A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #359 - Trial of the defendants of June 15, 2021 (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

As we previously announced, two people went on trial in Limoges on March 
19 and 20, charged with destruction of property by dangerous means. They 
allegedly burned Enedis vehicles in February 2020 to protest the forced 
installation of the Linky smart meter and, in January 2021, a set of 
antennas to protest the deployment of 5G. ---- Support tour ---- Since 
their arrest nearly five years ago, their support committee has evolved 
from defending comrades to criticizing imposed technologies. After 
organizing several support meetings and debates in Limousin, the support 
committee has been very active in recent months with around fifteen 
solidarity actions in various towns and villages: Le Mas d'Azil (09), 
Royère de Vassivière (23), Vaour (81), Amiens, Limoges, Saint-Junien 
(87), Bordeaux, Poitiers, Grenoble, Béziers, Fillols (66), 
Saint-Etienne, Toulouse, Lyon, Eymoutiers (87).

These events took various forms depending on the capabilities of the 
local organizing groups. Two main networks facilitated the organization: 
groups critical of imposed technologies (Ecran Total, Stop Micro, Stop 
5G, etc.) and the network of revolutionary choirs. Depending on the 
location, a wide variety of groups were able to participate in these 
events: OCL, FA, CNT, Student Union, Amnesty International, 
anti-repression committees, anti-militarist groups (CRAAM), and 
grassroots environmentalists.

The format of these events ranged from simple meetings and discussions 
with a dozen people and light refreshments to afternoons and evenings 
bringing together more than 200 people. The larger events were sometimes 
preceded by days of rehearsals. Several community kitchens mobilized to 
support these gatherings. There were film screenings: Woman at War, If a 
Tree Falls... The musical entertainment was diverse: revolutionary 
choirs, a militant brass band, sing-alongs with a variety of tunes, 
Occitan polyphony, Palestinian songs and music, rebetiko, punk bands...

This entire support tour raised awareness of the case, collected funds 
to help finance the defendants' legal representation, and provided 
information and facilitated discussions about the imposed technologies 
and methods used for repression. Finally, it demonstrated to the accused 
that they enjoy widespread support. It also contributed to the 
mobilization from March 18th to 21st.

The mobilization during the trial
Approximately 200 people participated in these sessions. As the 
courtroom was limited to seating 60 people, not everyone was able to 
attend at any point during the trial. Standing room was reserved for the 
police, whose numbers increased on the second day.

The local organization facilitated accommodation for people who had 
traveled from afar, organized a rally with banners in front of the 
courthouse, and provided three venues for meetings and discussions. The 
combined efforts of three community kitchens from Limousin and Occitanie 
ensured that everyone received meals.

Several key events took place alongside the trial: meetings with members 
of the support committee and some witnesses on Wednesday evening 18; a 
conference and debate by Jean-Michel Hupé on the "Greenbacklash" on 
Thursday evening 19; information sessions for supporters at each stage 
of the trial; discussions on Friday evening about expectations at the 
end of the trial; and a meeting on Saturday morning about the prospects 
for the fight against digitalization.

Opening of the trial
The presiding judge began by summarizing the facts based on the police 
and judicial investigation. She did so quite properly, recalling the 
evidence leading to the defendants, but also highlighting the dead ends 
of certain leads: DNA was found on the Enedis site matching DNA found at 
the scene of crimes committed in Grenoble and Rive-de-Gier (unidentified 
person); an unknown shoe print...

The presiding judge also read the entire statement claiming 
responsibility for the antenna arson. Regarding the recordings of 
telephone conversations, the lawyers emphasized that they had not been 
granted access to all of them. The judge clarified that investigators 
had noted a few snippets of conversation that might seem suspicious, but 
that this was not very conclusive and constituted only a very small 
portion of the recordings. Anne's lawyer pointed out that one of the 
cited conversations, between Anne and someone who had been cleared of 
any wrongdoing, concerned a citizens' forestry group and had nothing to 
do with the case. The judge agreed.

The lawyers will make a few other similar remarks; the judge will agree. 
Likewise, the judge will point out that the handwriting analysis 
requested for the graffiti yielded no results; the graffiti did not 
match the defendants' handwriting but could perhaps be attributed to a 
third, unknown person. Anne is implicated in an older case involving the 
arson of construction and quarry vehicles in 2015-2016. The case was 
dismissed in December 2019 due to the inability to identify those 
responsible. Anne remains silent.

