Article: LaREM Complaint on Abuse & Genocide

Re: the systematic poisoning & deception of the French Peoples by the governing party LaREM


Back to All Cases

English Translation of the article (Apr 05, 2022)

On Friday, April 1, Virginie de Araujo-Recchia filed a complaint against the association La République en Marche on behalf of the citizens’ associations (of which Xavier Azalbert, director of the publication of FranceSoir, is an administrator) and AIMSIB (The International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine). The plaintiffs accuse Emmanuel Macron’s political party of “sectarian aberrations”, involving facts of “fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance and of the situation of weakness”, as well as “complicity in poisoning and genocide”. To advance this, the associations and the lawyer rely essentially on the last two years of crisis management, in particular on the liberticidal measures, the control of information and “collective hypnosis”.

Almost ironically, this complaint comes only a few days after Me de Araujo-Recchia was released from police custody on March 24. She had been arrested by the DGSI in the context of an investigation linked to Rémy Daillet, and was finally released without being accused of “anything”. During her interrogation – the content of which she told us a few days later – questions such as

“What is the term ‘conspiracy’?”, “What is the new world order?” or “What do you think of Freemasonry?”

made it clear that she was being accused of a form of drift.

Let’s note that in January 2022, she already filed a complaint, with her colleague Jean-Pierre Joseph, against the parliamentarians who voted the law of August 5 (renewal of the health pass and vaccination obligation).

Two months and an interpellation later, she returns to the charge with this complaint against La République en Marche. BonSens, AIMSIB and Me Virginie de Araujo-Recchia share in a statement the reflection that led them to this result:

the statement:

The associations and International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB) are once again joining forces in a complaint targeting the association LaREM for sectarian aberrations involving facts of fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance and situation of weakness, complicity in poisoning and attempted poisoning, complicity in genocide.

Indeed, the five-year mandate granted to LaREM has been punctuated by protests and massive demonstrations. From yellow vest protests to weekly demonstrations in recent months, demanding an end to “Covid-19” propaganda, the restoration of law and order, and the removal of measures that infringe on civil liberties and fundamental rights proposed by LaREM leaders and adopted by the LaREM majority in the National Assembly.

Over the past two years, none of the appeals to reason from world experts, jurists, victims have been able to bend the deadly ideology of LaREM members. On the contrary, instructions have been given so that the platforms and mainstream media censor and stifle the biggest health scandal of all time.

The French people who questioned and dared to question the dogmas and ideology of the members of LaREM were incriminated, discriminated against, subjected to hate speech, censored, lost their jobs, their salaries, their family ties, their social ties, in total disregard of the highest principle of respect for human dignity.

Thus, those who do not adhere to the narrative are “impure” and outcast from society.

The signs of recognition of the followers: the health pass, the QR code, the vaccination pass, the telephone application dedicated to the tracing of the Covid-19 (Certificate of vaccination Identification), the RT-PCR test in replacement of the medical diagnosis, the triple or quadruple dose of injection of experimental genetic substance assured us of being without danger in spite of the absence of studies demonstrating it, the talismanic mask in all circumstances, in short a whole panoply put at the disposal of the transhumanist, eugenicist hyper-class, favorable to social control.

But all these tools supposed to purify or protect are of the order of belief and have absolutely no scientific basis.

Then, we witnessed an unprecedented advertising campaign by LaREM members of pharmaceutical products, for which we have no hindsight and which prove to present extremely serious risks in terms of public health, it is literally a call to collective suicide.

Every day since January 2020, we have been witnessing the establishment of fear, terror and guilt among the population, now traumatized and under collective hypnosis.

Some extracts of the book entitled “The forbidden debate – Language, COVID and totalitarianism”, by Ariane BILHERAN and Vincent PAVAN, published on March 24, 2022, taken up in the framework of this complaint, make the full demonstration of it:

“The methods used are sectarian methods: terror, sequestration, exclusion, mistreatment, loyalty conflict (forcing individuals to make impossible choices), hypnotic suggestion, censorship, persecutions. (…)

The sacrificial logic is constantly invoked, whether to demand it or to deny it: “sacrificing the spring vacations for a radiant summer”, “do we sacrifice the young on the altar of Covid-19”, “the WHO calls not to sacrifice health on the altar of economic recovery”, “the Prefect calls to sacrifice the month of March”, “April sacrificed, May freed? “, “save Christmas but sacrifice New Year’s Eve?”, “the world of culture is afraid of being sacrificed”, “respecting barrier gestures without sacrificing your hands”. Is it not the spirit of sacrifice that is also evoked by the authorities in relation to the Foreign Legion: “Nothing is obtained if nothing is sacrificed”? Why do we constantly demand that the people consent to sacrifices?

