abusive SLAPP intended to be delivered by their designated bailiffs only in person in the authors’ residences, their threats and actual malice have “manifestement” undermined our aforementioned rights. Hutchinson company aims to intimidate and neutralize or censor individuals engaged in denunciation of their corporate illegal practices. They avoid a fair trial but involve the authors in super-costly legal procedures that they can not afford which constitutes a form of a judicial intimidation or the so-called "chilling effect". We’ve seen that their intimidation strategy has addressed both Google/Youtube and the Channel’s commentators as Hutchinson company demanded astronomical fines for attorney’s “legal” fees (over 20,000 euros) and for nonexistent offenses without providing any evidence for false statements. They doubtless try to limit our right to public participation engaging into legal malpractices. The abuse of Hutchinson company and their “legal” advisor must be sanctioned with punitive damage payments and the burden of proof has to be placed to the plaintiffs. We had provided in the labour court (where we were muzzled by the judge) plenty of evidences of their illegal practices. SLAPPs and threatening warnings fail to limit our licit activities but definitely limit the consideration (if any) of those who issue those. For Mme Massis “this is about money”, for us “this is about our right to resist to oppression in workplace”, “satire is our painkiller” and “this is for the benefit of the public, it is for the benefit of those who need to work for living”. It is also for the benefit of the companies who ignore the CSR labels and certifications and their obligation of non-financial reporting, but instead assign fake, non existent “SCR” technical projects (what a fun). “C’est une évaluation pour leur amélioration”.
La liberté d’expression de la presse est particulièrement étendue et comprend la possibilité de recourir à une certaine dose d’exagération, voire de provocation, en particulier dans le cadre d’un débat d’intérêt général (Cass. crim., 23 mars 1978, n° 77-90.339). Le droit de critique est particulièrement important lorsqu’il vise des acteurs engagés dans l’espace public, tels que des grandes entreprises (CEDH, 15 févr. 2005, n° 68416/01) ou encore leurs dirigeants (CEDH, 21 sept. 1993, n° 17101/90). Le droit à un procès équitable trouve lui aussi ses sources à la fois au sein du droit international et du droit constitutionnel français. Il comprend les principes d’égalité des armes et d’intérêt général, notamment grâce à l’influence de la CEDH. La CEDH insiste sur la nécessité d’offrir aux parties à un procès « une possibilité raisonnable de présenter sa cause dans des conditions qui ne la placent pas dans une situation de net désavantage par rapport à son adversaire » ( CEDH, 27 oct. 1993, n° 14448/88 ). En particulier, elle reconnaît régulièrement le déséquilibre des moyens entre militants et grandes entreprises, ainsi que l’impact en résultant sur l’équité dans la procédure judiciaire (CEDH, 15 févr. 2005, n° 68416/01).
Envisagée au regard du droit français et international relatif aux droits à la liberté d’expression, à la participation aux affaires publiques et à un procès équitable, la pratique des Poursuites Stratégiques Altérant le Débat Public présente un risque avéré d’atteinte au fonctionnement de la démocratie et à la primauté de l’intérêt général sur les intérêts particuliers. Suite à la solution POME, Barrick Gold and Gunns 20 nous serons l’affaire emblématique HUTCHINSON S.A.T.I.RE (Solution Against Threatening Intimidating REquêtes). Ils recherchent ingénieurs« qui aiment la conquête » ? We like the con.quête, we like the CON’s reQUÊTE et nous sommes le « chien de garde » de la démocratie et des droits humains (CEDH, 26 nov. 1991, n° 13166/87 ; CEDH, 26 nov. 1991, n° 13585/88).


THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES! JE SUIS Hutchinson SAtIRE and I am willing to defend our freedoms in the court wishing to harm the “consideration” of the corporate harassment system which destroys lives and careers.

The court should have provided to Hutchinson company our personal data including home addresses as their citation SLAPP apart from a residence address mentions our e-mail provided by our internet suppliers, as well. The internet suppliers do not provide personal data to the companies but only to the judicial police upon an order of the judge d’instruction. So, although Hutchinson is well aware of our residence addresses and email verified by the judicial police does not send by registered letter their illegal documents, says lies that we can not be found and we do not respond to their letters and makes independent research asking many bodies aiming to collect further personal data and intrude once more into our private lives. They desperately try to find if there are further residence addresses in order to approach the authors in person disturbing their personal lives when a legal procedure initiated by the judge d’instruction is ongoing which will lead to the court shortly. They ignore the recent court order which rejected their abusive claims, they ignore the ongoing legal procedure initiated by the judge d’instruction, they fail to send their threatening documents in our addresses verified by the judicial police, they fail to provide us tracking numbers to investigate, their bailiffs fail to indicate in all their reports that they mailed their citations according to the article 659 of the civil code, they fail to provide evidences that we lie making unfounded statements driven by actual malice, they possibly intervene with the postal services (offering bribes) to filter out court letters of which Mme Massis (and not our lawyers) mysteriously and quickly gets aware (when the judge has never informed her), they have the audacity to accuse the authors of not responding to letters and of making sure not to be found, they lie to the court that the authors can not be found when we presented ourselves to the judicial police assuming responsibility and they ask Google to close the Channel and the Blog demanding astronomical fines without any trial because we can not be found! Evidently, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TRY TO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE engaging into LEGAL MALPRACTICES!


All their nasty documents, SLAPPs with court dates (date de comparution) and warnings-threats are NULL and even if they would be delivered by a registered letter it is on the discretion of a recipient to refuse their reception if the envelop is not FORMAL WITH A STAMP FROM A COURT OR AN OFFICIAL AUTHORITY. Who would accept an unofficial registered letter from an unknown entity? Their complaint can progress ONLY through the judicial police/judge d’instruction (as police also confirmed to us) and not via illegal direct citations intended to be delivered only in person at the recipient’s “previously known” residence without any formal notification mailed. Since a legal procedure initiated by the judge d’instruction is ongoing any process via forwarded outdated citations SLAPP conflicts with the former causing confusion. Mme Massis discovered our lawyers and found the way to forward their threatening outdated documents via email when another legal procedure is ongoing, but their malpractices proved to be unfruitful for them. Nevertheless, they inspired us for creating new videos offering us further laughing. We also obtained further evidences of their lies or actual malice. Mme Massis has been trapped.


Hutchinson company via their “legal” advisor continues “manifestement” showing recidivism with new threats and lies. Their threatening warning of 04/09/2018 as well as their SLAPP which they never mailed (but emailed) ignore the recent court decision which recognized the parodical and critical character of the Channel rejecting the abusive Hutchinson’s claims.
They lied that they mailed three times a citation directe and this week a new warning or threat (sommation) upon searching the authors in residences. Their bailiff wrote in his report “J’ai dressé le present procès-verbal pour server et valoir ce que de droit » according to the article 659 of the civil code, but it is not indicated that he mailed a registered letter as the article mentions (« le même jour ou, au plus tard, le premier jour ouvrable suivant, à peine de nullité, l'huissier de justice envoie au destinataire, à la dernière adresse connue, par lettre recommandée avec demande d'avis de réception, une copie du procès-verbal, à laquelle est jointe une copie de l'acte objet de la signification. Le jour même, l'huissier de justice avise le destinataire, par lettre simple, de l'accomplissement de cette formalité. ») However, Me Massis confirmed once more that a registered letter has been posted according to the article 659 of the civil code and accused the recipients for “hiding from the justice-making sure not to be found”. WE HAVE OBTAINED A WRITTEN CONFIRMATION BY THE POST MANAGER THAT THERE IS NO REGISTERED LETTER up today in our name waiting for collection. We have evidences that they never delivered any letter. They fail to provide us tracking numbers as evidences.
We assume that the judicial police (which easily revealed our residence addresses by the tax office and internet providers) did not communicate to Hutchinson our mail addresses but Hutchinson makes independent search trying to verify if the addresses which their ex-employees had provided to them during their employment are still valid. Their bailiff mentions that he is not authorized to ask the tax office, but police obtained data from them! They get the opportunity from that case to search and discover possible new residence addresses of their ex-employees and intrude once more into their private lives. They seek to find them in person and threaten them (or maybe even kill them). They lie that the authors can not be found wishing to shut down the Channel without a trial and email desperately SLAPPs and threats that they will proceed to the court. DO IT AND STOP THREATENING US! Mail your lawsuit to our addresses verified by the judicial police and STOP DISTURBING all the bodies trying to get personal data and intrude into our private lives as you were doing during our employment!
We do have evidences that they never delivered a letter in our names by the Post and we understand that there is something nasty going on with the postal services which filter out certain letters.

It is my professional opinion that the letters from the court are not delivered upon an order given by certain rulers who accuse later the authors of “trying to escape from justice making sure that they can not be found” and lie that citations SLAPP were delivered by post (while their bailiffs do not confirm any delivery claiming that the address is unknown). They would really like the authors to get disappeared so as to shut down the channel without a trial but our boldness obstructs their malpractices from being fruitful. “This is about money” and money rules the world, indeed. How many entities have been paid to suppress our freedoms?



I have a simple question to make. Mme Massis stated that we did not respond to an invitation of the judge d' instruction. How she knows about that letter and that we did not respond when our lawyers were not informed? The judge communicated that to the other party and not to us or the post confirmed to Hutchinson no delivery (upon their order)? Hutchinson asked the post not to deliver certain letters to the authors? We later got a notification by municipal police as the letters from police pass the post screening. Apparently, there is something going on with the postal services obstructing the justice. We are also aware of other freedom of speech past legal cases in which letters from the court were never delivered by post. WTH is going on here? WTH is that tactic?


Apparently, Mme Massis is “open” charging high for her “legal” services and not tolerating “protection” against risks. “This is about m o n e y”.

Regarding the insisting, unfounded and exasperating accusation by their “legal” advisor that the authors “make sure not to be found”, let me develop further as their nasty statements get us disturbed. The authors have absolutely no responsibility of the no delivery of their citations SLAPP by post. It is indeed apparent that they never sent the first citation dated on 12/2017 by the Post but they lie that they delivered it three times! WHERE ARE THE EVIDENCES OF DELIVERY OR NO DELIVERY/RETURN of citations or judge’s invitation, the tracking numbers and the return post ticket with the written indication of the reason of the no delivery? Do they have a return notice by the post that the address of a recipient is incorrect or that the letter stayed in the post office more than two weeks uncollected and thus it returned to the sender?!!! We do check regularly our PO boxes. Two bailiffs appointed by Hutchinson do not mention in their reports that they delivered the citation of last year by post but they wrote that the author(s) do not have a known address which is incorrect. They did not confirm that they notified the authors by mail! Me Massis apparently lies claiming that they did. What are the evidences? Her comment that we make sure not to be found is intolerable! Regarding the new 09/2018 warning or threat (sommation, pas citation directe) their bailiff wrote once more in his report “J’ai dressé le present procès-verbal pour server et valoir ce que de droit » according to the article 659 of the civil code, but it is not indicated that he mailed a registered letter (to be checked) as the article mentions (« le même jour ou, au plus tard, le premier jour ouvrable suivant, à peine de nullité, l'huissier de justice envoie au destinataire, à la dernière adresse connue, par lettre recommandée avec demande d'avis de réception, une copie du procès-verbal, à laquelle est jointe une copie de l'acte objet de la signification. Le jour même, l'huissier de justice avise le destinataire, par lettre simple, de l'accomplissement de cette formalité. »). Indeed he refers to that article for first time. The neighbors should have advised him that people have PO boxes connected to their addresses and there is no need to search and disturb them at home to handle to them a dirty document informally outside an envelope. For their information we do not accept neither in our PO boxes spam, unofficial letters. Hutchinson seeks just to verify our home addresses? They should proceed directly to a legal lawsuit and not send us threatening warnings that they will do so!
The Article 659 of the civil code which they refer to mentions that in case that a person does not have known residence address a report is drawn up by a bailiff in which he/she accurately reports the steps taken to find the addressee of the act (lorsque la personne à qui l'acte doit être signifié n'a ni domicile, ni résidence, ni lieu de travail connus, l'huissier de justice dresse un procès-verbal où il relate avec précision les diligences qu'il a accomplies pour rechercher le destinataire de l'acte.) However, our home addresses have been well confirmed by the judicial police which has access to our personal data through the tax office and our internet providers. They had to send the SLAPP by postal services if the court failed to dismiss it! Why they claim that the authors do not have known address??!!! It is totally unfounded! Although the addresses had been verified they made an unnecessary research asking many entities including neighborhood, town hall, municipal police, Pages Blanches in the internet and making simply Google search seeking to collect personal info about the author(s) and make intrusion into their private lives. We learnt that even supermarkets had been ordered last year to take photos those who buy mobile sim cards or just see the cards in the framework of an investigation regarding the channel! We think that they actually did not want to deliver the abusive and invalid SLAPP so as to be in position to demand Google and the court (which they did) to close the Channel and Blog claiming that “they could not find the authors” and that “the authors try to escape the justice”. They "manifestement" lie! Did they maybe pay the post managers for the no delivery? It is clear that no letter was posted for the first citation as it is SLAPP and the court maybe did not allow them to send it by post. Hutchinson obviously does not wish to proceed to the court (SLAPP element) but tries to intimidate us so as to close the channel before any trial takes place. Nobody is enforced to welcome unknown bailiffs even if the recipients of the SLAPP are present in their residences. It is their HOME and NOT AN OFFICE TO BE OPEN TO PUBLIC and in today's society people take measures to protect themselves. Nobody should take the risk to open their home door to unknown entities. Not opening home doors to unexpected and unknown visitors does not consist "escape from justice"! Me Massis are you personally “open”? "They make sure not to be found"!! Their insisting claims are nasty, invalid and thus intolerable. Not only they did not notify the authors about their first SLAPP by mail but they had the audacity to blame the authors for hiding! A SLAPP-back lawsuit should follow to ask general and punitive damages and the authorities should run an investigation for the delivery of citations and impose penalties. The authors made a complaint to the Post for the possible undelivered letters but they are not in position to act further in this regard without evidences (tracking numbers). So, they do not have any responsibility, but get much disturbed by their invalid, unfounded comments submitted to the court!
We collected the invitation letter sent by the judicial police to our verified home addresses early this year without an issue, we presented ourselves to the judicial police, we took responsibility for the published protected work and we confirmed our mail addresses which were also verified by the tax office and the internet providers. What else? Do we need to submit also energy bills for proof of address?! Having a postal box and a doorphone in the name of the recipient of the citation in a residence does not consist a proof of address and serves to nothing when a PO box is held. How we received without issue letters sent by the judicial and municipal police in our PO boxes if our addresses are unknown?! The post makes unauthorized screening of mail or an entity pays them to do so? Is that maybe an(e)ther tactic for suppressing our freedoms?
We are expecting one and final lawsuit by Hutchinson to challenge and the court date. We are not going to kill the licit criticism (in good faith) and parody on a topic of interest by ourselves. The freedom of speech does not apply only for certain amount of comments and videos. There are no quantity restrictions but the Channel content could have been less if the offenses of Hutchinson company against their employees were less. They feed satire richly. We can continue posting our critical comments and parodied videos based on the global corporate harassment culture without succumbing to the harassers’ unfounded and illegal SLAPPs.


We can understand how some lawyers get rich via the abusive SLAPP approach. Indeed, “this is about money”. A company affords to pay high fees for “legal” support to their efforts to squelch the licit criticism and parody, but they can not afford to pay their employees for holidays and a fair salary and replace their defective broken office chairs. Another irony… Motivated themselves by actual malice accuse the critics of bad faith without any base/evidence. Let’s see how much their fines will increase for this year’s videos and comments. Shall they use the rule of three? We will then amend accordingly the penalties against them in order to be in line with the "Hutchinson law" regarding their real offenses denounced in good faith.


Me Massis asked 20,000 euro only for the “legal” cost probably because she is aware that the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation is illegal. The fines they claim for non-existent offenses are based on their proprietary or home-made “Hutchinson law”. They displayed “manifestement” once more actual malice aiming to squelch the freedom of speech. Let me convey to Hutchinson company and their "legal" advisor “informally” our sincerest disapproval. Boooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!


Adding 150,000 euros for the general damages caused by their abusive and invalid SLAPP the penalties raise to 33,899,500 € fine plus life imprisonment plus 136,5 years of imprisonment. 
They should be aware that in today’s society people may not wish to get in contact in person with unknown bailiffs or postmen at their residences and can not be imposed to do so for such cases. The Post is the entity through which valid citations should be delivered and the abusive SLAPPs should be directly dismissed by the court. Searching people to meet in person and asking various entities to get information about them consists the offense of intrusion into private lives.

WTH is that SLAPP? Obviously their frivolous, invalid and abusive requête concerning only the last year’s videos aimed to censor, intimidate and silence the critics by burdening them a super high "legal" cost apart from some astronomical amounts for non-existent offenses. They dared to demand the amount of 150,000 euro for the criticism made in good faith, for the protected expression the critics have been engaged in plus the amount of 150,000 euro for the parodied logo plus the immediate deletion (on 12/2017) of all the Youtube and Blog contents setting a fine of 10,000 euro/day for the delay and demanding "liquidation de l'astreint". Also, they demanded 20,000 euro for the legal cost apart from the expenses for their bailiffs and the translation of the Bob - Harvey dialogue which was deeply and unsuccessfully analyzed! Yes, they impressed us once more. Indeed, the timing is also interesting element of their SLAPP, as they intended to deliver the citation in person during the end-of-year holiday season requesting the author(s) to present to the court next month.Upon the recent court’s decision, they rushed to forward it to our lawyers (not to authors directly) before we get aware of the court's order hoping that we will succumb to their intimidation. Indeed, they forwarded it again during a peak summer holiday period. They were expecting wrongly that the critics would abandon their freedoms upon reading their abusive petition in which Hutchinson being motivated by actual malice imputes the authors nonexistent offenses. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede the freedom of speech.
We are sorry to disappoint them once more but we do not succumb to their invalid requête. This “MANIFESTEMENT” ABUSIVE suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and as such it should be dismissed and sanctions should be imposed to its use!


