Idientified False name or Code Name or War Name : Julian Paul Hawkins aka Julian Paul Assange, aka Mendax

Birthname : Unknow

Birthplace : Unknow

Birthdate : according to the media born in 03/07/1971

Status : hostage, prisoner of war

Secret imprisonment in a Dark Place : According to the media Belmarsh, according to English informants at Kessington Palace, according to French informants in a floating Dark Place.

Prisoner Number : According to the SOS from the citizen known as Julian Assange, the media and Belmarsh A 93 79 AY.

Julian Assange SOS

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/julian-assange-sos-pidancet-barri%25C3%25A8re-v%25C3%25A9ronique/

To date, the human rights association WJJA has written 16 requests for release, 2 complaints, 3 medical reports and 1 report to the UN concerning the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange.

It has proved that the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange is not the subject of legal proceedings, that he is being held incommunicado and tortured in a Dark Place, that he is a prisoner of war and a hostage in the hands of one or more entities of unknown legal form and of a terrorist nature.

We urge readers of this complaint and of this 17th request for release to read our previous complaints, requests for release and reports, which contain all the legal elements proving these facts.

As the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange is a prisoner of war and an hostage, the legal proceedings brought against him, jointly by the parakratos City of London Corporation headed by the Mountbatten Windsor brand and the Virginia Corporation Washington DC headed, today, by the Biden clan are staged. The Assange trial is a sham, a fake!

Update on "Operation Assange

There is no Assange court case. There is not, there will not be, there never will be an appeal in the Assange case because it is a sham trial staged by the City of London Corporation - Virginia City Corporation - Washington DC Mafia Parakratos, referred to as the Deep State by the Anglo-Saxons.

Assange trial is a sham, a fake!

The charges brought against the citizen known as Julian Assange are fanciful and have no legal dimension. The rules of international law and the UK Rules of Law have all been violated.

Apart from two lawyers, Gareth Pierce and John Fitzerald, none of the so-called lawyers of the citizen known as Assange can defend him. To defend someone in a given territory, you have to be registered with the bar in the country where the proceedings are taking place. Neither Balthazar Garzon, nor Dupont Moretti, nor Antoine Vey, etc... are members of the English Bar. Jennifer Robinson is not a lawyer, nor is Stella Morris aka...! (Cf. Complaints). Most of the lawyers of the citizen known as Julian Assange have links with the CIA and the American Deep State (Cf. Articles in our complaints).

The citizen known as Julian Assange is neither Julian Assange nor Julian Paul Hawkins. To date, the birth name of the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange, aka Julian Paul Hawkins, aka Mendax, aka... has not been revealed. (See Complaints)

No legal proceedings can be brought against a citizen under a pseudonym. For this reason alone, the Assange case, now known as Operation Assange, is a bogus legal proceeding. A JUDICIAL FAKE!

The birth name of Stella Morris aka... is currently unknown. No one can marry under a pseudonym.
If Assange is a pseudonym, who did the pseudonym Stella Morris aka,... whose links with the CIA, via Stephen Saideman, are no longer in doubt, marry? Under whose birth name are, in birth register, declaring the two children of these two citizens, just having pseudonyms for only name? At a time when international paedo-crime and child-trafficking networks are being dismantled, this is a crucial question! (Cf. Complaints)

We remind you that the citizen known as Julian Assange was raised in an MKultra-type sect and that, to this day, no one can say who his official parents are. (Cf. Complaints 1 and 2)

We remind you that the citizen known as Julian Assange is a witness for the prosecution in cases of paedocriminality and child trafficking networks, from which he himself may have originated and whose operation he has publicly denounced.

The citizen known as Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the USA because he has been held hostage, probably since childhood, by the global Parakratos who used him to create Wikileaks. As Wikileaks is a project overseen by the BND and the CIA, via the Wau Hollan Fondation the citizen known as Julian Assange has therefore been in the hands of the CIA since the creation of Wikileaks, or even since he was born and probably raised in a paedocriminal network under MKultra control.

We remind you that in the false procedure "storry-telling", the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange is free. The acquittal was pronounced by Vanessa Baraitser at the January 4, 2021 hearing. No one is appealing against a release!

To date, the human rights association WJJA has written 16 requests for release, 2 complaints, 3 medical reports and 1 report to the UN concerning the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange.

It has proved that the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange is not the subject of legal proceedings, that he is being held incommunicado and tortured in a Dark Place, that he is a prisoner of war and a hostage in the hands of one or more entities of unknown legal form and of a terrorist nature.

We urge readers of this complaint and of this 17th request for release to read our previous complaints, requests for release and reports, which contain all the legal elements proving these fact

The Global WAR - The belligerents

The citizen known as Julian Assange is a prisoner of war. So there's a war on, now!

This is a global war. It pits unknown legal forms' entities intrinsically mafia and terrorist entities, parakratos such as the City of London Coorporation, the Virginia City Corporation-Washington DC, the Franco-German Defense and Security Council which jointly drives the two territories France-Germany, and sovereign countries. It is both a subversive cold war and a hot war with outbreaks confined, for the moment, to certain territories : Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, etc… In the coming months, it could be a global hot war if the illegal world General Staff of the unknown legal forms' entities and parakratos declares war on Russia. The world General Staff of the unknown legal forms' entities and parakratos named NATO. This war is not a war of civilization. It doesn't pit countries against each other, not really.