The guide of the good citizen is specified: he is the one who must sacrifice himself. Clearly, the individual exists in this discourse only to be sacrificed: he or she must demonstrate “good behavior in the face of the virus”, obedience is demanded of him or her – “be tested at the first symptoms”. Acceptance of all these constraints is considered civic-mindedness, while blind faith in the word of the president is demanded. We must assume that what the government says is TRUE, that we must trust it, “isolate ourselves at the first symptom”. Then the message is clear: the punishment for being positive (without necessarily being sick) is social exclusion – getting out of the group. Therefore, insecurity, imbalance and irresponsibility prevail in this discourse, where the axis of good is presented as the doxa of power. We understand that protection is repression! Protection is achieved through the repression of decrees. The individual is once again absorbed into the fusion with the leader: “we have all consented”; opposition and plural opinion no longer exist, everyone is supposed to have “consented.

The stigmatization of religious events can indeed be understood as a kind of competitive effect to the new world religion of the pandemic, “covidism”, with its rituals.

A cult requires adherence to a religious type of faith. The individual is not asked to analyze, but to believe blindly. Persecution and censorship, as well as intimidation, have fallen upon those who wanted to analyze, not believe.

A sect or a cult always promises the return of a lost paradise. It is the same with the totalitarian system. A sect proposes fetish objects, here the Holy Grail was the injection, supposed to free us from evil.

The totalitarian drift is sectarian and prophetic in nature. “The scientificity of totalitarian propaganda is characterized by the emphasis it places almost exclusively on scientific prophecy, as opposed to the more traditional reference to the past,” said Hannah Arendt.

The collective delusional certainty, of a paranoid type, was based on erroneous first principles, then a construction of the discourse orchestrated on faith, without accepting the slightest doubt. This faith was organized, from the beginning, on three sophisms, not revealed but present in the ideological background of the speeches and the political decisions, and that we will expose as follows:

1. The epidemic justifies a dictatorship.

2. Only a vaccine can stop the epidemic.

3. A vaccine is the only way to save humanity from the great danger that threatens it. (…)

The citizens acquire little by little the habit of having to be authorized for their slightest acts and gestures, a harmful conditioning if there is one, coupled with their infantilization: they are judged irresponsible, underestimated or insulted by the power, which shows a cynical political class and particularly cut off from realities.

It is not science, and even less medicine, but a discourse with religious overtones, with its litanies, and its daily mortifying counting, reducing the complexity of reality to a single reading prism. The construction of a new language, with its new words and expressions, totally disconnected from the reality of experience, is more a matter of sectarian and religious belief – thus of faith in the mass said by the media and politics – than of science.”

Therefore, by propagating chaos, LaREM disturbs public order and only justice is now able to put an end to its sectarian aberrations.

In France, in fact, it is not the sect itself that leads to legal proceedings, but rather the sectarian aberrations that fall under the notion of public order.

In French administrative law, public order is the ideal social state characterized by “good order, security, public health and tranquility”, public morality and the dignity of the human person.

French criminal law grants everyone the right to hold the religious, philosophical or moral convictions of their choice, however, it does not admit that, in their externalization, they come into conflict with the requirements of public order.

The imperatives of public morality and public health in particular are not abstract concepts that might be thought to be concerned solely with the satisfaction of society’s needs.

Their primary function is human: their purpose is to ensure respect for the individual’s right to life, to the protection of his physical integrity and health, to psychological balance, to the full development of his physical and intellectual capacities. In short, to the dignity of the person. These values can be seriously undermined by actions or attitudes dictated by exaggerated beliefs or convictions.

If the imperative of neutrality in a secular and democratic State invites us not to stigmatize the extravagance of certain religious, philosophical or moral practices, it cannot lead us to tolerate their excesses. Thus, when public order appears to be threatened, criminal law immediately expresses its hostility by the implementation of multiple incriminations, generally falling under “common” criminal law (Law n° 2001-504 of June 12, 2001, aimed at reinforcing the prevention and repression of sectarian movements which undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms, known as the About-Picard law).