Il faut corriger certaines amendes afin d’être en ligne avec « la loi de la société Hutchinson et de Me Massis » indiquée dans leur requête ridicule. La société Hutchinson doit nous payer la somme de 150,000 € pour le préjudice moral et financier causé par le harcèlement, 150,000 € pour le préjudice causé par les délits d’injure et de diffamation publiques envers un particulier pour chaque des deux affaires juridiques et 150,000 € pour le préjudice causé par l’usurpation de titre de proches/famille. Donc, en total la société doit être condamnée à payer pour ces infractions 600,000 € et compte tenu du bonus x5 la peine s’augmente à 3,000,000 €. Afin de nous conformer à cette « loi de la société Hutchinson », il faut ajouter le montant de 2,257,500 € aux amendes mentionnées précédemment.

Il faut aussi noter que selon l’article 6 I-4 de la Loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique (1) « Le fait, pour toute personne, de présenter aux personnes mentionnées au 2 un contenu ou une activité comme étant illicite dans le but d'en obtenir le retrait ou d'en faire cesser la diffusion, alors qu'elle sait cette information inexacte, est puni d'une peine d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d'amende ». L’exception de parodie est célèbre en France et le caractère parodique de la Chaîne est évident. Aussi, les déclarations « l’extême mauvaise foi », « des manœuvres diverses en vue d’abuser et d’échapper à la justice » de Me Massis sont extrêmement inexactes, dénuées de tout fondement et ainsi inacceptables. On doit se renseigner sur la véracité d'un message/témoignage avant de signaler un abus, que un blog/Chaîne est illicite. Tout ce qui est écrit est bien connu aux employés de la société Hutchinson, y compris les cadres, les techniciens et le PDG ne faisant pas de doute pour tous. Ainsi, la peine que les harceleurs de la société Hutchinson encourent augmentent totalement à la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité plus 136,5 ans d'emprisonnement plus 33,749,500 € d'amende.

Les citations n'ont pas été livrées par la Poste afin que la société Hutchinson soit en mesure de demander à Youtube/Google de supprimer la Chaîne/Blog sans l’application du principe du contradictoire sous l'excuse « les auteurs ne n'ont pas pu être trouvés en personne » ?!@#! Pourquoi les huissiers cherchaient les auteurs à leur domicile pour les leur livrer en personne et ils dérangeaient le voisinage? Ils cherchaient à faire intrusion dans leur vie privée ? Le service postal pour les lettres recommandées ne fonctionne pas dans le cas des citations?!? Pourquoi les autorités n’ordonnent pas une enquête à cet égard? Qui ordonne à qui de ne pas envoyer/livrer certaines lettres «d'intimidation»?


Not only they fail to provide the absolutely necessary and of high priority security training to certain employees-targets, but the responsible safety manager dares to cause on purpose accidents at workplace. A psycho bonker project and safety manager (called Elsa Franchini), who apparently forgot to get her pills, steps deliberately with force on the foot of a newly hired project manager, because the latter is speaking to her technician and another colleague standing for a while close to the security line between the machines and the walking corridor (but still far enough from the machines) without wearing security shoes and causes that way bleeding to her toe. This petty “responsable de la sécutité” dares also to yell with extreme hostility to the ears of the newly hired employee, as she is not wearing ear plugs, scaring all the employees around in the lab. She gives a loud cry to her ears: « You want to throw you something on your feet to have an accident!!!?” injuring that way the eardrum of her colleague. Don’t you find Mr Big that an employee needs to hire a bodyguard for working in Hutchinson to ensure their security not from the machines but from people? Self-defense guns should be must-have for your employees. The witnesses in the lab testified that episode, how is it possible to claim that everything is a lie, published in an “extremely bad faith”? However, the bonkers kept their job in Hutchinson, the victim got unemployed and “in black list” incurring financial loss. This is important. Financial loss is the only gain from the pain. Amazingly, when the victim reports the incident to her department manager (Baptiste Voillequin) asking to meet their director, Nicolas Garois, he replies “No, you can not see him for that incident”. Of course, as he had caused that situation. A director must be always hidden, not reachable. When the victim asks the dept manager to set a conduct code, the latter replies that there are no such codes in Hutchinson. He even advises the victim to report such incidents by phone and not by email. Why? Obviously to eliminate evidences.

Security managers who cause on purpose accidents to employees who never receive the essential security training, defective, broken and dirty office chairs, trials with carcinogenic, toxic, irritant chemicals, offices above the processing machines, CEOs who call employees publicly assholes and stupid and knock hotel doors of their female associates, directors who provoke with the thump up gesture, seminar attendees sleep out of the hotel, formal assignment of fucktional projects, violation of private lives/human trafficking, deprivation of the right to paid holidays and holidays allowance, deprivation of the right to information, lack of posters/notices on boards about law articles, lack of integration of employees, isolation, unjustified demotion, false accusations, fake/tailor-made testimonies motivated by actual malice, shameful internal investigation…we are talking about a big FUN. Your belly should hurt from the laugh, eh? Laughing is indeed the best medicine, but if you laugh with what has been denounced, then you need medicine.


Most “cadres” are initially introduced to the “Big” when they are invited to deliver a presentation about their project(s) in the headquarters in Paris. Indeed, all project managers are asked to deliver monthly a presentation in front of the management board (see DRD) to update them about the progress of their projects. OF COURSE, if the projects are fake, absurd, “booster/pusher”, unknown to business units (“what the fuck”) and they never run, in other words “functional", like the Conductive Carbon-Free and Polyamide-Free Lines Cheaper than Polyamide-based (already implemented) 5302, Supports/Brackets 5118, Conduite SCR 5304, Vega(magie)prene Multifonctionnel 5251, Film d’encapsulation 5255, Synthesis of Polyimide from Monomers without using toxic solvents, lacking proper facilities and MW determination instruments 5010, there is no need for presentations neither in the DirectionR&D meetings nor in the occasion of the TOTAL and other “Big” visits in CdR during which all project managers (cadres and technicians) present posters. Shall you claim also Mr Big, that that the “fucktional” projects above are false? We claim the same, so we are in line, for first time! They were fake, inexistent, but those projects were formally registered and assigned to victim(s). Could you challenge that? Shall you make that challenge possible?
If you hit a note, no doubt that we work now on the projects that never run during our employment in Hutchinson, as we are so keen and focused on the development of “functions” and systems, like the brackets which make you fly and the so-called SCR, that stands for System Child Restraint. Our freedoms haven’t you restrained somewhat in your multi-fucktional performance? If so, then we are pleased to have results and we should get an upgrade! We’ve been an immense “Booster” or “Pusher” pushing the envelope. Hutchinson projets et aimer, cynonyma, cynonyma. It has been said: «Nous sommes en train de travailler à ce que cette marque d’employeur soit reconnu aimer cynonyma, cynonyma». “Pretty” Hélène, how was the “traduction”? Mr Big, don’t you find that we follow closely your guidelines? Conducive Carbomb-Free Lines LOL. 
Why your “multifunctional” team does not sing further: “Now that you point it out, we are crude, no doubt and Big can’t help but sing along. Why the heck is that?” Mr Big, why the heck is that? You’re “gonna guess it’s ‘cause of that ‘dree pain’ thing”? Did we cause you any kind of instability, discomfort, perturbation, wrongful stress, insecurity or lack of focus by the “scene”? No, no, it’s not from that. Those can be caused only from sins. You do not get anything from that. The projects you formally assigned to cadres with high qualifications should have caused you great long-term laugh and laughing is good for the SAnté. You laughed, we laugh and we are in line, it’s a give and take relationship. Mr Maigné, if you hit a note, no doubt that your plaint is flat.

  Karen Saint-Denis

Jacques Maigné? WTH is that guy? Je ne lui avais jamais été présentée pendant mon emploi chez Hutchinson. Aaah, il est, peut-être, celui qui avait donné un discours dans la conférence «Thermoplastiques» qui s’était tenue entre 18/11/14-19/11/14 à Fontenay-sur-Loing, à l’hôtel «Domaine de Vaugouard » (club de golf) d'où le(s) auteur(s) de la ChaÎne- participants du séminaire- avaient été expulsés? Ils avaient été expulsés car la direction du siège social qui a décidé le dernier moment d'assister à la conférence avaient la priorité d'être accommodée. Vous en souvenez-vous, M. Maigné ? Moi, je ne peux toujours pas l'oublier. Ce séminaire était une autre expérience traumatique que vous m’avez imposé d’avoir, difficile à effacer de ma mémoire.
L’entreprise a montré une fois de plus un manque de respect inacceptable envers moi en portant atteinte à ma dignité et ma sécurité. Il semble que la direction prend beaucoup de plaisir en maltraitant et remplissant de dégoût les salariés. Bien que je m’aie été inscrite assez tôt au séminaire et j'aie réservé une chambre dans l'hôtel pour la nuit, la réceptionniste m'a communiqué après le dîner de la conférence (aucune information préalable), en me provoquant avec un geste «pouce en l’air», qu’il n'y a pas de chambre pour moi, mon nom n'était pas enregistré sur la liste des invités. Ce n'était pas mon choix de participer à cette conférence, mais j’étais obligée d'y assister. En effet, je travaillais comme cadre dans l'équipe qui l’avait organisé et donc je devrais avoir la priorité. J’ai appris plus tard par un associé d'un autre service (pas par mon chef) que le nombre d'invités avait dépassé le nombre de chambres disponibles et, apparemment, j'ai été sélectionnée pour être retirée de la liste (les critères étaient inconnus) ! Pas une blague. Mon responsable-chef de service, Natacha Carniol, était disparue. Quand je suis arrivée à l'hôtel, on m'a juste conseillé de laisser ma valise à la réception car ils avaient besoin de vérifier les chambres. Mais, il n'était pas clair qu'il n'y aurait pas de chambre pour moi. Il était tard le soir pour me rentrer à mon domicile situé loin, dans une autre région de la France et la réceptionniste m'a offert, comme à quatre autres employés-hommes (j'étais la seule femme expulsée), une maison indépendante pour dormir la nuit qui était située quelques kilomètres loin de l'hôtel, mais encore dans le club de golf. Il n'y avait pas de réception là, les maisons étaient déconnectées de l'hôtel (pas de ligne téléphonique) et par conséquent, il n'y avait pas de sécurité. Certaines chambres des maisons indépendantes étaient, en effet, occupées par des personnes qui n’étaient pas participants du séminaire. C'était une zone isolée, pas du tout allumée, l'hôtel n'avait aucun concierge/bell attendant pour m'accompagner là-bas. La réceptionniste-pro quand je lui ai demandé d’être accompagné là, m'a provoqué en me disant que je pourrais y aller "avec mon copain" en pensant sans aucune base que l'un des associés expulsés était mon partenaire! Elle m'a conseillé d'utiliser mon portable, si je devais rejoindre l'hôtel !@@#$!! Il était encore difficile de croire que ce n'était pas une blague. J’ai dû aller avec deux autres associés également expulsés et choqués pour trouver les maisons en marchant dans une région totalement sombre après avoir dîné à l’hôtel. En effet, j’ai eu besoin de l’aide d’autres pour ouvrir la porte de ma chambre, comme le mécanisme était compliqué et défectueux et il n'y avait pas de lumière. En effet, mon logement était une maisonnette, la chambre à l'étage ! Malheureusement, je ne connaissais pas à l'avance ce qui serait le logement à le séminaire, afin d'apporter un dispositif d'alarme central et un détecteur infrarouge pour l’installer sur la porte et dormir "en sécurité". Il est à noter que parmi les employés expulsés étaient salariés d'origines différentes de la française, associés venus d'autres pays qui avaient tous été frustrés par ce maltraitement. Les critères utilisés pour « la liste » suggèrent également une discrimination sur le fondement « de ne pas être français, de non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation ». En effet, le directeur R&D, Christian Casse, qui avait planifié ce séminaire honteux dans un hôtel qui avait moins de chambres que le nombre de participants m'a provoqué de plus pendant le cocktail avec son « pouce en l’air» geste. Un associé a eu la gentillesse de lui crier «Asshole !». Il avait une histoire notable et bien connue avec son coq ayant touché une employée (qui enfin est devenu riche de cette touche d'or). J'ai été obligée d'assister à cette conférence qui semblait être organisée par un bordel. Mais j'étais si généreuse que je n'ai pas pris un petit déjeuner le matin pour laisser la nourriture aux directeurs venus du siège social. Une dame a honoré et protégé les membres « très importants » de la direction d’entreprise en offrant sa chambre d'hôtel et son partage du petit déjeuner. Quel chevalier! Ce témoignage est aussi un mensonge M. Maigné? Les quatre autres participants du séminaire qui devaient aussi dormir à l'extérieur de l'hôtel peuvent également témoigner de leur expérience horrible. En effet, le deuxième jour de la conférence, tous les participants ont appris cet outrage et beaucoup d'entre eux ont été dégoûtés.
Bien qu’être social soit généralement une attitude que les entreprises attendent de leurs employés (être antisocial peut en effet constituer un motif de licenciement), l’expérience des événements sociaux que la société leur offre les rendent antisociales à un niveau extrême. Tout événement social d'entreprise s'avère être une mauvaise expérience difficile à effacer de la mémoire. Chaque événement doit être détruit par les professionnels d’une classe inférieure. Malheureusement, ce sont ceux qui gouvernent les entreprises.
M. Maigné, vous souhaitez que tous les contenus de la chaîne soient supprimés, eh ? Nous voudrions également supprimer tous les mauvais souvenirs que vous nous avez imposés d’avoir pendant notre emploi chez Hutchinson, mais nous ne pouvons pas le faire. Tout est bien enregistré. Toutefois, les harceleurs gardent toujours leur emploi et ils même montent plus haut l'échelle. La douleur n'est pas à leur côté. Nous avons toujours la douleur que nous avons seulement gagné par l’entreprise sous votre gestion et faire la satire constitue notre antidouleur.


Of course, the plan was to meet the victims only after their constructive dismissal from the “relatives” they discovered and approached and introduce them their family/FAB cocks and house. The absolute shame, indeed.

It is also noteworthy that Jacques Maigné who filed the complaint against the Channel, pretending that he is unaware of what’s happening in the company he is supposed to lead and accusing wrongly the authors, had failed to meet the author(s) during their long-term employment in Hutchinson. It’s among the responsibilities of the top head of a company to know each and every “cadre” of the company during a presentation delivered by a newly hired manager and often partaking of a business meal. Other international companies get even the candidates introduced to top head(s) prior to their hire during an interview or most often by partaking of a business dinner. In fact, meeting the high boss consists the last stage of the recruitment process. If Hutchinson “recruits on average only 30 managers per year”, it is very easy for the management to get to know them. The same applies for the petty HRD, Dominique Bellos, who mentioned in her interview in Cadremploi that she has meetings with the employees to question them whether they are satisfied with their job or working conditions. Apparently, there exists “discrimination” even in these terms, as not all managers are invited for presentations to the headquarters, not all “cadres” get the opportunity to meet the top heads. Evidently, with so many violations/offenses committed by the management, including the HRD, they are shamed to call the victim(s) -cadres to avoid “thumping”, as “ils n’ont pas le même sens de bonheur”. Of course, there is no interest from the side of the victims to get to know more clownish directors, the ones clowning around in CdR are enough for them. But upon the publication of videos and comments which expose their corporate culture in good faith, the top head is seeking to meet the author(s) in the court? LOL. In the lawsuit case of the victim(s) against the corporate harassment and their null and void dismissal no employee of Hutchinson was presented in the court (as defendant party) and as it has been noted no debate was permitted for the revelation of the truth and resolution of the dispute in the presence of lawyers of both parties. The fact that the top head and HRD fail to meet a cadre during a period of 2.5 years in the company speaks volumes about their leadership and corporate culture.

“Recidivism” actually occurs when a party continues their desperate and laughable attempts to intimidate upon receiving the decision of the court which rejected justly their demands to close the Hutchinson SA YouTube channel and Blog, as well as their claims of “usurpation of identity” recognizing the parody of a logo and the licit criticism.
Break out the bubbly! That new stuff broke somewhat the boredom.