At the end of this review of the facts, the judge questioned the two 
defendants about whether they maintained or changed their statements. 
Fernando maintained that he had not committed the acts but supported 
those who take this type of action and act as whistleblowers. Anne could 
only stand by her confession.

The witnesses
Defense attorneys Chloé Chalot and Henri Braun presented seven 
witnesses, all highly qualified and there to discuss the circumstances 
and context of the case.
Victor Cachard, who has published a book on Emile Pouget and a 
two-volume history of sabotage, explained how sabotage historically 
emerged as a remedy to violent action against individuals. Naturally, 
the lawyers for the civil parties (particularly Enedis's lawyer) 
objected to this presentation, as they equate property damage with violence.

Célia Izoard, philosopher and journalist (Revue Z, Mediapart, 
Reporterre, Terrestres), is the author of several books on digital 
technology and the mining boom. She is also the translator of the latest 
version of George Orwell's 1984. In her presentation, she denounced the 
harmful effects on the planet of 5G deployment, mining with the crimes 
and wars it entails, the waste of replacing perfectly functional meters 
with Linky smart meters, and the lies surrounding the obligation to 
change meters. She also explained that she participates in working 
groups on digital de-escalation.

Jean-Michel Hupé, who worked for 25 years as a neuroscience researcher, 
chose to abandon this specialty to focus on the political sociology of 
environmental movements. He is a member of AtEcoPol (Workshop for 
Political Ecology) in Toulouse. He reiterated all the harmful effects of 
AI, 5G, and electromagnetic waves. He supports the necessity of civil 
disobedience, even sabotage. The presiding judge and the prosecutor 
questioned the possibility of invoking "necessity" to justify acts of 
sabotage. His intervention was, of course, one of the most heavily 
criticized by the lawyers for Enedis and Bouygues.

Nicolas Bérard, a journalist for the monthly magazine L'Age de faire, is 
the author of books on Linky smart meters, 5G, and digital technology. 
He explains the detrimental effects of these digital devices on sleep, 
sedentary lifestyles, isolation, and mental health-particularly for 
young people. The president confirms this, mentioning that she closely 
watched a program on the mental health of young women. Nicolas Bérard 
will also discuss the lack of impact of citizen mobilizations.

Karima Mersad is a lecturer and researcher in neurobiology at Paris 1 
University and also holds a doctorate in cognitive psychology. She 
specializes in neural development and the emergence of language in 
babies. She shared how she became aware of the onset of certain 
disturbing symptoms (headaches, sleep disturbances, etc.). She explained 
how, scientifically, she studied her environment and gradually 
understood that she was a victim of electromagnetic waves. She spoke 
about the difficulties faced by people with electromagnetic 
hypersensitivity in a world increasingly saturated with electromagnetic 
fields.

Sandrine Larizza, an employee of France Travail, comes from the 
unemployment benefits office (formerly Assedic). She spoke of the 
dehumanization of interactions with users due to the digitization of 
services and the development of AI. She noted that, according to the 
French Ombudsman, one in two people struggles to access digital 
services. She emphasized that these changes are being imposed without 
any public debate.

Romain Couillet is a university professor and an internationally 
recognized specialist in applied mathematics, particularly in the 
digital processing of telecommunications. For the past ten years, he has 
been aware of the harmful effects of digital development on humans, 
nature, and the planet. He chose to stop his research to dedicate 
himself to reflecting on the different levels of digital rejection (from 
individual renunciation to its desirable dismantling). He is also an 
activist with Stop Micro in Grenoble, which fights against companies 
manufacturing electronic chips (some of which are for military use) 
while consuming enormous quantities of water. For him, given the gravity 
of the situation, acts of sabotage have a negligible effect. Romain 
Couillet likens the industrialists and researchers who justify the 
development of AI to those who denied the dangers of tobacco or 
asbestos. He sees himself as following in the footsteps of Alexander 
Grothendieck, who ceased his research because of its military applications.