A set of indicators makes it possible to characterize the existence of a risk of sectarian aberration:

  • mental destabilization,
  • a break with the original environment,
  • the existence of attacks on physical integrity,
  • the recruitment of children,
  • anti-social discourse,
  • disturbance of the public order
  • the importance of legal problems,
  • the possible detour of traditional economic circuits,
  • attempts to infiltrate the public authorities.

It is a deviation from the freedom of thought, opinion or religion that undermines fundamental rights, the security or integrity of individuals, public order, laws or regulations.

It is characterized by the implementation, by an organized group or by an isolated individual, whatever its nature or activity, of pressures or techniques aiming at creating, maintaining or exploiting in a person a state of psychological or physical subjection, depriving him/her of a part of his/her free will, with harmful consequences for this person, his/her entourage or for society.

It does not matter whether such a drift is committed by a sect, a new religious movement, a religion of the Book or by a health charlatan. As soon as a certain number of criteria are met, the first of which is subjection, the repressive action of the State is intended to be implemented (Miviludes site).

The action of the judge, the guardian of freedom, goes in the direction of protection against any physical or psychological subjection.

The plaintiff associations therefore believe that it is now up to the judge to examine the actions of the LaREM association and to evaluate their consequences on public order.

See original article in French here

related articles

Grand Jury – Court of Public Opinion



Abuse of Power, AIMSIB, Arendt, article, Association Internationale pour une Médecine Scientifique Indépendante et Bienveillante, Bilheran, BonSens, Censorship, collective, complaint, conditioning, Consent, Crime, cult, de Araujo Recchia, DGSI, En Marche, Fear, France, Fraud, freedom, Fundamental, Genocide, guilt, Human, human dignity, hypnosis, individual, infantilization, intimidation, Jean-Pierre Joseph, La République en Marche, LaREM, Macron, New World Order, opinion, Pavan, Persecution, poisoning, religion, Rémy Daillet, Rights, sacrifice, terror, Thought, Totalitarianism, trauma, Vaccination, Vaccine, Virginie

Back to All Cases


Hailey Mask Order Case

Hailey Mask Order Case

Hailey Mask Order Case

Re: the Legality of Mask Mandates


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Sept 27, 2021
  • Location: Hailey, Idaho, USA
  • Court: US District Court of Idaho
  • Case #: 1:21-cv-389
  • Plaintiff: HFDF, Ryan Blaser, Michelle Sandoz, Barbara Mercer, Emily Knowles (& children) & Kendall Nelson
  • Plaintiff Counsel: Alan Shoff, Davillier Law Group

  • Defendant: City of Hailey, Idaho & Martha Burke (Mayor)
  • Trial Type: Complaint for declaratory & injunctive relief- demand for jury trial
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD



This is the second Mask Mandate Order and also the second time this is being challenged.

The Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) together with several individual plaintiffs (residents of Blaine County, Idaho) submitted a demand for jury trial in the matter of the mask mandate in schools, which is claimed to be contra to constitutional law and invalid in the light of emergency FDA authorization. [1]

HFDF is a not-for-profit public benefit Wyoming corporation, which opposes laws and regulations that force individuals to submit to the administration of medical products, procedures, and devices against their will. [1]

September 13, 2021, the Hailey city council voted unanimously to reinstitute another unlawful mask mandate upon its citizens. [2]

Health Freedom Defense Fund and its members have opposed Hailey’s unlawful mask mandates since the first mandate was implemented in July of 2020 due to the fact they are unscientific, a violation of federal law, and a violation of basic human rights. Throughout 2021, HFDF sent the city demands to repeal their mask order informing them legal action would come and finally after no action was taken, HFDF sued Mayor Martha Burke and the City of Hailey in May 2021.

The same day the lawsuit was filed, Hailey Mayor Martha Burke issued a new health order removing Hailey’s mask mandate which was followed on May 10th, with a vote by the city council to rescind the mask mandate.

The City has twenty days to respond to the filing.

HFDF president Leslie Manookian said, “Not only are mask mandates illegal, they violate some of our most basic human rights such as the right to determine for ourselves how we stay healthy as well as the right to breathe unhindered and no government official has the right to deprive us of those rights.”