As we got some new boring stuff, let’s add few lines in this regard. Repetition is the key to learning, so let’s also repeat what has been written earlier about the profile of the channel. Firstly, we would like to advice the ignorant lawyers who choose to defend harassers/oppressors or law breakers to learn firstly about the new technology and functions of new devices, including internet boxes, before accusing people for “multiplication des IPs et des manœuvres diverses en vue d’abuser et d’échapper à la justice” which makes us once more laugh. Such ignorance leads once more to “manifestement” ridiculous and exasperating accusations. Better to accuse their internet providers who deprive them of their right to receive information about their new devices or technology, rather than accusing those who make use of their modern and legal devices and their fundamental rights posting licit videos and comments, while being clearly visible at the internet having an unmasked IP. Apparently, the internet suppliers believe that they are obliged by the law only to disclose data of their clients, but not information about their new devices. They give access to knowledge which is provided by the internet but not access to information regarding the devices they provide. Another irony...Also, Google account holders can use any nickname they wish, of course there is nothing illicit to that! They do not need to post their ID cards! The users can be identified only by their IPs and not by the name of their account, even if they use their real one. Such arguments kind of “agir dans l’anonymat et dissimuler leur identité» is totally laughable. Nobody masked their IPs, nobody is hacker, nobody posted a comment or video which they think is illicit, nobody was asked by Google to provide their ID card. We are all based on our freedoms and act in EXTREMELY GOOD FAITH (contrarily to the “extremely bad faith” of the Hutchinson’s harassers) being willing to defend our works in the court. Once more, they demonstrated their frightening ignorance which led to malicious UNFOUNDED statements against the profile of the channel and the author(s). The IP can change with the same ease one switches off a lamp and the reason one does that can be any but “escape from justice”. Only hackers could escape temporarily. Such accusation of “attempt to escape from justice” would be valid in case of hacking. Do they have their lamps continuously ON?! Me Massis also sleeps with the lights on?@! “Manœuvres diverses” LOL. Of course being in the dark in terms of technology and new devices can lead to such laughable claims. As it has been well noted or rather denounced we were not called to the court last year. The author(s) have been well identified and are willing to defend their works of mockery and their comments in the court based on their fundamental freedoms. A lesson to Hutchinson and their lawyer: You must learn before becoming bad mouth. 
There is no “recidivism” since there has not been any court decision which renders satire, parody and freedom of expression and information illicit. Recidivism means committing an offense again upon having been condemned. We do not consider freedom of expression, satire and parody an offense, we have not been condemned for any offense and we certainly have not tried to escape from justice. We are here and willing to defend our freedoms. We have not been restricted in making use of our rights neither by Youtube/Google nor by the authorities. The “acharnement extrême” of Me Massis to denigrate the profile of Hutchinson SA and the character of the author(s) is “manifestement” unfounded and unacceptable. 
Once more, nothing has been posted in bad faith and the aim is not to harm the honor or consideration (if any) of an entity but to denounce the harassment practices employed by many companies (if not all) which are harmful to those who need to work for living. People are free to share their experience from their employment in any company. We are against the system of harassment at workplace which also applies in the recruitment process. We want to harm the “consideration” of that harassment system which destroys lives and careers. One reading the testimonies is free to take either the side of the harassers or the harassed employees and make their own comments. All are welcome to comment and, indeed, the channel has well highlighted the complaint of Hutchinson, which has been challenged on line, given that we were not called in the two court hearings last year and we are not allowed to speak about harassment in the labour courts (to avoid “defamation”!**!) . We have not yet received any comment which applauds harassment practices and we have not been restricted by any court order in continuing sharing views or posting parodied/ satirical videos or in creation of new sites as Google+, Vimeo and Tweeter (LinkedIn apparently is not supporter of freedom of expression). Again, freedom of expression does not imply expression only of positive, favourable opinion, but incisive criticism, as well. The motivation of a person to write an unfavorable comment can be any, they can either have incurred personal damages by moral/sexual harassment/null and void dismissal and wish to share with the community the deplorable corporate practices or they wish to engage simply in a discussion about harassment at workplace. The more they harass employees, the more satirical works and comments are posted. Apparently, Hutchinson feeded richly SAtire with their extensive violations of all kinds. The comments/videos have been posted in good faith (even with the consent of chefs) and a claim of the opposite without any base/evidence is intolerable. The favourable comments made in Google/YouTube or Glassdoor are actually ordered by the companies who ask their employees to praise them and the real negative ones are removed upon payment to the hosting sites by the concerned companies. We make NO!SE against harassment at workplace. La liberté d’expression s’accommode bien avec la satire, la parodie et des commentaires de bonne foi. Bâillonner la presse « s’accommode mal » avec la résistance à l’oppression qui consitue un droit naturel et imprescriptibles de l’Homme. « Le but de toute association politique est sa conservation”. The site demonstrates well that resistance which means refusal to accept the harassment “system” and attempt to harm its “consideration/ honour” by arguments. Sadly, we see that such arguments can not be accommodated during a hearing in the labour courts, but hosting sites as Youtube can serve well in this regard. 
We write in English as English is the international language which is used at the internet. English is also the language of science and it has been thus adopted by many international companies as language of work. Besides, the harassment or mobbing is a global scourge and our project needs to have a global focus using the English language. Being based in France if we wanted to “attract internauts” locally we should write in French and not in English. Their argument is not reasonable given that the majority of French steer clear of English. The accusation of using mainly the English language in the site renders their complaint even more boring. 
Let’s keep as top accusation the « multiplication des IPs et des manœuvres diverses en vue d’abuser et d’échapper à la justice» LOL. People, how you switch off your mobiles ? Do you make magic? I also switch off the lights when I go out, when I change room and when I go to sleep, shall I be accused by my energy provider of escaping from high bills? LOL. They made us again laugh, good stuff ^.



Regarding the holidays, the thumbing of Huechienshonte is remarkable. Others do not have at all days off for two years and those who are eligible for getting holidays having built the days from the previous year work are not allowed to get more than two weeks consecutively on August. According to the Article L3141-3 of the labour code «La durée totale du congé exigible ne peut excéder trente jours ouvrables.» The law does not indicate that the days should be taken at intervals. Of course, this internal regulation is also for the benefit of the company and of course those with the highest footprint are exempted from that regulation enjoying the maximum days off and holidays allowance during summer. The rest have to work at the machines and in offices without air-condition on hot summer days.


Thierry Lisa
They fail to provide even the essential training about health and security which the Articles R4141-2 and R4141-3-1 refer to « L'employeur informe les travailleurs sur les risques pour leur santé et leur sécurité d'une manière compréhensible pour chacun. Cette information ainsi que la formation à la sécurité sont dispensées lors de l'embauche et chaque fois que nécessaire. Cette information porte sur: 1° Les modalités d'accès au document unique d'évaluation des risques, prévu à l'article R. 4121-1;
2° Les mesures de prévention des risques identifiés dans le document unique d'évaluation des risques; 3° Le rôle du service de santé au travail et, le cas échéant, des représentants du personnel en matière de prévention des risques professionnels; 4° Le cas échéant, les dispositions contenues dans le règlement intérieur, prévues aux alinéas 1° et 2° de l'article L. 1321-1; 5° Les consignes de sécurité incendie et instructions mentionnées à l'article R. 4227-37 ainsi que l'identité des personnes chargées de la mise en œuvre des mesures prévues à l'article R. 4227-38. » 
Pauline Branger does not inform the newcomers (or certain ones including the targets) about the relative safety regulations and does not integrate them in this regard. She only knows to intimidate the victims referring to incorrect defamation penalties. They fail to provide all types of training, project and security-related which is essential for every newly hired. Mrs Branger keeps a post of a manager when she lacks managerial skills in order to implement the role of HR and apply the relative dispositions. No notices, no security training, no essential integration, violating thus the dispositions of the law, because “the directors told her so”. A marionette with the title of “manager”. Obviously, the title of manager has lost its meaning. Real managers are able to impose themselves in order to implement the regulations and the law adding some value, those who kill the values under the title of HR by implementing the orders of the law-breakers are disgrace, they are useless! They provide NO SEcurity training to the newcomers who realise later that there is indeed NO SEcurity in the workplace in terms of installations and chemical substances and make justly NO!SE against the SErenity of the law-breakers.

Ervan Fagot
They go even greener by planting tree branches on the “humped and lame” chair of the victim when the latter is on a business trip abroad. Yes, one can expect plant climbing during their absence. Getting the clothes dirty by the chairs is something one should expect, so wearing clothes that are not to worry about is advisable. Besides, the corporate gifts, polyester scarves and cotton ties, suggest well the dress code which reflects the status of the company.

One needs to visit the doctor at his office located few hundreds m away from CdR, in the location of the plant, to get his number and address as there is a notice on his door which informs employees about his address and telephone. No notices on boards or doors entails less printing, less paper and ink consumption. Thus, Hutchinson contributes to sustainable development reducing their ecological footprint. They save paper, they save trees, they uninstall office lamps, they save energy. Also, by keeping their employees in the dark depriving them of their right to receive information, the company avoids complaints and contributes thus to the director’s peace or serenity. It contributes to their peace and stability as they do not lose their chairs. Indeed, there is one big poster accessible by all in the direction building aside the lift with a motto about serenity. That unique poster on the floor of HR and directors with the highest “footprint” speaks volumes. The resources they consumed or burnt out in a 24 month period are not regenerated but they make NO!SErenity against the serenity of those with the highest “footprint”.

45,000 euro must be what Hutchinson pays the work inspector for concealing the violations of Hutchinson and not making “defamation” for the failure of Centre de Recherche to comply with the dispositions of the relative Articles. It is the amount of the bribe and not of the fine for defamation. Pauline Branger probably got confused. With so many bribes they offer to avoid fines it is difficult for her to differentiate the bribes from fines. 
As we did not get any bribe although we were asked by Mrs Branger “What do you want for not going to the court?” we can expose their violations making use of our freedom to impart information. We understand that they ignore those dispositions as many other Articles, but we are here to help them reminding them the law.

Pauline Branger and her “programmers” need to learn firstly their obligations to inform the employees and candidates about the texts of various articles of the labour and penal code by posters and other means and then to look what are the penalties for defamation - public and non public. It is essential also to learn about the freedom of expression and information. They should know that according to the law “the texts must be displayed at the workplace, as well as at the premises or the door of the premises where the hiring is done” being clearly visible to employees and candidates. Mrs Branger fails even to inform them orally but gets terrified when the victims inform her upon two years of employment about the penalties for harassment. Her reply is “I should inform you, but since you know there was no need”! An(e)ther communication, upon reporting of harassment, that some of the texts are displayed elsewhere, in other premises of the company, not connected with CdR is also ridiculous and overdue. Shall they suggest the employees to go to headquarters maybe to search for posters? It is in question if there are posters there. We did not see any poster in the place we worked and we were interviewed. Workplace is the place where an employee works, the CdR in the present case and not other external disconnected premises located away form CdR, the plants or the headquarters or other unsecured open building not belonging to the company’s premises. The texts must be displayed at the workplace being easily accessible to the employees and stay permanently there and not only when the inspector visits the workplace.

For the information of those who know only the penalties for defamation (indeed incorrectly) the types of information they are obliged to display at workplace are the following: « harcèlement moral et sexuel »  222-33-2 et 222-33 of penal code (L1152-4, L1153-5 of labour code), « lutte contre la discrimination à l'embauche » 225-1 - 225-4 of penal code, « égalité professionnelle et salariale entre hommes et femmes » R3221-2 of labour code, « horaires collectifs de travail » L3171-1, D3171-2 - D3171-3, « repos hebdomadaire » R3172-1 - R3172-9, « congés payés » D3141-6, D3141-28 of labour code, « inspection du travail » D4711-1, « convention ou accord collectif du travail » L2262-5, R2262-1 - R2262-3, « service d'accueil téléphonique sur les discriminations » L1132-3-3, « médecine du travail » D4711-1, « consignes de sécurité et d'incendie » R4227-34 - R4227-38, L2262-5, R2262-1 - R2262-3, « document unique d'évaluation des risques professionnels » R4121-1 - R4121-4, « panneaux syndicaux » L2142-3, travail temporaire R1251-9, « interdiction de fumer et vapoter »  R3512-2 and L3513-6 du code de la santé publique, « élections des représentants du personnel»  L2311-1 à L2324-4, « règlement intérieur » L1321-1 à L1321-4 and R1321-1, « comité d’hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail (CHSCT) » L4742-1 and R4613-8, « accord de participation » D3323-12. Establishment without union/syndicat indicates the existence of jungle, which is the case for the woeful CdR.
The failure of Hutchinson Centre de Recherche to comply with the dispositions of the relative Articles is punishable by a fine provided for the contraventions of the 4th class, that is 750 euros/missing poster. So, multiplying that fine by the number of the missing from CdR posters, that is 21, the fine increases to 15,750 euro. Adding the previously mentioned penalties we reach totally life imprisonment plus 135.5 years imprisonment plus 31,477,000 euro fine.
Hutchinson CdR, as all the employers, is obliged to inform the employees by any means about certain texts offering them an equivalent guarantee in terms of the right to information. For example, a diffusion via an intranet site of the company. Since they failed to do so by all means, Hutchinson SAtire site takes in charge to inform the employees about the “hot texts” and push the clownish directors and woeful HR at the corner. They wish employees to be in the dark to avoid complaints, but SAtire has come to throw light to their long-term offenses. Not only they deprive their employees of their right to receive information, but they also try to deprive the expelled employees of the freedom of expression, the freedom to hold opinions and impart information.


Apart from the fact that Hutchinson CdR fails to display the articles of labour code referring to moral and sexual harassment and the related fines for the offenders, they also fail to display the work schedule contrarily to the law. According to the articles L 3171-1 and D3171-2 of the labour code « L'employeur affiche les heures auxquelles commence et finit le travail ainsi que les heures et la durée des repos. », « l'horaire collectif est affiché en caractères lisibles et apposé de façon apparente dans chacun des lieux de travail auxquels il s'applique.» The only table we saw is one in which the employees need to indicate the days they get leave, no poster with the work schedule and other dispositions! Indeed, the managers are requested to work 08.30-18.00 “in order to be respected” even when their lunch break lasts only half an hour. The legal 35 hours work week applies only for the technicians. Although the project managers are asked to register monthly 39 work hours/week (while they work 47h/w), there is no compensation of any kind at least for the project managers. Their payslips state “type horaire: normal”. What is normal, the legal or the unpaid overtime? The management claims that the salary of the “cadres” is higher than the technicians’, so they have to work more! According to the article 3171-12 « Lorsque des salariés d'un atelier, d'un service ou d'une équipe ne travaillent pas selon le même horaire collectif de travail affiché, un document mensuel, dont le double est annexé au bulletin de paie, est établi pour chaque salarié. » But, of course, there is no such document provided. The salary offered to those with high qualifications for a manager post is calculated on the basis of the hours they work which exceed the legal 35 hours and not on the basis of their credentials and responsibilities?!! Then the salary difference should be stated in their payslips as overtime pay! According to the article L3221-4 « Sont considérés comme ayant une valeur égale, les travaux qui exigent des salariés un ensemble comparable de connaissances professionnelles consacrées par un titre, un diplôme ou une pratique professionnelle, de capacités découlant de l'expérience acquise, de responsabilités et de charge physique ou nerveuse.» The law does not mention anything about the work schedule which can define the salary. The Article L3121-27 « La durée légale de travail effectif des salariés à temps complet est fixée à trente-cinq heures par semaine » does not mention that the managers are excluded from its application. Regarding the “higher” salary of the project managers than that of the technicians, which suggests that they have to work more, is a salary of 34,000 euros ridiculously offered to an employee with high credentials for the post of project manager so competitive which excuses a demand for working more than 35 hours? Anyway, the salary stated in their contract should not negate the legal work schedule of 35 hours/w. The director asks a project manager to have a meeting after 17.30 and the department manager even dares to send a message at the mobile of a project manager at 18.00 when she/he leaves work to request the latter to prepare and deliver a presentation for the next morning at 8.00, indeed in front of a big panel!! When an employee leaves work at 17.30 the department manager calls the latter to learn the reason that she/he left early! Even more, when they need to make a business travel abroad a project manager is asked to schedule the travel after work - during non working hours- without remuneration of any kind, in order to work at the office during the day! For emphasis the department manager indicates that “it is a request from the director of the establishment”! Sometimes we want to stay in work longer, as we are highly engaged into what we are doing and could even continue working at home, but we can not be imposed to stay at work until 18.00, make meetings with the director at 17.30 and get tasks to implement at home, for example preparation of slides to present next morning at 8.00! Also, the department manager can even change the deadline for submission of reports in order to make certain employees to work at home violating their personal time!
Besides, according to the Article R3221-2 « Les dispositions des articles L. 3221-1 à L. 3221-7 du code du travail sont portées, par tout moyen, à la connaissance des personnes ayant accès aux lieux de travail, ainsi qu'aux candidats à l'embauche. Il en est de même pour les dispositions réglementaires pris pour l'application de ces articles. » The candidates do not get informed, though. We did not see any poster in CdR neither as candidates nor as employees. We did not see any poster in the buildings were the interviews took place which is obligation according to the law. Some employees upon their request to see posters, they were told that there is a poster concerning discrimination in another building outside CdR (few hundreds m away where the plant is located with which CdR is not at all united) which neither the candidates, nor the employees visit. The law states that posters indicating several dispositions should exist to all the buildings where employees work and the law applies, clearly visible to all or they should be brought in the knowledge of the employees and candidates by any means.
According to the Article R3173-2 « Le fait de méconnaître les dispositions des deux premiers alinéas de l'article L. 3171-1 et celles de l'article L. 3171-2 relatives au contrôle de la durée du travail, est puni de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la quatrième classe. Cette amende est appliquée autant de fois qu'il y a de personnes employées dans des conditions susceptibles d'être sanctionnées au titre des dispositions de cet article. » Pauline Branger, the human resources manager of CdR, knows only that “the penalties for defamation public and non public is 45,000 euro” which is of course incorrect. She indeed impressed us with her knowledge and made us laugh once more! Obviously, she and those who “program” the petty HR fail to read both the code du travail, as well as the code pénal and apply the relative dispositions at workplace. It seems that there had never been inspection in CdR or maybe they display the posters only the day the inspector visits them. The working hours (47h/week) are “normal”, not legal and on top of that they offer contracts without holidays, without days off and holidays allowance! This is also absolutely “normal”. Our disgust due to their violations and provocation is normal and our denunciation is absolutely legal.