The interrogation of the defendants
Fernando and his lawyer argued the possibility of DNA transfer; 
moreover, DNA belonging to someone unknown to Fernando was found on his 
own vehicle. When questioned (by Bouygues' lawyer) about endangering 
people, Fernando replied that the companies these three lawyers 
represent are the most dangerous. Enedis' lawyer mentioned that the 
social worker noted that Fernando "takes responsibility for his 
actions." The presiding judge clarified that since the "expedited social 
inquiry" was conducted without a lawyer present, she could not consider 
it. Among the documents seized by the police to incriminate Fernando was 
a brochure in Spanish with the term "Las bombas" in the title. Fernando 
explained that it was a plumbing manual, a claim confirmed by the 
interpreter. At his lawyer's request, Fernando recounted his arrest by 
the GIGN and his subsequent detention.

Anne made a preliminary statement explaining that she did not recognize 
herself in the portrait the investigators had painted of her. She was 
not a terrorist, just someone very close to nature, devastated by the 
current state of planetary destruction, and who wanted to raise the 
alarm. When questioned by the presiding judge regarding endangering 
others, she clarified that the homemade devices used were not explosive 
and that no one was on the sites. Enedis's lawyer explained that there 
was an employee on the site, that he could have been a victim, and that 
he was traumatized. Anne's lawyer pointed out that he had not been 
interviewed and that there was no evidence in the file concerning this 
potential trauma. She would later specify in her closing argument that 
this person was in a bunker at the other end of this rather large site 
and that he hadn't even seen the fire.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs
There were three plaintiffs: Enedis, Orange, and Bouygues. No need to go 
into detail, just to highlight the key points. Enedis's lawyer was the 
most aggressive in her closing argument, as she had already demonstrated 
in her questioning. She emphasized the defendants' violence, their 
"anti-everything" ideology, their far-left leanings, and so on. She even 
went so far as to implicate the person who had been cleared of all 
charges and one of those released without charge during police custody. 
She revisited the story of the supposedly traumatized employee. She 
referred to the experts as "pseudo-scientific, political, and 
know-it-alls." At this point, Henri Braun intervened to emphasize that 
the court clerk must record the exact wording for a potential public 
defamation lawsuit. Naturally, she demanded that the defendants be found 
guilty. For repairs, she mentions a total sum of approximately 
EUR400,000, but specifies that the exact calculation is not yet 
finalized nor have the documents been submitted. The president expresses 
surprise that Enedis has not had the time to provide this information in 
six years.

Orange's lawyer did not speak during the proceedings, only in her 
relatively brief closing argument. She argued that the defense of 
necessity could not be invoked, and that violence could indeed be 
applied to these events. She requested that the defendants be found 
guilty and ordered to pay EUR1,000 for damages to their image and 
reputation, over EUR76,000 for material damages (with a detailed 
breakdown), and EUR2,000 in legal fees. She clarified that the fact that 
Orange had been reimbursed by its insurer did not preclude the 
defendants from also being liable for reimbursement.

Bouygues' lawyer reiterated almost the same arguments as Enedis's 
counterpart, though slightly less aggressively. Acknowledging the 
impossibility of quantifying material damages, Bouygues is requesting a 
symbolic EUR1. However, it is claiming EUR5,000 for moral and 
reputational damages and EUR5,000 for legal representation costs (its fees).

Prosecutor's closing argument
Overall, the prosecutor fulfilled her role without displaying excessive 
aggression or severity. She chose to stick to the facts and proposed 
finding both defendants guilty of conspiracy. She made no comment on the 
societal debate, expressing only surprise that Fernando chose such a 
defense while maintaining his innocence. She requested acquittal on the 
graffiti charge. She justified the requested sentences by citing the 
social cost of the offenses and her uncertainty that the defendants had 
fundamentally changed, mitigating them due to their prior convictions 
and seemingly untroubled personalities.

The prosecutor is requesting a four-year prison sentence, with two years 
to be served, for Fernando, and a five-year sentence, with two years to 
be served, for Anne. She is leaving the possibility of alternative 
sentencing (such as electronic monitoring) to the judges. Furthermore, 
she is requesting that each defendant fulfill their obligation to 
reimburse the victims, be prohibited from participating in 
demonstrations and possessing weapons, and be barred from entering the 
towns of Les Cars and Limoges. Given that the potential prison sentences 
could have been as high as ten years, this request is relatively 
lenient. This is also due to the fact that the defendants have already 
served nearly five years of judicial supervision.