This case challenges the legality and medical efficacy of mask mandates. The Mask Mandate is preempted under the Supremacy Clause by the federal law under which the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued the Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for mask use, which requires that use of masks must be optional. [1]


Similar complaints for similar reasons have been filed. e.g. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, 15th October 2021, Case No. 1:21-cv-406 [1]


Plaintiff’s Argument

In the US, most masks have been issued under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the terms of the EUA granted by FDA clearly state that the product must not be:

“labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the product’s intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction”. [2]

Thus, the FDA recognizes masks do nothing to stop the spread of viruses or infectious agents. [2]

  1. Not only does FDA acknowledge masks do not prevent the spread of the virus, the terms of the EUA also require that those using the products be given the right to accept or refuse use of the product. See Link. [2]
  2. The FDA has determined that the efficacy of face coverings for reducing or preventing infection from SARS-CoV-2 has not been established, and that it would be misleading to state that they are effective in preventing or reducing such infection.
  3. Similarly, the FDA has stated in three instances that face masks are not intended to reduce or prevent infection:
  4. The product is not intended for any use that would create an undue risk in light of the public health emergency, for example the labeling does not include uses for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or uses for infection prevention or reduction or related uses and does not include particulate filtration claims. Id. at 7, repeated twice on page 8.

In summary:

  • Masks for prevention of transmission of the virus are only granted emergency approval by the FDA. This requires the use of masks to remain optional, while the normal testing, evaluation, and approval process for use of such masks is ongoing. This process has been illegally bypassed by the FDA due to an emergency. [1]
  • The mask mandate implements a human experiment, while the medical and psychological effects of the masks has not been tested, evaluated, and approved by the FDA under normal procedures. It thus violates Idaho law. [1]
  • The Mask Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental human rights re 14th Amendment USA [1]
  • The Mask Mandate has been placed in force contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [1]

In Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts, a landmark case on government-mandated medicine, the US Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that there must be clear public health benefit to justify the imposition of a medical mandate. There is little, if any, public health justification in this case as evidence from “gold-standard” mask studies show that facial coverings offer negligible benefit to the wearer or those in their vicinity when it comes to reducing viral transmission among the general population. That evidence even suggests that incorrect or long-term use of masks may increase the risk of transmission, especially with cloth or “community” masks. [3]

When comparing the potential benefit and potential harm of mask mandate policies, it is clear the balance is much more heavily weighted to the harmful side of the equation. [3]


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

As mentioned above the Landmark 1905 Jacobson v Massachusetts, has been cited numerous times in recent courts to justify medical mandates. However this case does not support this. In fact the Supreme Court in 1905, was careful not to violate the right of bodily autonomy and Mr Jacobson was only fined and never vaccinated for Small Pox which was the feared epidemic at the time.

The court also determined that the Small Pox vaccine had nearly 100 years of data to support its efficacy as well as showing that no alternative treatments were available.



…More information is needed…



On November 9, 2021, Idaho news outlet KMVT reported: [4]

Council members decided not to rescind the mask mandate at the Monday meeting because they wanted to stay consistent with what neighboring cities are doing, and the COVID-19 risk level in the county is high. Hailey also sees a lot of tourists during the holiday season.

Mayor Burke said that was a clerical error on her part, but citizens do not need to worry because the health order can be rescinded at any point. The council will revisit and discuss the heath order again in 30 days.

One person who attended the meeting asked the council to rescind the mask mandate because he felt the issue is becoming more about emotion than logic. He said, “If you are worried about getting the virus then you can mask up and be protected, or if you have gotten the vaccination you should be able to be protected…the mandate to me doesn’t do anything right now since half the people I come in contact with are not wearing masks.”


In December, Idaho news outlet KMVT reported: [5]

The mask mandate in Hailey will stay in place through the holidays partially because of ski season and increased travel during the holidays.

A press release from the city says a 30-day review for the mandate will not be on the city council agenda for December. It will remain into Jan. 2022. The order in place now mandates masks for indoor public spaces and when social distancing is not possible outdoors.

The mask mandate is not required to be enforced by businesses, but the city says having it in place has been helpful for businesses.


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:



Hailey Mask Ordinance – July 2020

source: Idaho News 6

Mask burning at Idaho Capitol -March 7 2021

source: Bill C-Kole



  1. Complaint Case No. 1:21-cv-389
  2. HFDF Sues Hailey AGAIN Over Mask Mandate
  3. Masks Aren’t Just Ineffective, They’re Dangerous
  4. City of Hailey keeps mask mandate in place
  5. Mask mandate in Hailey to remain in effect through holidays



Blaine County, Consent, Constitution, Emergency Use Authorization, EUA, FDA, Hailey, Health Freedom Defense Fund, HFDF, Idaho, Jacobson, Mandate, masks, Massachusetts, Public Health Emergency Order, Supremacy Clause

Back to All Cases