What a shame! In the country in which the employees get the most time off- the longest paid holidays Hutchinson offers contracts without paid holidays and without holidays allowance and ask their employees to “buy holidays”. After 1 or 1.5 year when they switch the contract to CDI again the employee does not have holidays in the first year as they need to build those days. So, they stay for two years restless before they are kicked out in unemployment. Alternatively, in a CDI contract they take 3-4 days off in advance deducting those from the future being all the time with a “debt”. The company aims shamefully to burn out physically and mentally their employees. “We gave you the money in your salary to buy holidays”!!! The holidays are included in a salary which is much less than the norms! How nasty are they! If their salaries are fixed to the lowest level then they should not make salary negotiation during interviews. They should say “this is the salary, it is fixed, take it or leave it”. They enter into negotiations starting with an offer of a ridiculously low salary which is the half of what other companies offer for the same position to a person with same high qualifications and skills (indeed other companies offer much more even for unqualified people for a lower position) and then they come with a second offer adding few more thousands by deducting that amount from the holidays allowance! The money under the table kept in the negotiation is actually the holidays allowance!?! LOL Indeed, they were the ones who fail to pass the “laugh test”.  If they want equal salaries, then those should be towards the higher and fair one in accordance with the national and international norms. The fact that previous employees accepted a ridiculously low salary offer maybe saying “for me it is not important the salary, offer me whatever you wish, experience matters” does not allow them to offer a higher fair salary?!@! Then why they enter into negotiations? They want to check the negotiation skills of a candidate and then they end up with ridiculous contracts without holidays for meeting their lowest salary expectations? Indeed, “experience matters” but Hutchinson fails even to develop the employees. They kill them offering no training, no projects. Of course one should opt to work and earn money if the holidays are not paid. But companies should prompt their employees to get holidays to get rest in order to be productive in their work. The frustration becomes greater when the employee learns later that there are indeed other employees with similar qualifications who are paid much more for the same post! So where is the pay equality? It is also interesting the reply of the HRD when an employee asks her to comment on their salary: “We do not have problem with your salary” LOL. Of course they do not have a problem, as such low, laughable salaries allow the “development” of their HR sector. HR vermins are paid more than engineers! Again, such contracts are great shame offered in the country with the longest paid holidays and 35 legal work week. Employees are burnt out during the first two years working 50hours/per week without holidays until they are expelled “constructively” or without reason for being forced to “get engaged into trade business”. They seek to make them dependent on cocks. If you are unemployed of course you have days off but no budget for making holidays. Hutchinson aims to reduce the quality of their lives and make them sad! Life is only for the clownish directors who are allowed to get the maximum holidays and get pleasure by harassing and oppressing their subordinates. We also learnt that employees who asked salary increase were offered apartments à la FAB in order to return the salary increase as a rent to the company!! Another great shame!
They deserve the longest boooo!!! Steer clear of them or get burnt!
Another interesting provocation is the refusal of employees’ requests for standard paid holidays, as well as for annual holidays allowance- holidays in the charge of the employer which all employees are entitled to according to the article L3141-1 of labour code: “Tout salarié a droit chaque année à un congé payé à la charge de l'employeur”. An employee-victim asks the HR manager of Hutchinson CdR, Pauline Branger, to get paid holidays as others do and the latter replies “We gave you the money in your salary to get holidays, we can’t give/pay you holidays”! As for the standard paid holidays the reply is “No, you have work to do”! One needs to go to court to get the holidays as indemnities.

Par ailleurs, selon les dispositions de l'article 3254-1 du code du travail relatives aux économats, il est interdit à tout employeur :1° D'annexer à son établissement un économat à la FAB destiné à louer, directe ou indirecte, aux salariés et à leurs familles de logement quelque nature que ce soit et 2° D'imposer au salarié l'obligation de dépenser tout ou partie de leur salaire dans des «magasins» à la FAB désignés par lui. Le fait de méconnaître les dispositions de l’article est puni d'une amende de 3,750 euro. En appliquant le bonus x5 nous atteignons le montant de 18,750 euro et totalement une réclusion criminelle à perpétuité plus 135,5 ans d'emprisonnement plus 31,461,250 euro d'amende.

 Catherine Bernard
It has been already noted that they violate the right of the employees to respect for their private and family life (article 9 of civil code) and they force them to relocate aiming to get their properties. According the article 226-4-2 of penal code « le fait de forcer autrui à quitter son domicile (en dehors des cas prévus par la loi ) à l'aide de manœuvres, voies de fait ou contraintes est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 30 000 € d'amende ». Applying the x5 bonus we get 150,000euro, so the total penalties are life imprisonment plus 135,5 years of imprisonment and 31,442,500 euro fine.

It seems that the good “celery” is not enough for the scarecrow. The chacha in the “Mocking ForABit” looks for extra sources of income seeking to fill their “bigger house”(to save probably properties she bought with loans). We’ve come to learn their “trade” business and J&B business operating in a “niche” market. Apparently, apart from the B&B (bed and breakfast), there exists J&B (job and bed) and J&C (job and cock) corporate establishments which “can accommodate all the employees of Hutchinson”. In the job contract employees shall be asked to choose which hiring director’s B&C (bed and cock) prefer (if they will not be forced to get a certain one), as well as board types (half/full). Indeed, it’s a “give and take” relation. Welcome aboard or aubordel. In case an employee invests their salary elsewhere, the rulers have a “constructive” strategy to divert it invading and controlling their private lives.

Regarding the video Sexual Assholement which Hutchinson Group refers to their complaint insisting so much, the rape attempt committed by the CEO in the hotel was well known to the company. Indeed, many employees in USA and France got aware of that reprehensible offense which was communicated by the associates present in the USA meeting. The department manager, Natacha Carniol, even adviced the victim to denounce it in social media (this also consists a consent for the publication which renders their complaint null and void). The French associates present in the USA were all well informed about the CEO’s offense by the CEO himself. Despite the fact that the company was well aware of that offense, they dared to proceed to a complaint accusing our commenters and video uploaders for lying! They referred to every denounced offense -made in good faith - as being a lie attributing improper characterizations to the commenters who were not called to the court to defend themselves. "Le fait de dénoncer mensongèrement à l'autorité judiciaire ou administrative des faits constitutifs d'un crime ou d'un délit qui ont exposé les autorités judiciaires à d'inutiles recherches est puni de six mois d'emprisonnement et de 7,500€ d'amende". Also, degradation of the profile of our channel and our licit works of mockery which are based on our fundamental freedoms, the denigration of our commenters who are accused of lying consists itself defamation (made in bad faith) punishable with 12,000€ fine. Besides, "le fait pour quiconque connaissant la preuve de l'innocence d'une personne de s'abstenir volontairement d'en apporter aussitôt le témoignage aux autorités judiciaires ou administratives est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45,000€ d'amende". Multiplying the above fines by the bonus x5 we reach 322,500€. So the total amount for their offenses raises to life imprisonment plus 132,5 years of imprisonment plus 31,412,500€ fine.


Let me write also in French for the HR who do not understand English. 
Même les principes de lean selon lesquels "nous ne jetons pas de déchets mais nous pouvons prendre des ressources et les utiliser ailleurs où ils peuvent ajouter de la valeur" ne peuvent s'appliquer. Les ressources humaines n'ajoutent aucune valeur mais ils tuent les valeurs, les fausses valeurs inapplicables affichés dans leurs sites web d'entreprise. Ils entrent dans les entreprises n'ayant aucun diplôme technique, n'ayant aucune compréhension des activités techniques primaires de leur entreprise (parler de multimédia! ** @ !! $% ^ # * !?), pas de compréhension de l'environnement de travail réel, toxique, hostile et du régime corporatif autocratique. En effet, « nous n’avons pas le même sens du bonheur ». Certains deviennent même directeurs par «accident» et ils essaient de saper la carrière de ceux qui ont obtenu de lourds diplômes en ingénierie et / ou en sciences après avoir investi dans les cours académiques de longue durée, consacré du temps et de l’énergie pour acquérir une expertise dans le domaine de leur intérêt et améliorer leurs perspectives de carrière. Les RH conspirent à bruler leur carrière, à tuer leur motivation et à les initier à leur domaine d'expertise qui est «s'asseoir sur des coqs» de préférence sur ceux des «armateurs». Dans leur but professionnel de tuer les carrières de ceux qui ont des qualifications élevées, ils osent même engager des proches d'employés et d'autres «professionnels» au sein de l'entreprise. Ils créent un environnement de travail hostile et toxique afin de remplir les cibles avec dégoût et les expulser. «L’empreinte» qu'ils laissent est une conspiration pour traite des êtres humains- talents, pour tuer leur carrière, envahir leur vie privée, pour les transférer et l'héberger dans leur maison de famille après les avoir jetés à la mendicité et avoir même négocié avec des proches qu'ils ont découvert! 
Malheureusement, nous réalisons que nous sommes entrés dans une nouvelle ère de fusion des affaires et de la famille, les candidats sont invités à des entretiens d'embauche avec leur famille ou ils sont censés créer des familles avec des associés en étant forcés de s'accoupler les uns avec les autres! Les femmes - toujours en honneur - si elles sans anneau seront pro-mu après leur congédiement déguisé et si elles sont porteurs d’anneau elles seront également expulsés car elles sont «soutenues» (dilemme de faire face: être ou ne pas être?)! Les employés sont tenus de déclarer leur état civil, leurs revenus familiaux, les noms, la profession et les salaires des membres de leur famille etc. (une demande de l'aide de la police est possible). Le contrat de travail que l'on signe implique que les RH ont le droit d'envahir et diriger leur vie privée. Ils embauchent des personnes pour remplir des postes «pouce en l'air» vacants sans tenir compte de leurs hautes qualifications. Leurs efforts et leurs investissements à long terme pour être en mesure de se tenir debout dans la société et de prospérer professionnellement dans leur domaine d'expertise sont tout simplement récompensés par des «pouce en l'air» offres corporatives! 
Que dit l'étiquette française des affaires? "Dans la culture d'entreprise française les gens gardent leur vie professionnelle et leur vie de famille très séparées" LOL. Est-ce que les Français ont écrit cela? Évidemment, ils devraient plaisanter. En effet, si «séparées» que nous avons même entendu le HRD déclarer comme vision d'entreprise la création d'une «maison familiale capable de recevoir les collaborateurs avec leurs p r o c h e s»! *! Les employés devraient s'attendre à être demandé dans le futur proche par les RH de l'entreprise de leur donner une deuxième clé de leur maison (maison secondaire si "Fab" sera la principale) pour les "cas d'urgence". 

Those Human Resources confirm “manifestement” what has been noted earlier that they do not add any value, but kill the written corporate values. Indeed, the principles of lean are inapplicable. They enter companies holding no technical degrees, having no understanding of the primary technical business activities (talk about multimedia!??**@!!$%^#*!?), no understanding of the real, toxic, hostile working environment and autocratic corporate regime. Indeed, «nous n’avons pas le même sens du bonheur». Some even become directors by “accident” and try to undermine the careers of those who have been awarded heavy engineering and/or scientific degrees upon having invested in long-term academic courses, devoted time and energy in order to gain expertise in the field of their interest and enhance their career prospects. HR conspire to burn their careers, kill their motivation and initiate them into their field of expertise which is “sit on cocks” preferably on those of “armateurs”. In their pro-fessional goal to kill the careers of those who have high credentials they even dare to engage relatives of employees and other “professionals” within the company. They create a nasty, toxic working environment in order to fill the targets with disgust and kick them out. The “footprint” they leave is their conspiracy to trade talents, kill their careers, disturb their private lives and get them to their “maison de famille" upon throwing them to begging and indeed upon negotiation with relatives they discovered! 
Sadly, we realise that we have entered a new era in which business and family are merged, candidates are invited for job interviews together with their families or they are expected to create families with associates being forced to mate with each other! Women - always in honor- if ringless shall be pro-moted upon their constructive dismissal and if ring wearers shall be again kicked out as they are “supported” (dilemma to face: to be or not to be?)! Employees are asked to declare their civil status, family revenues, names, profession and salaries of family members etc. (request of police assistance is possible). The employment contract one signs implies that HR gets the right to invade and direct their private lives. They hire people to fill thumb up vacancies disregarding their high qualifications. Their efforts and long-term investments for being able to stand on their feet in society and thrive professionally in their field of expertise are paid off simply with “thumb up” corporate offers! 
What the French business etiquette states? “In French business culture people keep their professional life and family life very much separate” LOL. Did French write that? Obviously, they should be joking. Indeed, so “separate” that we even heard HRD to declare as business vision the creation of a “family house which can receive the employees together with their r e l a t i v e s”!*! Employees should expect to be asked in the near future by the corporate HR to handle to the company a second key of their house (secondary house if “Fab” will be the primary one) for “emergency cases” ^.


It is also interesting the “feedback” the petty investigator gives to the victim when the latter asks what was the response of a harasser and a witness to a particular reported act. A director (Nicolas Garois) provokes an employee in front of the department manager (Natacha Carniol) during an office meeting saying “You look tired, do you want to make you something?” and putting disgustingly his tongue around his lips. The feedback Pauline Branger provided was "He said something, but I do not have to tell you. This is for me, not for you."!!!**?@*! When the victim expresses an intention to make a complaint to police which can run a proper investigation and provide the necessary testimonies to the victim to proceed to the court they try to intimidate/ deter her by saying “Police can do injustice to you. Police can do mistakes, they can mistreat you. Also, the director (Nicolas Garois) knows police, he is friend of them, it will be bad for you to go to police». The results of the shameful internal investigation which was held without putting in confrontation the parties for revealing the truth was according to Pauline Branger only “for the human resources manager, not for the victim”. But their ridiculous fake testimonies and unverified lies were presented formally to the court accusing the victim for hallucinations and attributing to the latter an imaginary bad profile. Their fake and nasty accusations were for the victim, not for the human resources manager, though. It is our duty to underline the criminal penalties that the HRM incurs who “by her functions was called upon to contribute to the manifestation of the truth”.

Pauline Branger
En plus des peines pour la traite des êtres humains commis par le HRD déplorable, la petite RH enquêtrice, mon homonyme, encourt des peines pour l'enquête interne honteuse qu'elle a menée. Comme il a été noté précédemment elle a exclu frauduleusement les témoignages de ceux qu’ils avaient vérifié les faits réels et elle a soumis à la cour les faux. Aussi, quelques employés qui étaient témoins de certains actes de harcèlement n'avaient pas du tout été interrogés. La petite enquêtrice sous la direction de l'entreprise a même transformé frauduleusement le "silence" d'un témoin à un témoignage mensonger. Elle a privé la victime des droits et elle ne lui a pas communiqué les témoignages à la fin de son enquête. Elle a échoué de vérifier les fausses histoires des petits témoinsbien que leurs mensonges fussent flagrants! Les petits menteurs ont même imputé à la victime certains de leurs actes de harcèlement et la petite enquêtrice n’a pas enquêté, elle n’a même mis les parties en confrontation et elle a soumis à la justice des accusations non vérifiées, des mensonges flagrants!
Nous avons bien indiqué que les peines pour le témoignage mensonger sont de 5 ans d'emprisonnement et 75 000 € d'amende / menteur. En effet, selon le code pénal «le témoignage mensonger est puni de 7 ans d'emprisonnement et de 100 000 € d'amende lorsqu'il est provoqué par la remise d'une récompense quelconque et lorsque celui en faveur duquel le témoignage mensonger a été commis est passible d'une peine criminelle.»
Selon l’Article 434-4 «est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 € d'amende le fait, en vue de faire obstacle à la manifestation de la vérité, l'altération, la falsification ou l'effacement des traces ou indices, soit par l'apport, le déplacement ou la suppression d'objets quelconques; de détruire, soustraire, receler ou altérer un document de nature à faciliter la découverte d'un crime ou d'un délit, la recherche des preuves ou la condamnation des coupables. Lorsque les faits sont commis par une personne qui, par ses fonctions, est appelée à concourir à la manifestation de la vérité, la peine est portée à cinq ans d'emprisonnement et à 75 000 € d'amende». 
Aussi, selon l’Article 434-15 «le fait d'user de promesses, offres, présents, pressions, menaces, voies de fait, manoeuvres ou artifices au cours d'une procédure ou en vue d'une demande ou défense en justice afin de déterminer autrui soit à faire ou délivrer une déposition, une déclaration ou une attestation mensongère, soit à s'abstenir de faire ou délivrer une déposition, une déclaration ou une attestation, est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 € d'amende, même si la subornation n'est pas suivie d'effet». 
De plus, la petite RH enquêtrice a noté faussement en visant à intimider et tromper la victime que «les sanctions pénales pour la diffamation publique et non publique sont 45 000 €». L’enquêtrice a défini incorrectement comme «témoignage de mauvaise foi» un témoignage «avec une volonté d'endommager». Toutefois, «de mauvaise foi» signifie d’intention de tromper - affirmer quelque chose de faux. En effet, son enquête honteuse et les témoignages mensongers approuvés par elle étaient manifestement de mauvaise foi ! Selon l’Article 434-5 du code penal «toute menace ou tout autre acte d'intimidation à l'égard de quiconque commis en vue de déterminer la victime d'un crime ou d'un délit à ne pas porter plainte ou à se rétracter est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 € d'amende». 
Aussi, l’enquêtrice a dénaturé la substance des paroles du victim en écrivant « je veux des dommages personnels» bien que la victime n’ait dit que «je veux que justice soit faite». En effet, une vengeance n’est prise que quand la justice n'est pas faite. 
Donc, en ajoutant 11 ans d'emprisonnement et 165,000 € d'amende qui en appliquant le bonus x5 augmente à 825,000 €, leurs infractions sont punis de la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité plus 129 ans d'emprisonnement plus 31,090,000 € d'amende. 
En effet, ils sont tous *****s.
Claudine well noted: “If they do not want women in work then place them in the armed forces to fight and let men in the corporate world!” According to penal code “Constitue un crime et est puni de la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité les actes commis en exécution d'un plan concerté à l'encontre d'un groupe dans le cadre d'une attaque généralisée ou systématique; les actes de ségrégation commis dans le cadre d'un régime d'oppression systématique et de domination d'un genre sur l’ autre et dans l'intention de maintenir ce régime ». 
Let me add an interesting bonus for Huetchienshonte. The penalties provided by the articles of the labour and penal code refer to a natural person. Taking into account the terms of the article 131-38 of the penal code «Le taux maximum de l'amende applicable aux personnes MORALES est égal au QUINTUPLE de celui prévu pour les personnes physiques par la loi qui réprime l'infraction» we must multiply the penalties stated so far by five. So those raise for Hutchinson Group to life plus 118 years imprisonment and 30,265,000 euro fine. Let’s not forget the x5 bonus for any further fine, please.
HUTCHINSON SA
 HUTCHINSON SA
So let me sum up. Upon the harassment-IQ-assessment tests led by the moronic HR and an academic background check in the frame of a recruitment process for a job in a company (not in army) a personal one follows and a company hires people intending to pro-mote them. The Human Resources Director searches and approaches relatives of the employees (women are in honour) to find out about their private lives entering with them into shameful negotiations under a deplorable men’s agreement. They promise to the “relatives” benefits including job opportunities for getting them as accomplices in their intended crime. They plan to force an employee to begging upon dismissing them “constructively” in order to offer them as solution their cock and accommodation to their “bigger house”. What a trade… They indeed dare to inform the relatives about their corporate harassment strategy, how the HRD became director by “accident”- upon being touched by the cock of the R&D Director Christian Casse (who did not know what he had in his slip)- and ask them to inform them when the employee will visit them upon having been subjected to corporate harassment (forced to be in financial need as unemployed-see begging) in order to go to me(a)t the target and introduce them their cocks!!! They even aim to get their properties (see CAF level) forcing them to relocate where their cock(s) live(s). They usurp the title of family proclaiming themselves in and outside the company relatives of an employee unknown yet to them whom they intend to me(a)t and circulate their family data driving them crazy. The high credentials, expertise and research interests of an employee are totally disregarded and the positions they are offered within the company depend on the sexual needs of the department managers and directors in an international level (women are always in honour)! Of course, they can not work in their field of expertise and interest if the “higher manager” is fearful or has a personal interest but the thumb up job opportunities are always plenty. Filling the latter job vacancies is priority! They can even be used as “teachers” to other managers offering them even their academic notes or can be placed in an irrelevant department in which the real relatives of the HRD can be hired. Any attempt of an employee to get a position in other company within the Group in a global level to escape the torture fails as their IQ scores though top are considered outdated (after two years) and even the experienced/confirmed professionals with heavy academic degrees and proven track record of top performance are asked to participate in their simulation of workplace-kindergarten in order to kill them, yes, after having been subjected to the real kindergarten harassment. Upon their null and void dismissal they are placed automatically in a “black list” to all relevant companies. They aim to reduce them all to putains! Then they blame women for the shit world we are living in because they make families…The shame has been revealed in all dimensions and respect remains their main written corporate value. Indeed, the corporate culture/values and laws are well written in the texts.