Closing argument by Chloé Chalot
As a preamble, she explained that she would not address her client by 
her last name but by her first name, Anne, because over the years she 
had come to know and appreciate her. She then emphasized the length and 
severity of the judicial supervision that had deprived Anne of contact 
with her partner for a year and a half. She expressed her hope that the 
supervision would not be too long or too strict. She pointed out the 
inconsistency of requiring Anne to use only legal means to express her 
opinions while simultaneously depriving her of the right to demonstrate.

The lawyer emphasizes that Anne is not violent and that what she admits 
to doing constitutes property damage, not violence against persons. She 
points out that the offense of criminal conspiracy was introduced into 
French law during the "villainous laws" of 1893-94 against anarchists, 
was reinstated some forty years ago, and that a member of parliament 
(from the Republicans party!) has proposed its abolition. Due to various 
reasons of insufficient evidence, she requests that the Eurovia case not 
be pursued.

Given Anne's social and family circumstances, Chloé Chalot requests that 
the sentence be entirely suspended, that there be no ban on her 
participating in demonstrations, nor on her coming to Limoges where her 
mother and brother reside. She requests that the entire civil procedure 
be adjourned.

Henri Braun's plea
Fernando's lawyer was far longer and more eloquent than his colleague, 
alternating purely legal points with historical allusions, political 
themes, and emotional appeals, and above all, dismantling certain 
arguments of the civil parties. In particular, he pointed out that one 
of the civil parties' lawyers had used the Petit Larousse dictionary 
definition to show that the term "violence" could apply to the 
destruction of property, whereas the Penal Code only uses it in relation 
to persons. He asserted that industrialists also endanger people, and 
that digital surveillance methods can lead to techno-fascism.

He spoke at length about the issue of DNA, recounting several court 
cases where DNA had led to the identification of an innocent person. He 
cited Dr. Olivier Pascal and produced a statement from him, which was 
added to the case file. Dr. Pascal is the forensic expert who introduced 
genetic profiling and DNA identification in France. Based on the case 
file, Dr. Pascal explained that the traces found were too minimal to be 
conclusive. Furthermore, the initial sample was taken without 
authorization from the public prosecutor's office and must be invalidated.

Braun explains that Anne was able to mention Fernando during police 
custody interrogations because she was under intense pressure from her 
partner, her son, and others. He then provides a historical overview of 
the concept of "necessity" to demonstrate its applicability to the case. 
Ultimately, he requests Fernando's acquittal.

Visibility and hopes
The national press paid little attention to the trial, but the regional 
press (Le Populaire du Centre, France 3 Nouvelle Aquitaine, Ici 
Limousin) mobilized extensively, providing preliminary summaries of the 
case followed by quite accurate daily reports that also gave space to 
the Committee's perspective. Several activist media outlets were also 
present: Reporterre , L'Age de faire , Radio Zinzine , etc.
Maintaining a highly visible demonstration for two days in front of the 
courthouse, on the corner of one of Limoges' largest parking lots, with 
numerous banners, brought significant attention to the trial and the 
political issues it addressed.

While it's always difficult to be certain of the outcome in a legal 
case, the support committee has reason to hope for a fairly positive 
result. The presiding judge listened attentively to the arguments 
presented by witnesses and defense attorneys. The prosecutor's closing 
arguments were not excessive. However, the lawyers for both sides 
discredited themselves with their overreactions (except for Orange's).

The verdict will be delivered on April 3rd. It seems entirely possible 
that the sentences will be less than those requested and that some 
secondary penalties will be waived.

AD, Limoges,
March 2026

On Friday, April 3, 2026, the Limoges court delivered its verdict.

The two defendants were convicted: one received a three-year suspended 
sentence, and the other a two-year suspended sentence. They are also 
prohibited from associating with each other for three years. The ruling 
on civil damages was postponed until September 2nd.

The committee supporting the accused believes that these convictions 
reflect the justice system's consideration of two essential elements:

First, consideration was given to the harshness of the almost five years 
of pre-trial judicial supervision, which constituted a veritable 
"sentence before the sentence" for the defendants, and which it seemed 
fair not to aggravate heavily.
next, the signal of the much-needed and urgent breakthrough in the 
public debate on the main question raised by this trial: that of 
questioning the imposed digital onslaught, at work in our societies for 
several decades, a source of colossal damage to the environment and 
human societies.
The parties have 10 days to appeal this decision.

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4684
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en