Donald Trump should also suggest that the number of pro in France could have been less “by giving people guns”. That way the victims could aim at their direction (themselves) and would have been “saved” from the traders.

Catherine, you need to specify the duration of your ride. During mine the other day which lasted for less than an hour I got only six and indeed one was by an old woman!

So, adding indicatively 27 years imprisonment and 100 000 euro fine for the rape attempt and sexual assault, 20 years imprisonment and 3 000 000 euros fine for the human trafficking supported by the organized gang HCH the penalties raise totally to 118 years imprisonment and 6 053 000 euro fine. Questions:
Do the pro gain more respect than the WOB by the MOB?
Is there any woman in our society who gains respect? Please let us know in which sector, country, company/university she works or studies.
I went for a bike ride the other day to enjoy the weather unaccompanied and I got nine thumbs up. Please let me know if there is anyone who has gotten more during such activity.

The entity which attempted to rape an employee in the hotel room being or playing the drunk is called Bob Hanson, the President/CEO of Hutchinson Sealing Systems, USA. Those are the CEOs of Hutchinson Group. Indeed, as it has been noted earlier he provoked the employee during the dinner as he kissed her on the cheek with force while she leaned backwards to avoid contact and whispered “we will do more later”. He also compared his height with hers in a “back to back” fashion approaching his ass to hers.
Selon le Code Pénal « Le viol est puni de quinze ans de réclusion criminelle. Les agressions sexuelles autres que le viol sont punies de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d'amende. Le viol est puni de vingt ans de réclusion criminelle et les agressions sexuelles autres que le viol sont punies de sept ans d'emprisonnement et de 100 000 euros d'amende: lorsqu'il est commis par une personne qui abuse de l'autorité que lui confèrent ses fonctions; lorsqu'il est commis par plusieurs personnes agissant en qualité d'auteur ou de complice; lorsqu'il est commis par une personne agissant en état d'ivresse manifeste ou sous l'emprise manifeste de produits stupéfiants. La tentative des délits est punie des mêmes peines».
What he went to do to her room? He wanted to ask her to compare his height with hers in an horizontal fashion? How come and he got a room adjacent to hers? He was planning to enter her room from the balcony? Even the pro receptionist is called to act as accomplice. CEOs, CTOs or CTEs demonstrate globally their CTE.

HUTCHINSON SA 
Indeed, the penalties have to raise higher and our disgust increases as well. Could you also please communicate “données de nature“ which will allow the identification of the entity depicted in the video “sexual assholement” which under the auspices of Hutchinson Group went to the hotel room of an employee and knocked her door persistently being ready to commit a crime indeed after having prior publicly insulted four employees many times? This is not just sexual harassment and according to the penal code "la tentative du délit est punie des mêmes peines que celles pour le viol".

Selon l’articles du Code Pénal 225-4 la traite des êtres humains est le fait en échange d'une rémunération ou de tout autre avantage ou d'une promesse de rémunération ou d'avantage de recruter une personne, de la transporter, de la transférer, de l'héberger ou de l'accueillir pour la mettre à sa disposition ou à la disposition d'un tiers, même non identifié, afin de permettre la commission contre cette personne des infractions de proxénétisme, d'agression ou d'atteintes sexuelles, d'exploitation de la mendicité, de conditions de travail ou d'hébergement contraires à sa dignité.
La traite des êtres humains est punie de sept ans d'emprisonnement et de 150 000 euros d'amende. L'infraction prévue à l'article 225-4-1 est punie de dix ans d'emprisonnement et de 1 500 000 euros d'amende lorsqu'elle est commise: a l'égard d'une personne dont la particulière vulnérabilité due à sa difficulté financière ou à son chômage est apparente ou connue de son auteur; par une personne qui a autorité sur elle ou abuse de l'autorité que lui confèrent ses fonctions. L'infraction prévue à l'article 225-4-1 est punie de vingt ans de réclusion criminelle et de 3 000 000 euros d'amende lorsqu'elle est commise en bande organisée. La tentative des délits prévus par l'article 225-4 du code pénal est punie des mêmes peines.
Indeed, the shameful corporate practices denounced below evoke sadly human trafficking! HRD negotiate pro-motion of employees which they have not even met with unknown to them “relatives” to whom they promise benefits (e.g. job opportunities), they force their targeted employees to relocate in order to me(a)t them willing to offer them accommodation in their “bigger” houses, they usurp the title of “family” and present themselves to public as relatives of their employees, they offer to employees positions in the company depending on the sexual needs of the “higher” managers disregarding their qualifications/expertise/interests or they dismiss them aiming to force them to begging, to pro- or to commit a crime. The penalties for HuetChiensHonte gang have to increase a lot and our disgust and boo become even stronger.

Human Trafficking is the “trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery or sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others. This may encompass providing a spouse in the context of forced marriage”. No, no, it is not human trafficking the shameful corporate practices denounced below, no, they do not force them to that, they just dismiss them upon subjecting them to oppression or harassment and then close all the employment opportunities in their field of expertise and interest asking the relevant companies to place the targets in a “black list”and thus forcing them to go to the direction the rulers want and the city where their cock lives. They offer them only thumb up job opportunities, indeed, discussed under a deplorable “men’s agreement”. No, who sees that as force…?!! If the targets need to work for living and do not have access to guns then they are indeed in trouble. Mackay, indeed IS is a good employer offering an effective solution to one’s life problem.

Indeed, Claudine. Huge shame to them! We'd rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

The shameful conspiracy by the HRD evokes sadly human trafficking! This is an outrage, kind of trade of employees!!??! They hire people intending to me(a)t them? They place employees in positions irrelevant with their expertise and interests or even dismiss them after subjecting them to harassment for the purpose of sexual exploitation for “higher” managers or others?**!? “Either you get that crappy post or you go out of the company, the door is open you can go out”. They force people to relocate in order to take their properties or be able to me(a)t them destroying their careers and disturbing their private lives? In work “we are men and women”, another hypocrisy. They either keep them in work under oppressive conditions or try to pro-mote them seeking “relatives” to act as accomplices!? If they do not want women in work then place them in the armed forces to fight and let men in the corporate world! A huge boooooo!!!

The entity which under the auspices of Hutchinson Group exploited the carpooling for leaving inside the car a GPS tracker device in order to locate the residence address of the targeted employee is called Diego Pantano. That entity thought that one day could get the property of the target when the latter would be forced to get relocated LOL. Since he was asked by the company to “like” an employee, it is our duty to return the liking back.

The Home Research Division consists of Dominique Bellos, the Human Resources Director of Hutchinson Group (that time) and her husband who apparently had an active corporate role and relied on the “men’s agreement” in his conspiracy with the “relative”. Apparently, that agreement somehow broke. Also, many employees learnt and revealed the HRD declarations. HRD informed the “relatives” how the employee replied to the interview questions etc and now they learn how the harassed employee reply to their shameful violations. Since they searched and circulated family data of an employee in and outside the company, it becomes our duty to disclose their family data along with their violations.

Could you also please communicate “données de nature“ which will allow the identification of the entity which under the auspices of Hutchinson Group exploited the carpooling (promoted by the shameful company which circulates the employees residence addresses) to place GPS tracker device inside the car of an employee for locating the residence of the latter and later admitted that the company asked him to “like” her?

Could you please communicate “données de nature“ which will allow the identification of the HRD “Home Research Division” stated earlier which had the audacity to usurp the title of family, relatives or ”proches” and proclaim themselves publicly relatives/family of an employee and violate as well the article L1221-9 of the “code du travail”? Who is behind that HRD which dared to intrude shamefully upon the private life of an employee and circulate her/his family data in and outside the company aiming to disturb the tranquility of the employee (see Code Pénal) and turn them crazy? Who is behind the HRD which seeks and calls relatives of an employee, informs them where the newly hired works (company, position, country and city), how they replied to interview questions and asks information about their personal relationships (current or past), personal/education background, family data, residence address etc which then diffuse publicly (in and outside the company) declaring themselves relatives of the unknown to them employee intending to me(a)t them? Who is behind that pro-entity which conspired with unknown “relatives” behind the back of an employee asking those relatives to let the HRD know if/when the employee will visit them upon the workplace harassment she/he will be subjected to for two years in order to go to find them and me(a)t them-offer their cock? Who is this shameful entity which considers business a family matter and think that by hiring one they automatically become members of their families and they are free to call them for exchanges of information? Who is this shameful entity which they think that by hiring a person they get the right for “VPN”, the right to direct and disturb their private lives, relocate them and even more importantly, change their career direction getting them out of their field of expertise in order to me(a)t them or help the real relatives of the HRD to get a placement in the company? Who is that petty HRD division or “Manager By Accident” and the company which supported them in those shameful violations?
A discussion about the change of career direction of an employee, work placements irrelevant with their expertise and interests and employees’ dismissal in order for “higher” managers of a company to be able to me(a)t them has to follow shortly.

Albert, this is the first court order for disclosure of information of all accounts Hutchinson SA channel received as well which already refers to the contents of the channel as “manifestement illicites”. Nobody was called to the court though. The fact that we uploaded the Hutchinson complaint and the court’s order as a video (who rules over you) alerting that way the global community apparently made an impact...However, the purpose of both court orders was just to intimidate us and press us to close by ourselves the channel killing the satire, not to hear us in the court. The complaint of Hutchinson is so nasty disregarding our fundamental freedoms, degrading the satirical/parodied works and denigrating the commenters who denounce real, well-proved harassment acts and other shameful violations, that it should be taken as defamation against the authors. But sadly, fake accusations (in bad faith) are always permitted to be heard in the court when those come from rulers (real defamation from that side is allowed), the real complaints (in good faith) coming from individuals are muzzled even by the justice itself as those are taken always as “defamation” against the rulers even within the courtroom. Of course, they should avoid calling us to the court and we were expected to get intimidated. We can defend our satirical/parodied works and our comments based on our fundamental freedoms or rather “figments of imagination/hallucinations” but they are the ones to defend the drama act which we all attend. They are the authors of that drama which turns the case to dramedy.

For the record, I also received a notification by Google regarding disclosure of information related to my account/postings on 24/05/17 with a court order dated 11/05/17. The only comment I had made that time was “C'est une jungle sauvage. On a besoin d'auto-défense“. Hutchinson was looking for «relatives» even among youtube account holders based on the names!**@! My name apparently was incriminating. I did not receive the second court order which mentions certain account holders. It appears that initially they proceeded to open all the commenters’ accounts!
The court order dated on 11/05/17 states «…constant que l’ensemble de ces circonstances justifient qu’il soit dérogé au principe du contradictoire, ORDONNONS aux sociétés GOOGLE INC et YOUTUBE LLC de communiquer les données de nature à permettre l’identification des personnes ayant contribué à la création des contenus objet des notifications qui leur été respectivement adressées les 14 et 18 avril 2017 et 2 mai 2017 qu’elles détiennent en application de l’article 6-II de la loi du 21 juin 2004 précitée».
There are two other orders deleted with a pen with a note “contradictoire” in the margin: “ORDONNONS à la société YOUTUBE LLC de retirer le compte usurpé au nom de HUTCHINSON SA figurant à l’adresse URL suivante :
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjf0RgsKz09V5Os1SjGbjTg
Ordonnons à la société YOUTUBE LLC de retirer les contenus litigieux figurant aux adresses URL suivantes :
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4kmhyI-vNE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7TVg_4NSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4kmhyIvNE&list=PLK7P8tmQ7ApIxRm_u_66R88aWGanQDixA
Although they identified people early last year, nobody was called to defend their comments or parodied works/works of mockery to the court. Although the court invoked the “principe du contradictoire“ and refused (formally) to remove the channel and the videos until bringing the parties in confrontation in the court we noticed sadly that videos have been either removed completely by Youtube or placed under the jurisdiction of other countries, including the EU member states that have implemented the parody exception having used as model the French parody exception. This is DRAMA. One can well understand that the purpose was to muzzle us and Youtube i n f o r m a l l y was asked to remove the videos! Nothing was judged f o r m a l l y as defamatory. The “Hutchinson CdR” video was removed upon the first court on 05/17 after having been initially accepted by the Youtube review team. Obviously, there are informal court orders which are kept as secret. What is the reason to place the rest videos under the jurisdiction of other countries? Did they think that the commenters will quit the country being unemployed upon their null and void dismissal and avoided to call them last year? They actually wanted to avoid a confrontation, leave the channel naked and close it! Yes, we well got it! Indeed, we all have hallucinations that we have democracy and freedoms. This is not satire, not parody but pure drama.

The court's orders state: «vu l'article du Code de precédure civile, vu l'article pour la confiance en l'économie numérique, vu les publications illicites publiées sur le site youtube et sur le blog hutchinsoncentrederecherche.blogspot.it (mais c'est blogspot.fr, pas .it, pas .co.uk), vu la qualité d'hébergeur des sociétés GOOGLE INC et YOUTUBE LLC des contenus litigieux détenteurs des données d'identification, vu la requête qui précède et les pièces jointes, lesquelles justifient la mesure demandée, vu la nécessité et l'urgence à identifier les auteurs des contenus illicites afin de mettre fin au dommage subi par la societé HUTCHINSON» et de la ordonnance précédente que nous avions reçu «…constantant qu’il y a lieu de procéder aux mesures de communication et de retrait sollicitées, constant l’urgence liée au préjudice causé à la societé HUTCHINSON pour le maintien en ligne des contenus manifestement illicites dénoncés, constantant l’impossibilité pour la société HUTCHINSON d’agir contre les auteurs des contenus qui n’ont pas été identifiés empêchant toute action contradictoire à ce stade, constant la position des sociétés GOOGLE INC et YOUTUBE LLC de s’en remettre à l’autorité judiciaire, constant que l’ensemble de ces circonstances justifient qu’il soit dérogé au principe du contradictoire ordonnons aux sociétés GOOGLE INC et YOUTUBE LLC de comminiquer les données de nature à permettre l’identification des personness auteurs des vidéos et chaînes…».
Apparently, nothing was heard in the court by any party (Hutchinson, Youtube, Google, tribunal) about the well known rules of satire and caricature, the “fair use”, the parody exception to copyright justified by the freedom of expression and freedom of arts, the freedom of panorama, the freedom of incisive criticism, ridicule, irony and sarcasm which are part of the freedom of expression and information, all those freedoms which "manifestement” refute the ridiculous complaint by the company HUTCHINSON. They did not even discuss about the limits of those particular freedoms (although we have not passed any)! All the aforementioned fundamental rights which are of utmost importance in every democratic country were taken automatically by the rulers as “manifestement illicites” with absolutely no quote/citation/discussion and they would almost remove all satirical videos as illegal and close the channel! They could well identify the authors before the first court and call them, but they did not. We received by Google the first notification email regarding disclosure of our accounts data dated on 24/05/17 with the court order attached dated on 11/05/17. Later, we received a second notification email on 29/11/17 with a modified court order shown in the video “who rules over you”. The court took place on November 2017. It was not “impossible” to call us to the court and we proved that it was not possible to get intimidated and close our accounts by ourselves without having made a violation. Indeed, we were subjected to prejudice and we disappointed them one more time. We can defend our works of mockery and criticism but it is frustrating that absolutely nothing was heard concerning the above rights in the court which has jurisdiction in the country with the long parody tradition and the famous explicit parody exception in their copyright law, the country which indeed served as model to the other EU member states that implemented the parody exception to their national law. The court’s order already refers to the contents of the channel as being “manifestement illicites”! Did they all aim simply to intimidate and muzzle us violating our freedoms? As we noted earlier we also sadly notice that videos in Hutchinson SAtire channel as well as in playlist become unavailable in France but they are available to all the rest countries due to that complaint. The laws in France have been suspended and the videos have been placed under the jurisdiction of other countries? Did the French court order that transfer to leave the channel naked? It seems that there exists “rulers” exception to parody exception, which renders satire, parody, criticism etc “manifestement illicites”, what a hypocrisy...
It’s no wonder then why people point their neighbours or other unidentifiable individuals when they are asked by the judicial police “who did it, who wrote it, who uploaded it?”. When a judge avoids making “defamation” in the courtroom against lawbreakers by concealing their crimes, when the court’s order upon a ruler’s complaint and the convocation letter by the judicial police is threatening or intimidating based on unfounded, null and void accusations referring to penalties kind of 15,000 euros fine and one year of imprisonment, then those who denounce illegal practices in various websites making use of their fundamental rights should opt to avoid wasting their precious time and money (and even risking their liberty) going to attend another parody act. The restoration of public trust in the justice is imperative need! When there are judges who humiliate the justice invoking “defamation” during a trial about harassment in workplace and show that way disrespect to the victim-plaintiff, then people have a very good reason to steer clear of courts being unconcerned about the cogency of their replies to the question “who did it?”! Those are not the liars, the hypocrisy lies “manifestement” elsewhere.
Again, we are still here remaining “vertical” and we will give to the harassers who made the complaint a lesson about our fundamental freedoms, the cornerstone of democracy (which sadly have not been taken as given) “afin de mettre fin au harcèlement mené par la societé HUTCHINSON et au dommage subi par les victimes de leurs violations honteuses”. DEF.AM.ATION came to stay.

We sadly notice that videos in Hutchinson SAtire channel as well as in playlist become unavailable in France, the country with the long parody tradition and the famous explicit parody exception in their copyright law but they are available to all the rest countries including the EU member states that have implemented the parody exception having used as model the French parody exception. What an irony. People can’t open the videos in France via youtube “due to a defamation complaint”. We got well aware of that complaint which we consider null and void as it conflicts with the rules of satire, the “fair use”, the parody exception to copyright justified by the freedom of expression and freedom of arts, the freedom of incisive criticism, irony and sarcasm, the freedom of panorama etc. The court in which youtube/google only was called (not the authors of Hutchinson SAtire) ordered disclosure of data for identification of the authors of videos and youtube/googleblog sites, but NOT REMOVAL OF THE VIDEOS OR CHANNEL/BLOG. The authors have been identified and accepted to defend their works of mockery in the court. There is no reason to place the videos under the jurisdiction of other countries. If Hutchinson company is in rush then they need to pay once more to speed up the court date. Obviously, their aim was to leave the channel naked hoping that it will close but we disappointed them. If an entity finds a video “illegal” then we need to resolve the dispute to the court which has the jurisdiction and this is the French court since the concerned IP addresses are French.
A video can not be considered defamatory without a court decision. The first court (05/17) as well as the second court (11/17) asked only the identification of the authors. Until a new hearing takes place no video can be taken as defamatory or illegal and removed. We trusted that the parody exception and satire was well known in France but apparently not. It appears that there exists “rulers” exception to parody exception, which renders criticism illegal, what a hypocrisy...

We prompt you all to continue denouncing shameful practices identifying clearly companies and/or individuals. If denouncing REAL facts which can or have been proved by obvious evidences is called “defamation” by the law breakers (even when names have not been disclosed or “fair use” has been made) then we do support it as being the opposite of “conspiracy to conceal crimes” for which the penalties are half the punishment of the crimes. Their accusations are null and void. The more they try to muzzle us the more pain they’ll get. Indeed, it is DEF.AM.ATION from DEFeating shAMeful violATIONs and SAtIRE has its origin to ire. The more they provoke ire the more satire they get and what’s better place to get that well of venom and outrage than the workplace where we are oppressed by fucktards.

Defamation (in bad faith) towards those who denounce harassment in workplace is permitted by allowing fake accusations of the harassers to be pronounced within the courtroom but the victim is muzzled for not making “defamation” referring to real harassment acts proved by a plenty of obvious evidences. Revealing the truth, uncovering lies, discussion on obvious evidences concerning harassment acts is prohibited even within the courtroom, it’s illicit according to the great man! Indeed, the labor courts serve for ridiculing the justice. What is the role of judge? To determine the facts of a case and resolve disputes…by simply putting a muzzle!**! When the “defamation approach” is adopted even by the justice itself for resolving a case in the court we have sadly reached a breaking point, we have indeed reached a drama.

Maybe at a certain time in his career the great man was asked “What do you want for not going to the court” and he replied “I want to become a judge” and he became a great one. Such growth excuses the approach of harassers “we need harassment in order to become directors”. If one does not choose the side of the oppressors they become unemployed.

Indeed, great men as Pierre Bellaiche who refuse a debate within the courtroom by the opposing parties regarding harassment claims allow the truth to prevail and judge with knowledge. The judge’s main objective is to find out the truth investigating the case and a final decision is based on arguments made during the trial and examination of evidences LOL. The labor courts feed satire richly. Definitely, he becomes top reference.

Can somebody please disclose the name of the grand man of justice who pronounced “let’s not talk about the harassment acts to avoid defamation as there is an audience”? His name must go down in history. Since there was an audience many people heard him and it would be very kind of them to advertise him so as to avoid a plagiarism or copyright infringement. A grand quote must always be signed by a great man.

Not only a pleading about well-proved harassment acts and obvious violations/abuses of all kinds was not allowed by the Great man during a pseudo-hearing at the afternoon, but the court did not take the necessary time to study the submitted documents before a “délibéré”. They opted, contrarily to the norms, to take the decision the same day of the pseudo-hearing which was held during afternoon together with plenty of others. They took maybe just a quick look during dining late at the evening at the end of all hearings and then they took a hasty decision which they announced early next morning!@#. Why that unprecedented rush!? Justice is rather what the judge ate for dinner.


WTH is “délibéré”? Le "délibéré" est l'espace de temps au cours duquel les juges qui ont entendu les parties ou leurs mandataires à l'audience, se retirent, pour débattre collégialement des dispositions qui constitueront le jugement ou l'arrêt.  Au cours du délibéré le juge qui a présidé l'audience et ses assesseurs échangent leurs avis après avoir examiné les pièces du dossier. Si les opinions exprimées sont contradictoires, le Président soumet la ou les questions litigieuses au vote. En cas de divergences, son opinion est prépondérante. La discussion terminée et les votes ayant été exprimés, il se désigne lui-même ou désigne l'un de ses assesseurs pour rédiger le projet de jugement qui sera ensuite dactylographié ou imprimé par le personnel du Greffe et sera soumis à sa signature. Dans les affaires délicates comportant un très grand nombre de pièces de procédure et de documents, le Président peut désigner un des assesseurs pour faire un rapport qui selon le cas peut être oral ou, plus rarement, écrit. Les juges peuvent ainsi se réunir plusieurs fois avant qu'une décision soit prise. 

Indeed, they ridiculed justice in all terms.


Let me underline it once more for the poor pseudo-directors who even promote the replacement of the ceiling lamps with desk lamps in the offices turning them to bordels, their “final thoughts” were “it is up to you” and we “Just did it”. We got their consent. The parody of office lighting was well justified by Huetchienshonte, their “parody exception” can serve well as model. HueTchienshonte (T from “time out”) your “ride” will be long.

It is a huge mistake that the harassment acts are not discussed within the courtroom during a l e g a l procedure (with the presence of the lawyers of both parties). When the victim documents plenty of workplace harassment acts in a clear, analytical, constructive manner providing strong, obvious evidences in a text of over 170 pages there should be a debate allowing the plaintiff to “prove the harassment claims” clarifying further the cogent evidences, as well as the defendant to dispute based on real facts if they are able-not on fake unfounded stories. It’s a great frustration to hear by the judge within the courtroom “let’s not talk about the harassment acts to avoid defamation as there is an audience”. Great shame, this is the absolute SHAME! Amazingly, the court decision was taken the SAME DAY after a pseudo-hearing at the evening during which there was NO PLEADING about the harassment well-proved acts. The supporting documents apparently were reviewed after the court decision few months later for the writing of the judgement. Instead of suspending the sale of the mobile cards in supermarkets they should consider the function and the effectiveness of the Labour Court (in French conseil de prud'hommes) which shamefully does not tolerate disputes about harassment within the courtroom to avoid “defamation” (!!@#$%^&**!!) against the harassers and does not even recall the parties upon the review of the submitted files for conducting a fruitful debate before taking a fair decision. Later, those who denounce publicly harassment acts without indeed identifying an entity and make use of satire or parody are sued wrongfully for defamation and they are called to go to the court and open their past cases in which they had been muzzled by the justice itself? A debate within the courtroom is allowed or desired only when the lawsuit is coming from a company, not from an individual and indeed when the plaintiff’s complaint is unfounded as they disregard the fundamental right to freedom of expression including the famous parody exception in the French tradition of satire? How is it possible that the plaintiffs thought that such a ridiculous complaint could intimidate the Injured Parties making them to close their accounts through which they punch the harassers in face? Yes, we speak fluent sarcasm in French, in English and other languages. Sarcasm is our defence against the Imbecile Pseudo-professionals who, as it has been well noted, ignore not only the “code du travail”, the “code pénal” which is applicable only to their violations committed “in bad faith”, but they are “manifestement” ignorant of the fundamental right to freedom of expression, even of the French parody exception which indeed served as a model to the EU parody exception. Obviously, we have to deal with their frightening ignorance and the absurd in a continuous base.
We are sorry to disappoint them but the sarcasm mode will stay ON. Their harassment mode must switch to OFF or they will be in a permanent base the object of derision/the mock as long as democracy mode is ON. “It is up to them” to choose between “harassment mode OFF” or “be the mock mode ON”. Intimidation is punishable by law and their ignorance of the law as well as the motto “harassment is difficult to be proved” cause laughter. Their despicable mindset and illegal practices inevitably inspire the creation of satirical pieces of artwork along with social caustic commentaries. Their “final thoughts” were “it is up to you” and we “Just did it”. HueTchienshonte (T from "time out"), your “ride” will be long.

It is also noteworthy that many social media including LinkedIn are unaware of the right to freedom of expression, of incisive criticism or sarcasm or they are paid by the rulers to muzzle individuals. LinkedIn can suspend or close an account if its holder makes a caustic/ironic commentary (without use of abusive words) in a company’s website without indeed letting them know the reason! They suspend an account without disclosing the reason as being confidential! Only praise comments are permitted, an unfavourable criticism is automatically taken as “defamation” by the rulers and their petty servers. It seems that the majority of the social media has been well controlled by the rulers who pay them in order to keep their shits or ridiculous practices hidden.
LinkedIn facilitates only the companies in violating the personal data of employees when the petty employer ask various headhunters/recruitment agencies to approach or rather annoy the (constructively) dismissed employees in order to muzzle them before a court offering them crappy consultancy jobs even when their profile indicates that they hold a post and they are not interested in job offers. Those headhunters even dare to leave phone messages (in a business fixed telephone) to an employee who is going to be dismissed or quit while they are still working in the petty company! Such headhunters (for example the Quantum Group, UK) who appear suddenly from nowhere can even insist in arranging a meeting in person with an individual being willing even to travel from another country (!!) when there is no indication that the latter searches for a job indeed in another country. When the concerned individual makes a “subject access request” as being entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 asking the petty headhunter/agency to supply information relating to the name of the person/organisation that provided/recommended their name and personal data in order for the agency to contact them for crappy jobs they reply “Your name was recommended to me on a confidential basis so I cannot say who it was”! Later, the higher manager of the agency takes charge of the “subject access request” and apologizes “for the error” declaring that the individual was found randomly by searching keywords (the classic cheap reply) in an effort to cover the cheap employer who approached them. They mention for the unadvertised position in the unrevealed company and country for which they contact the “recommended” individual that “it is highly confidential so this is why we have used this approach and why the position is not advertised on the company’s website”. They note in their file which they opened illegally with data they obtained for an individual that she/he is “unwilling to cooperate” with the unknown headhunter who does not disclose info about how they found them to discuss about a “secret” job in an unrevealed company which does not advertise it in their legal website and in an unspecified country!@!**! Other petty headhunters also mention that they found the concerned individual in LinkedIn by “searching keywords” even for a post which is totally irrelevant with their profile! Yes, a (constructively) dismissed employee receives within a very short time a storm of messages in LinkedIn by petty headhunters who found them suddenly by searching the keyword “irrelevance” while the profile of the former indicates that they are employed and they are not interested in job offers.
 Companies dare to bring in bad faith (with willingness to damage) false testimonies to court and intentionally false accusations, they make defamation against the victims, the judge does not allow disputes about harassment acts within the courtroom during a l e g a l procedure (in the presence of the lawyers of both parties) to avoid “defamation” (!!!#&@***!) and anyone who attempts to denounce illegal practices making use of their fundamental right to freedom of expression is sued for defamation by the rulers. Amazingly, this has become the norm! An enterprise is eligible to break the law being protected by all the authority bodies, but the individuals/victims are muzzled or they are sued for defamation against the lawbreakers. What an irony…The lawyers just submit the files to the court without entering to a debate regarding the harassment accusations and the judge never recall the parties to the court for a debate upon reading their files, the harassment values are well protected even if there are o b v i o u s evidences which SHOUT that there has been severe moral and/or sexual harassment, discrimination and many violations committed by the shameful company. The victims are also invited by the media (a TV channel e.g. France 2) via their lawyers to speak about harassment acts before the court date (no wonder how they found them). If one accepts and speaks out they will be sued for defamation and due to that they will not get indemnities for their harassment claims, if one denounces the shameful practices of the enterprises upon the decision of the court which insists in not recognizing harassment again they will be wrongfully sued for defamation. We even reached the point that satire and parody are accused of being a defamatory tool when there is a legislation which protects those fundamental rights. This is an irony in full dimension. “The harassment is difficult to be proved”, the refrain that from now on should cause only laughter. It seems that it is difficult only for somebody (individual or entity) to deny breaking the law if they get paid or promoted to pseudo-directors.

Apparently, we have to deal with their frightening ignorance and the absurd in a continuous base. Not only they ignore the “code du travail” or the “code penal” which is applicable only to their violations committed “in bad faith” but they are “manifestement” ignorant of the fundamental right to freedom of expression, even of the French parody exception which indeed served as a model to the EU parody exception. Indeed, they are ignorant even of the long parody tradition of France with plenty of examples of commercial and non-commercial parodic use of copyrighted works found in the national case law. Even their French lawyer ignores the parody exception in the French tradition of satire or they thought that they will be exempted once more from the licit incisive criticism if they will pay an entity being a ruler? How one can avoid be sarcastic having to deal with their frightening ignorance of the fundamental human rights?

Although they are based in a democratic country from the interesting testimonies below it is obvious that they try to establish an autocratic regime and a centralization of power in the workplace. Maybe the “leaders” who make up the company come from states with an(e)ther regime? The lack of elementary freedom of direct communication among the project managers, the need of approval of their every single action even their emails by their chefs or amazingly the change of their slides during their presentations (!**@!!) by the former, the lack of decision making responsibilities in the post of project manager, the restriction of their power and duties and the exploitation of their expertise by their incompetent “superiors” in hierarchy who treat them as slaves speak volumes about the regime they want to impose oppressing badly the employees. We should not expect that such entity with an autocratic regime would be aware of the fundamental right to freedom of expression, the cornerstone of democracy.

Catherine, it is evident that the complaint which tries desperately to degrade the Hutchinson SAtire imputing us wrongfully many offenses has been filed by an entity who has a frightening ignorance of that form of freedom of expression and its rules. It is strange as the plaintiffs come from a democratic country…or maybe not? It seems that they are unaware of the meaning of satire, parody, derision, ridicule, irony or sarcasm of which the excess, exaggeration, abuse, insolence, impropriety, irreverence, impertinence, acerbic wit and incisive criticism are the rules. It’s good to note again that although an artist has the right to exaggeration or distortion of the reality our published videos and comments reflect only the t r u t h about the workplace. In this respect, their complaint is even more provocative as they also dare to make an unfounded claim that “everything is lies” when e v e r y t h i n g - comments and videos- is related to r e a l facts which can or already have been proved by the IPs (Injured People) but have been hidden by the Imbecile Pseudo-professionals. The unprovoked impudence, harassment and violations of Huechienshonte consist criminal offenses, not the satire. They conspired to cover their crimes by submitting fake, provocative accusations and testimonies and now, amazingly, they dare to seek indemnities as their despicable, ridiculous practices and sick mindset inspire creation of satirical pieces of artwork along with social caustic commentaries. They are so ridiculous that distortion is not needed even though we are authorized to do so. Apart from learning and applying the “code du travail” they must also learn about the fundamental right to freedom of expression, the cornerstone of democracy. Their headquarters are based in a democratic country, they should be aware of that…or maybe not?! Such ignorance would be even more frightening.
Shall they pay again to speed up the court date? Look forward to laughing soon with the censored reply to the “thumb up” which their female attorney will invoke. A debate on where the “thumb” should be prompted to be placed will be interesting.

Catherine Bernard
La satire, la parodie, l'utilisation du ridicule, l'ironie ou le sarcasme font partie de la liberté d'expression et d'information. Ils représentent un instrument efficace de la critique de la vie sociopolitique et du monde du travail et ainsi ils jouent un rôle social très important dans chaque pay démocratique.
La caricature est l'expression la plus évidente de la satire, il peut être grotesque, ridicule ou véritable, c’est-à-dire qu’il ne pouvait pas y avoir de confusion sur le plan de la représentation entre des dessins et l’image réelle de l’intéressé. La reproduction de l’image d’une personne physique dans le cadre d’une œuvre satirique n’est licite que pour assurer le plein exercice de la liberté d’expression. Les personnes peuvent voir leur image utilisée dans le cadre d’une œuvre satirique sans que leur autorisation n’ait à être sollicitée.
La caricature est un mode d’altération de la personnalité où l’excès est la loi du genre. Il s’agit d’un aspect de la liberté d’expression qui «autorise un auteur à forcer les traits et à altérer la personnalité de celui qu’elle représente», l’excès et l’outrance sont la règle. Le genre satirique autorise des abus qu’une information sérieuse ne pourrait pas commettre. La jurisprudence reconnaît même «un droit à l’irrespect et à l’insolence», une sorte d’impunité aux médias qui ont pour vocation la satire et la dérision. «L’inconvenance grossière et provocatrice, l’irrévérance sarcastique sur le bon goût desquels l’appréciation de chacun reste libre ne peuvent être perçus sans tenir compte de leur vocation ouvertement satirique et humoristique qui permet des exagérations, des déformations et des présentations ironiques». Des individus, des organisations/entreprises, des États etc peuvent légitimement exposées à la libre critique et à la caricature incisive. Peu importe que les personnages soient dans le sketch comme ayant des affinités avec le régime nazi ou l’État islamique; la critique peut éventuellement être très incisive. Le droit de critique par nature ne sert pas à faire l'éloge. La satire est une forme d’expression artistique et de commentaire social qui vise naturellement à provoquer, à agiter, à faire honte aux individus, aux entreprises, au gouvernement ou à la société efin d’imposer le changement nécessaire. Elle est inspirée par des pratiques réelles et honteuses de diverses entités et pas par des contes de fées enfantins. Son ton ne peut être qu’acerbe.
Ainsi, il est évident que la satire est une forme d’expression qui doit aussi bénéficier d’une protection renforcée par rapport à d’autres formes d’expression puisque sa nature est l’excès et l’impertinence, encore plus quand il est même possible de relater des faits dont la matérialité peut se prouver.

Ervan Fagot  
Celon l’art. 2 de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen la résistance à l’opression consitue un droit naturel et imprescriptibles de l’Homme et le but de toute association politique est sa conservation. Comment quelqu'un qui a besoin de travailler pour vivre peut-il résister à l'oppression sur le lieu de travail alors qu'aucune loi ne s'applique pour les protéger? Il semble que seules les valeurs de harcèlement sont conservées et perpétuent. Bien sûr, "il est difficile de prouver le harcèlement" car les victimes sont muselées par de nombreuses entités.

 Daniel Benoualid

Daniel Benoualid
Diffusion/violation of personal data occurs also when the employer makes known the place of residence of an employee without his/her consent to other employees who live in the same region in order to promote carpooling and through that “carpooling” to promote the placement of GPS tracker devices! “Our director told me that you live in that city, do you want to share the car?” Yes, it is even more easy to leave a trapped bag inside the car than attach a device externally. Indeed, it is very oppressing to work with such pricks who are experts in violations of all kinds. Regarding denouncing harassment acts in workplace can one tell us which is the proper place or media where one can talk, argue and try to find their right? An internal complaint to HR is of no avail as it has been mentioned. Comments made in google or other media are removed upon payment of the harassers. When during the trial the judge mentions “better not to talk about the harassment acts now to avoid making defamation as there is audience” it is obvious that the harassment practices are protected and there is no place where one can argue about it. Even the courtroom during a legal process does not tolerate disputes regarding harassment. The “harcèlements” articles are just an ornament in the “code du travail” without any application. Of course, “harassment is difficult to be proved” when there is no platform to talk about it with the victims being muzzled. “Defamation” during a trial about harassment??!!***@#%^&*!!!!!!! How is it possible?

If they “make it possible” to develop conductive fuel lines by running polyaniline in the extruder burning the employees’ tissues and indeed bring the cost down by using polymers other than the cheapest polyamide then they needed to have a logo to reflect their utopic and dangerous projects. Shall they update us in the court about their “innovative” achievements or those projects are also kept confidential LOL? What is the motto? “Harassment is difficult to be proved”? Is it even when the formal “projects” of a manager speak volumes about it? Their shits will be difficult to be kept hidden with the arrival of SAtire.

With criminal charges of such order of magnitude HueTchienshonte will not ask us this time “What do you want for not going to the court” or they will tell us in the court being red from shame how they all became directors by falling to the next domino block? If a block is too strong to fall it is kicked out of the corporate world as it interrupts their fucking “domino game”.

Bringing into light the truth is not a defamation but submitting fake accusations and testimonies to justice is a criminal offense.
According to the comic creator’s guide there is no libel in the following cases:
Truth: No matter how scandalous or injurious to an entity’s reputation a statement may be it is not considered defamatory if it is true.
Humor or parody: It is considered a form of protected opinion. There is no libel when the material is clearly understood as parody, satire, humor or fantasy and is not capable of carrying a defamatory meaning.
Opinion: Statements that reflect a point of view or opinion are not considered defamatory. Also, insulated from libel and slander are “vigorous epithets,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” “loose, figurative language” or “lusty and imaginative expressions".
Consent: If one consents to the publication of a defamatory statement they will not be able to bring a claim for defamation.
Concerning the usurpation of identity-logo (the accusation for the name “Hutchinson” has already been well ridiculed) does the logo of the company which accuses us have a red devil or a kitten or a trident drawn with transparent ink? Do they also have the other red lines of our triangle-brand in their logo drawn with transparent ink which we can not see? Fate changes when you change clothes, does it change when you change ink colour or logo? How many logos can an entity register? If a new logo does not challenge them it won’t change them. Logos change, minds remain the same. The power of satire is that it forces necessary change in order to put end to the harassment, abuse and violations of the enterprises against those who need to work for living.

If a manager denies running trials with harmful chemicals there will be no results and thus they will be accused for failure in their utopic projects which can lead to their dismissal. Similarly, a technician can lose his/her job if they are not willing to sacrifice their health.
Apart from the chemical weapons they also have in their arsenal harassers used as bioweapons. They serve as a source of microbes and are installed in the same office with the victim to fill them with disgust. They cough all the time in their face spreading out microbes and viruses, they file their fingernails causing dust and fresh up putting smelly spray deodorant in the office. They are so disgusting that they scare the crap out of the toilet. They are indeed a biohazard. Always, if the victim complains she/he will be considered unfit in the team as they can not get along well with the disgusting collegues. If those “bioweapons” will change office they will be replaced by smelly freshly injected parts which instead of being stored according to the safety and health regulations in the warehouse they are left on the desks for undermining the health of the victim.
What the code of conduct states ? « Nous accordons une attention particulière aux conditions de travail des salariés en particulier à la protection de leur santé et de leur sécurité… » LOL

For not abiding the safety and health regulations running in the machines toxic, carcinogenic chemicals, chemicals of which the degradation products (at low temperature) are corrosive to human tissues and attack the respiratory system, eyes, skin and intestines (e.g isocyanate oligomers, POM which degrades to formaldehyde, doped polyaniline which can release hydrochloride) while the ventilation system is insufficient or out of order and the offices are located above the machines lab the penalties must raise much more higher. As it has been mentioned the technicians and managers are installed in offices above the machines where all the VOCs raise which cause them serious neck irritation and vomiting. They are imposed to breath VOCs even while working inside their offices! The directors do not care as they are based in another building. Such offense sometimes is integrated to moral harassment (working with harmful chemicals) but since this occurs in such large scale extra penalties should be imposed to the law breakers, that is minimum 45,000 euro and three years of imprisonment. So totally the amount raises to 2,953,000 euro and 71 years of imprisonment. Awareness, health and safety must be placed as top priority in developments. Stupidity is indeed dangerous!

For the disclosure of personal data of a dismissed or resigned employee (without their consent) to various headhunters in LinkedIn or other social-professional media who approach (rather annoy) the former regarding consultancy jobs the penalties must raise by 45,000 euro and one year of imprisonment. So totally the amount raises to 2,908,000 euro and 68 years of imprisonment.
Of course, such entity would not loose the opportunity to get the CVs of their former employees from the employment centre (if those have been submitted) in order to diffuse them in the internet and provoke the unemployed further. Attention must be paid by the latter.

It seems more effective to me to suspend or close the operations of Huechienshonte with the penalties of such order of magnitude than the sale of mobile cards used by many individuals to bring various offenses into light. Lifelong sentence for their crimes! Long Live SAtire!

For the supermarketplace invasion of privacy where a market keeper is charged of taking photos secretly those who approach the mobile cards for buying (without the customers’ knowledge or consent) as they have been ordered to do so within the framework of the investigation who is going to be charged? Who is going to pay the market for the customers they lose?



The right to respect for private life is a fundamental human right. According to the article 9 of the Civil Code: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life". The concept of privacy includes information about one’s home or the places they visit, information about their family life or their love life. Anyone who makes public elements of private life of another person and without their consent incurs penalties for invasion of privacy. French law also provides criminal sanctions against the perpetrator of privacy invasion. For the invasion of privacy (including search and disclosure/circulation of private facts/family info, search and approach of family members for obtaining private info, info about family relationships, false light, GPS tracking of car) the m i n i m u m penalties are 45,000 euros and one year of imprisonment. Considering also the workplace invasion of privacy (search of an employee’s desk, locker/drawer and personal items, taking photographs/videos without the victim’s knowledge or consent) the m i n i m u m penalties are raised to 90,000euros and two years imprisonment. So totally the penalties for HueTchienshonte (T from "time out") raise to 2,818,000 € and 65 years of imprisonment.
Let me pose a question now. Given that the workplace is a wild zoo should HR be replaced by judicial police? Could that put an end to harassment, abuse, provocation and violations of the enterprises towards those who need to work for living? Would the directors say also to them “if you want to belong to a company you must do what your boss say- Just do it!”? Would also such body go along with their harassment values and violations of all kind “for the benefit of the company”?


Let me make a sum up until this moment. Moral harassment, discrimination, sexual harassment, public and indeed racist insult, usurpation of the “relative/family” title, violation of personal data, invasion of privacy (penalties TBC) including search and disclosure of private facts/family info, false light, GPS tracking of car, workplace invasion of privacy-search of an employee’s desk, locker and personal items, ridiculous investigation run by petty HR which deprive the victim of rights, no access to the file until the date of the court, false testimonies motivated by actual malice, public defamation, usurpation of signature/fraudulent alteration of the truth in many instances.
The accounts of commenters opened and the internet providers disclosed their personal data “in order to put an end to the damages” the harassers and the law breakers have incurred when nobody identified them. Although youtube took action removing certain videos the creators/uploaders are later prosecuted for defamation, public insult and usurpation of identity with the penalties being 15,000euros fine and one year imprisonment.
SAtire replies to MOBbies by mocking them, people have the right to denounce illegal practices. The crimes of the harassers are to be penalized, not the satire!

Sabine, regarding the penalties for usurpation of signature it must be multiplied with the number of the cases. If we count also the conspiracy case mentioned earlier in which a vile department manager changes the annual evaluation of a technician adding fake negative comments against her/his project manager aiming to kick the latter off when the technician has made only positive comments about the collaboration with her/his manager the penalties for usurpation of signature raises to six years of imprisonment and 90,000 euros fine. So totally the penalties for Huechienshonte raise to 2,728,000 € and 63 years of imprisonment. When the project manager asks the petty HR manager after three months of submission of the documents to check the annual evaluation of the technician HR denies…How petty are all they! Indeed, their nasty practices are verified by other project managers and technicians. Obviously, there is a long background to their harassment and violations some of which are difficult to be proved.

Me Massis states that everything written in the site is lies. The harassment acts described have been well proved with strong/clear evidences and testimonies which were not submitted to the court. The harassers under the protection of the petty HR investigator did not prove their lies, fake stories, accusations and characterizations for the victim which were presented formally to the court. Where do they base that statement that we lie? They can not accuse people for having hallucinations without being able to prove it.

Il faut noter que le choc est grand aussi lorsque la victime lit quelques jours avant le tribunal les faux témoignages d'employé(s) qui lui avaient confirmé qu'ils étaient restés silencieux. L'usurpation de signature est un faux, c'est-à-dire une infraction pénale qui est constituée par toute altération frauduleuse de la vérité, de nature à causer un préjudice et accomplie par quelque moyen que ce soit, dans un écrit ou tout autre support d'expression de la pensée qui a pour objet ou qui peut avoir pour effet d'établir la preuve d'un droit ou d'un fait ayant des conséquences juridiques. Le faux et l'usage de faux sont punis de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d'amende. Donc, la peine totale que Huechienshonte doit payer s'élève à 2 683 000€ et 60 ans d'emprisonnement. On peut refuser de participer au harcèlement contre des collègues étant protégé par la loi. Aussi, un témoin peut garder le silence pendant une audience étant protégée par la loi. Le "silence" que ces collègues «dignes de confiance» ont gardé pendant l'audience mené par le petit RH a parlé beaucoup de leur ethos. Peut-être qu'ils pensaient que le tribunal n'aurait jamais lieu, c'est-à-dire l'avocat serait couard. Mais leurs crimes ont été révélés. Leurs témoignages ont bien montré qui est lâche ou petit. Un énorme hueeee pour eux et le petit RH. Comment pouvez-vous vous tolérer? Vouz méritez tout mépris, on doit cracher à vous.
De nouveau, hueeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A victim reports to HR harassment acts, various violations which can be verified very easily by questioning employees and reviewing the tasks, responsibilities, the utopic projects or missions of the victim. On the other hand the harassers lie to HR, report fake/fantastic stories, attribute a wrong character to a victim without any base throwing mud to her/him and HR although can very easily prove their lies by running an investigation and bring the opposing parties in confrontation, accepts their figments of imagination formally. The HR manager “cheap investigator” instead of posing to employees a number of appropriate questions in relation to reported acts of harassment with the purpose of shedding light on each and every claim and subsequently registering their short relevant replies, she accepts irrelevant long defamatory essays-reports of the harassers, obviously fabricated and submitted outside of any hearing, who relate with wickedness fake events without evidences and throw mad to their colleague. Not only she fails to investigate on the reported by the victim acts, but she accepts accusations of harassers without proceeding to any investigation to verify the fake stories questioning the victim and others and she submits them to the court! How cheap are all they! HR even asks witnesses to deny harassment acts and sign lies and if any verifies the real facts simply their testimonies are excluded from those presented to the court. Obviously such fake testimonies consist clearly a defamation against the victim approved by the deplorable HR and the dumb directors who program them. We remind to Huechienshonte that there are disciplinary and criminal sanctions against the e m p l o y e r who brought in bad faith (with willingness to damage) false testimonies to court (ANI March 26, 2010:”intentionally false accusations should not be tolerated and may result in disciplinary action.”). According to the criminal code Huechienshonte must pay 45 000 € fine for the public defamation based on lies against the victim who reported only the t r u t h providing clear evidences. So the total penalty considering all the rest prementioned violations for such shameful entity raises to 2 638 000 euro and 57 years of imprisonment. [Note: not only the lawyers know the French/international law but also the engineers).


Regarding the chase in supermarket we learnt that it has taken an(e)ther dimension over the last months of the investigation affecting the residents of a large French department. The sale of prepaid mobile sim cards has been suspended and the cards have been relocated close to the cash desks where a market keeper is charged of taking photos secretly those who approach the cards for buying as they have been ordered to do so within the framework of the investigation. The feedback we got from the market keepers is that since they started taking photos the customers the traffic has been reduced dramatically. As they focus particularly in women Hutchinson SAtire advices that gender to disguise or avoid the trapped zone. How far shall they go? Maybe placement of cameras in our houses close to our computer desks in the near future?


It has been well noted that a false testimony is considered an extra crime punishable with 5 years imprisonment and 75 000€ fine. If this is multiplied by nine false testimonies requested and approved by the “petit RH enquêteur” who tried desperately to hide the evident facts and throw mud to the victim (to whom they did not even provide a feedback) the penalties must be amended to 45years imprisonment and 675 000 euros fine. So the total penalty considering all the rest aforementioned violations for such shameful entity raises to 2 593 000 euro and 57 years of imprisonment.

Karen, si c'est une injure raciste la peine encourue est de 6 mois de prison et de 22 500 € d'amende. Le quatre employés injuriés sont européens tendis que le BullyOrBastard est américain. C’est une injure raciste. Donc on doit corriger la peine pour l’injure publique qui s’elève à 270 000 € et six ans d’emprisonnement pour les quatre injuriés et pour les trois occasions. Donc en total la peine pour Huechienshonte s’elève à 1 993 000 € et 17ans d’emprisonnement. Le montant doit être réduit si trois employés sur quatre ont été payés parce qu'ils avaient plus de deux ans d'expérience en ayant accepté les valeurs de harcèlement. Ceux qui ont moins de deux ans d'expérience ne reçoivent jamais d'indemnités s'ils portent plainte soit à l'interne soit à l'externe.
Comment est-il possible que le CEO qui ose injurier publiquement sans raison à la réception d'un hôtel plusieurs employés criant à eux "You are all ASSHOLES, you are ASSHOLE, you are ASSHOLE, you are ASSHOLE and you are ASSHOLE!!!!!!", "You are stupid, why you are stupid?" ou en s'adressant à un tiers il les injurie davantage "the are all stupid..." peut être insulté quand l'injure revient à lui comme huement?
Un employé injurié porte plainte auprès des RH mais il n'obtient pas d'indemnités, il se plaint auprès du tribunal mais il n'obtient pas d'indemnités, il écrit son avis sur des médias sociaux mais la société paie les médias pour supprimer l'avis défavorable. Comment quelqu'un dans notre société peut trouver son droit et être indemnisé pour les dommages subis? La loi n'est applicable que seulement pour les entreprises lorsqu'elles osent se présenter comme victimes de ce qu'elles ont semé? Que faut-il faire afin de mettre fin au harcélement, à l'abus, à la provocation ou les violations par les entreprises envers ceux qui ont besoin de travailler pour vivre? Que faut-il faire afin de mettre fin au dommage subi par les employés précédents ou actuels? L'injure est punie par la loi. Elle peut être privée ou publique. L'injure publique est une injure pouvant être entendue ou lue par un public. Le fait qu'une injure ait été prononcée dans un lieu fermé n'en fait pas forcément une injure non publique. Ainsi, une injure criée dans une cour d'immeuble, parce qu'elle peut être entendue par tous les occupants (qui ne se connaissent pas forcément) et leurs invités, est une injure publique.
L'injure publique est punissable par une amende de 12 000 €. Si cela s'est multipliée par quatre personnes injuriées (à une certaine occasion) la peine s'élève à 48 000 €. Pour trois occasions la peine s'élève à 144 000€. Quant à l'injure non publique elle est punie par une contravention de 38 € maximum. Si cela s'est multipliée par l'effectif de l'entreprise (par exemple 41 000) seulement pour une occasion la peine s'élève à 1 558 000 €. Donc en total la peine pour l'injure publique et non publique que Huechienshonte doit payer s'élève à 1 702 000 € et en ajoutant les pénalités susmentionnées le montant total pour Huechienhonte s'élève à 1 867 000€ et 11 ans d' emprisonnement. Mais les entreprises ne paient jamais, pas même un centime car la loi les toujours protège, seulement elles!

L’enquête interne menée par les petites ressources humaines … la plus GROSSE HONTE! La victime qui porte des accusations de harcèlement n'a aucun droit. La victime n'a pas le droit d’accès au dossier ni le droit de demander une confrontation avec les menteurs ni le droit de demander l’annulation d’actes d’enquête pour vice de procédure, tandis que les harceleurs interrogés peuvent même demander de nouveaux actes pour renforcer plus leurs mensonges! Il n'y a pas de retour de la part des HR à la victime concernant les témoignages. Les actes d’enquête fabriqués pour servir seulement le « bénéfice de l'entreprise » sont communiquées à la victime juste proche de la date du procès devant le tribunal en lui provoquant un énorme choc ! Ils ne lui donnent même pas le temps de les contester. En effet, les témoignages de ceux qui ont vérifié les faits réels sont exclus de ceux qui sont soumis à la cour. De plus, les employés qui étaient témoins de certains actes de harcèlement n'avaient pas du tout été interrogés par la petite enquêteur. 
Mais après l'arrivée de la SAtire les harceleurs veulent avoir une confrontation avec les IPs dans des entités externes qu’ils ont précédemment évitées fortement? Satire ne souhaite plus aucune confrontation avec leurs visages rouges de honte.

The penalties are raised even higher for the fabrication of exasperating lies against the victim during the internal investigation directed by HR upon reporting of harassment. Employees fabricate lies which are requested and approved by HR. This is the role of HR, approval of lies for the benefit of the company when they could easily discover the truth. A false testimony is considered an extra crime punished with 5 years imprisonment and 75 000€ fine. This raises the penalties, Sabine to 11 years imprisonment and 165 000 € for such shameful entity. Huechienshonte not only does not pay a cent for the crimes they commit but they have the audacity (with the negative meaning) to present themselves as victims of the unfavorable criticism they provoke and seek to get indemnities and penalize satire, the highest form of wit used to mock and shame individuals, corporations or government for their shameful practices.

When the law is not applicable i n p r a c t i c e then why to inform their employees of the penalties they would have to pay? Given that the law does not apply and most lawyers are sold or cowards and compromise before even the first court takes place then what stops them from releasing their shit complexes by mistreating and abusing their talented employees? 
Daniel, it is "up to you" to keep a reputation (if there exists any good) high or throwing it on the ground. It is up to you to make it or break it and indeed it is "up to us" to find a lawyer who is not sold to enterprises and bring the violations to justice. If the triangle law-lawyer-judge does not close well for bringing justice in full then "defamation" gets in charge for bringing a balance. Indeed, it is both up ^. Apparently, your laughable «thermal management» solution can not manage the high exotherm LOL. Keep it for the idiots. Obviously, you have plenty of them.

Il faut aussi noter que selon le Code du travail tous les salariés sont informées par tout moyen du texte de l'article du code pénal concernant les peines pour harcèlement moral et sexuel. Contrairement à cet article, les ressources humaines de Huechienshonte ne communiquent aucun article du code du travail à leurs salariés. Mais ce sont les salariés qui portent à Huechienshonte des lunettes à l'égard des peines pour le harcèlement don’t ils ont subi lorsqu'ils quittent cette entreprise à chier pour la poursuivre en justice. Au lieu de demander à Me Massis de nous informer de l'article du Code Pénal, il vaut mieux que Huechienshonte lisent d'abord le Code du travail et l'appliquent. Mieux vaut la payer pour les informer des principaux articles du Code du travail qu’ils doivent communiquer à leurs salariés plutôt que de nous faire rire.

So, what exactly stops us from making SAtire? Geometry? Just ignore it! Any fool can criticize. The others focus on a narrow field, they don’t see the overall picture. We are experts, we know better ^. Hutchinson, it’s your ride.

Shall Roger Penrose be the next to get accused for identity theft by those who “innovate” (rather in violations)? Shall they do that also possible?

When those pro refer to their families or husbands during “professional” interviews in media while they represent their companies they clearly suggest that for them business is a family matter. They think that by hiring one they automatically become members of their families and they are free to call them for exchanges of information! Obviously, those “babies” are very sick in their brains thinking that violation of privacy is “humour”. How long our booo will be? Give us a break…and me, I am a relative of Susan Diane Wojcicki and I asked her to keep the channel alive in order to make pubic all the shame. Go and find her, fucktards!

Bien noté, Charlotte. This raises the penalties to 60 000 € and four years imprisonment or adding both the moral and sexual penalties to 90 000 € and six years imprisonment for the company whose expertise lies only in violations of all nature. A company makes public where one works, they violate private networks and try to direct/disturb personal lives, they make public the home addresses of their employees through their patents without the consent of the latter and then they accuse those who are in LinkedIn of being unprofessionals as they disclose to public where they work along with their CVs! The disgust those pro arouse reaches zenith.

Comme “usurpation” signifie s’emparer par ruse d’un titre appartenant à autrui on peut dire que ce sont eux qui ont usurpé le titre de «proches» et ils se sont proclamés «relatives» d'un employé. Leur expertise réside dans les intrusions dans la vie privée, les cancans et la circulation de fausses rumeurs. Une telle usurpation de titre au sens pénal du terme ne vise en effet pas seulement à se faire passer pour quelqu’un mais en vue de nuire à une personne. Leur comportement caractérise l’infraction pénale au sens de l’article du Code Pénal qui réprime: "le fait d'usurper le titre de “proche” ou de faire usage d'une ou plusieurs données de toute nature en vue de troubler la tranquillité d'une personne ou de porter atteinte à son honneur ou à sa considération est puni d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 15 000€ d'amende."

Apparently, the MBA courses teach the “Managers By Accident” that a business can be managed effectively by intrusion into employees' private lives. MBA dissertation topics include search, monitor, control of the personal lives of the employees and diffusion of their family info which lead to the award of “Master Bad Ass” degree.
We also cough when we refer to the company’s “café” from badly maintained professional” machines. CAFé is the only personal thing one would like to get at work. A brewed café from freshly ground hard beans using a personal unrusty machine. But when it comes to such personal element the company does not pass the line.

They get a huge booo and we get a huge disgust. Surely such REL.ATIVES can put their spies even to Pole Emploi and Caf agencies for getting “IP”. We would prefer CAF from Cool Armed Forces than the other CAF to which they aim to force the unemployed for getting their properties. We only add cough when we refer to such “pro-fessionals” who think that they can direct lives.

Regarding the “VPN” approach it should be noted that Huechienshonte opened our horizons as we learnt about an additional shameful step of the recruitment process. There are several recruitment steps with the standard being the “harassment or assessment centre” in which as already noted HR morons mess with candidates and the interviews including academic background check (technical questions). But there can be one more background check not academic but personal which is done not through the interviews but shortly upon a hire by the family of the HRD (which apparently stands for Home Research Division) which seeks for relatives of the newly hired, finds and calls one who they think is a “relative” informs them about where the newly hired works and asks them “IP” data (including personal relationships). Amazingly, they even inform the unknown “relative” about how the hired replied to the interview questions, yes full report by the foolish!!@#$%! Apparently, the telephone number of a relative one is asked to provide to a company serves for facilitation of such “VPN” practices and not for an emergency case as they claim. If such “IP” data are required for getting a job in a company then why those are not formally asked during the interviews or in the CVs? A person who applies for a job just wants the job, they want to deploy their expertise to earn money, add value to the company which hired them and make a successful career. They want the job and not to meet the families of the hiring directors. Also, they may want to keep well confidential their job, the company and the place they work. Not all are presidents for being exposed to public! But amazingly there exist such shameful entities which they think that by hiring a person they get the right for “VPN” and the right to direct or disturb their private lives, relocate them etc. They have the audacity to proclaim themselves "relatives" of the hired!**!!@! One wonders why the companies do not send a family invitation for a job interview if such “IP” data are necessary in the business world but they conspire behind the back of an employee getting "relatives" to act as accomplices. This is the absolute shame! Their innovation breaks all boundaries. Indeed, they are REL.ATIVE from RELentlessly provocATIVE. But they get n o t h i n g but a huge Boooooo!

That chase in supermarket… how pricks are they! Not only the fucktards harass you at work but they try to enter your life to annoy you further. They pay the security guy or other petty market keepers to give them info about when the target appears in the market to go to find them violating their privacy and anonymity. If one gives fake residence address to their company they will be accused for lack of trust. How can one trust their stupidity? The work has become primary source of personal data leakage. But the more they seek VPN (Violation of Private Network), the less data they get.

Are the “données de nature” Hutchinson seeks in order to identify us IP data that is Informations Personnelles kind of what time one goes to market, which market, place of residence, place of holidays, personal relationships, banks in which one holds accounts, name of bank consultants etc? I am sorry I will disappoint them but I have not included such data in my account. Our IP-Impact Point is the IP-Illegal Practices of various employers and our videos are made by IP- Injured People addressing the IP-Imbecility of Pseudo-professionals.

Why some companies think that they are the centre of the world? An accusation for identity theft is unfounded and “manifestement” ridiculous. My research interests are also aligned with those of J. Hutchinson. Shall Mme Massis request withdrawal of his publications because she thinks he used the name of the company she represents or maybe she will claim ownership?! She was looking maybe only locally as “in France everything must be French”? Regarding the video “Sexual assholement” on which she insisted so much it does not identify a person or a company and certainly there is nothing illegal. Two names are stated, Harvey and Bob who received the award HUmiliation d’aMOUR. As it has been noted several times Bob stands for B.O.B that is Baby Of Business (alternatively BullyOrBastard) and there are many Bobs out there. In a satirical sketch or caricature anyone can be depicted. Some published videos and comments refer to “Huetchienshonte” without identifying clearly a company. Commenters describe harassment practices by employers making use of their right to express freely, share information and denounce illegal practices. Of course a company or a person may identify their practices with those which are ridiculed in the videos or comments in Hutchinson SAtire but the site did not identify them. Instead of consuming their revenues to pay lawyers upon expelling harassed employees it would be worthy the companies to invest in real scientific/engineering research (not research of personal lives) creating a positive working environment in which their employees can deploy their expertise and bring success for themselves and the companies. When the Babies will grow then the lawsuits against companies as well as the satirical videos and unfavorable criticism will cease (and as a consequence the revenues of Mme Massis will drop). Until then let’s continue laughing.
Catherine, I agree that penetration gives a greater release of energy than deflection LOL. Mme Massis if the engineering terms do not make sense to you please do not hesitate to get back to us for further clarifications.

Catherine Bernard 
Let me provide you some “données de nature d’ingénierie ” which allow the identification of various parties. There are countless research domains, centers and Hutchinson entities. “Tell me your research interests and I'll tell you who you are”. I identify my research interests with those of He and Hutchinson. Huetchienshonte focus their research on personal lives and development of harassment techniques. Hutchinson SAtire research focuses at the interface between harassers and talents examining the energy release by the penetration of satire or criticism into harassment.

There exists also Hutchinson Technology Inc., CK Hutchison Holdings Limited, Hutchison Asia Telecommunications Limited, Hutchison 3G, Hutchison Whampoa, Hutchinson publisher, Hutchinson Legal, H&S, Hutchison School and numerous people and places named as Hutchinson. Should we expect to see more complaints for “usurpation d’identité numérique”?

As according to various enterprises “it is not moral harassment but bad management” then similarly there does not exist defamation but “unfavourable criticism”. Hutchinson SAtire is a centre of research of illegal and abusive practices versus the centre of research of personal lives some companies have. A company may identify themselves with Hutchinson Satire but we did not identify any entity.
Concerning the penalties stated in the document shown in “who rules over you” it must be noted that under the Labor Code the penalties for moral harassment a company must pay are 30 000 € fine and two years imprisonment. Regarding the sexual harassment the maximum penalties are 45 000 € and three years imprisonment. Is harassment at workplace (with plenty of obvious evidences) or defamation (when people denounce real harassment acts) punishable i n p r a c t i c e ?
Once more, we explicitly refuse that our site identifies an entity or that it constitutes a defamation against an entity. A company may identify themselves with Hutchinson SAtire but we did not identify any.

Regarding the boldness (audace) which Harvey (in sexual assholement video) invokes let us note for those who failed to understand the background of his reply (including Me Massis) with the video becoming as a consequence unavailable in France that boldness is indeed stated as corporate value and one can give different meanings with the most common being insolence/impudence/audacity (rude or disrespectful behavior). This meaning was of course taken by Harvey’s distorted brain and advised accordingly B.O.B. But B.O.B by grabbing an associate and kissing her in the cheeks during the dinner while she leaned backwards to avoid contact and whispering in her ears “we will do more later” and by knocking her room door later he also demonstrated what boldness means for him and his enterprise. Apparently, Harvey went ahead from “test” to “taste” as the door opened and women did not shoot.
If boldness can have a positive meaning like bravery (bravoure) to report unlawful practices like harassment acts and other violations then we are the ones who exemplify that value denouncing situations that are harmful to employees publishing innovative videos under the support of YouTube and Google. B.O.Bs act under the support of their enterprises which foster violations. The leaders must exemplify the corporate values and their behaviour defines their real meaning. They demonstrate the real code of conduct.
The video was removed wrongfully.

Ervan Fagot 
Je suis audacieux.

Je suis Pierre Casse.

Je suis Pauline Branger.

Je suis Kari Thierry.

Je suis audacieuse.

Je suis Thierry Lisa.

Je suis Pauline Branger.

Je suis Pierre Casse.

Je suis Karen Saint-Denis.

Je suis Catherine Bernard.

Hutchinson is a very common name. My dog is also called Hutchinson and SA comes from SAtire and satire is SAnté. The site collects videos which ridicule using satire the bullying/mobbing/harassment strategy of companies which violate the human rights, undermine the health and jeopardize the careers of talented people. Hutchinson SAtire is a centre of research of illegal and abusive practices versus the centre of research of personal lives some companies have. All are welcome to share their insights, criticize fearful bosses and comment on that global pest the so-called mobbing in the workplace.
The companies who harass their employees are the ones who violate the laws and not the videos or comments. Once more let us remind you that satire is the highest form of wit used to mock and shame individuals, corporations or government for their shameful practices and it should never be censored. If a company is disturbed by the exposure of its vile face then they need to change and not gag their current and ex-employees. When the harassment of any nature (moral or sexual) committed by various B.O.Bs (Babies of Business) against talents is hardly recognized by the court despite the plenty of clear evidences (with the aim to avoid the establishment of harassment practices by the employers), then that harassment gets back as boomerang to the harassers through such videos inspired by real acts of harassment and other violations committed by the B.O.Bies. When the companies will stop harassing, abusing and mistreating employees then the lawsuits will also stop as well as such videos. As the courts do not want to recognize the moral harassment similarly a defamation is hard to be proved. When the corporate values advertised in the companies’ websites will be applicable in the workplace then the videos will disappear. But when B.O.B reveals himself informing his company/associates about his intention to “test” an employee by knocking her room door in a hotel being or playing the drunk indicates clearly that this “leader” and the company which protects him give obviously other meaning to the “boldness” which stands among their values. Defamation is done by themselves against themselves. When the Babies will grow then the Business world will become harassment-free and those who climb up the ladder will not be those who accepted the “values” which initially challenged but real leaders.
We do not accept that our videos or comments pass the freedom of expression. You must pay to a person the respect she/he deserves if you want to be respected by them. You harvest what you sow. On récolte ce qu'on sème. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Tracfone Beginners Guide - New to Tracfone? Start Here!