The governments of some sovereign countries have been hacked by terrorist mafia entities who have taken over their institutions. These mafia entities, illegally in control of these sovereign countries, are carrying out operations that violate international law and place the world in a constant state of war. These terrorist mafia entities have several aims: to appropriate the property of others and of nations, to create a "world empire" that will enable them to continue committing their crimes with impunity, put in place Nazi-like industrial structures with mass deportations of populations, including children (Pact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration).

These mafia-like entities infiltrate state structures like termites, colonizing them and turning them into tools of war. In hot war zones, they use mercenaries to create zones of tension and maintain conflicts by all kinds of illegal means. These mafia-like entities infiltrate state structures like termites, colonizing them and turning them into tools of war. In hot war zones, they use mercenaries to create zones of tension and maintain conflicts by all kinds of illegal means. They respect neither the territorial law of colonized countries, nor international law, nor the laws of war. In all circumstances, they apply their own rules opportunistically. They steal, they cheat, they lie, they usurp identities, they usurp functions, they appropriate businesses through blackmail and trickery, they misappropriate inheritances, they use hostages to protect themselves from reprisals, they resort to manipulation and threats to keep their victims in a state of submission, they use terrorism to achieve their ends and keep civilian populations under their yoke, they sacrifice innocents if necessary, they execute those who resist them. They organise bogus legal proceedings or use the justice system to create bogus cases law that paralyses the actions of legal bodies such as the Assange proceedings. They organise false legal proceedings or use the legal system to create false jurisprudence that paralyses the actions of the judiciary and the police, as in the case of the Assange proceedings. Their aim is to establish what they call a universal jurisdiction, a body of law that will be a continual violation of all constitutional law and the body of international law. This universal jurisdiction must will began the rule. That mean : no law.

At the head of this programme to destroy judicial systems is Balthazard Garzon - claims, but cannot, to be the head of the defence of the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange for the fake UK proceduring - obeying the directives of David Rothschild. https://baltasargarzon.org/en/universal-jurisdiction/conference-on-universal-jurisdiction/first-international-conference-on-universal-jurisdiction/

« The acts and omissions constituting the offenses listed in principle 2 will be judged under the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, provided that, at the time of commission, they constitute crimes under international law, even when the domestic criminal laws of both the State where the acts were committed and the State exercising universal jurisdiction do not specify these acts or omissions as ​​offenses or crimes. »

https://baltasargarzon.org/en/universal-jurisdiction/conference-on-universal-jurisdiction/first-international-conference-on-universal-jurisdiction/

Garzon and Rothschild define a universal jurisdiction that gives itself the right to define as crimes actions that are not crimes in the country where they were carried out, which implies that anything can become a crime, such as opposing the violation of international law by a human right association. The only purpose of the Assange mock trial is to impose this false jurisdiction, this world court of inquisition, to make it a false standard.

These illegal entities are trying to illegally appropriate international wealth. There is nothing political or ideological about their actions. They are scoundrels, mercenaries, who come under the criminal law of the territory in which they operate, or international criminal law validated by treaties. They are opportunistic criminals who create confusion and chaos in all the territories where they have "nested" in order to maintain control and arrogate all power to themselves. No territory is spared. No institution is spared. No structure of any kind nature has been spared.

These freebooters of subversive colonization of states and their structures are identifiable in time and space. Under different masks, under different names, they are deployed in all latitudes, in all époch. They have over the reins each to others. Opportunistic predators, they change their appearance to suit their prey like chameleons. Whatever the era, whatever the territory, whatever the name, they always use the same modus operandi.

One of part of the belligerents in this hybrid world war are mafia terrorist groups operating undercover. They are deployed silently, using all kinds of manipulative stratagems, within institutions, governments and organizations in order to control them by blackmail and threats. They always move forward masked. They never act with their faces uncovered.

When they think they're about to be exposed, they resort to defamation, slander, lies and traps of all kinds to bring down the man or woman who fights them. In hot war zones, they deploy mercenaries whose mission is to attack and infiltrate rear posts in order to weaken the combatants deployed on the ground. The first objective is to prevent and jam transmissions, to prohibit all forms of communication.

The archetype of this kind of group is the Popski Private Army, commanded by Bernard Law Montgomery. « From 1948 to 1951, Bernard Law Montgomery, aka Monty, was Chairman of the Western Union Commanders-in-Chief Committee. He was then deputy SACEUR (en) (Allied Commander-in-Chief Europe) of NATO until 1958, when he retired. » (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery)

The Popsky Private Army or PPA was founded in Cairo in 1942, in agreement with Bernard Law Montgomery aka Monty, by Major Vladimir Peniakoff aka Popsky, who was born in Belgium of Russian parents and educated in England, the country for which his unit is working in North Africa and probably elsewhere. Harassment, sabotage and guerrilla warfare were the PPA's main missions, with no holds barred. In particular, the PPA mingled directly with German or enemy columns, dressing up in uniforms similar to theirs, infiltrating rear posts and paying for its good and loyal services by pillaging, like the Commando Conus, whose ubiquitous exploits are recorded in the French national archives.

France has its own Popski Private Army. It known as Commandos Conus and operates on all contiennsts. As with Peniakoff, it's impossible to say that Conus is called Conus. Both men's identities are open to question. In his biography of Adrien Conus, journalist Pierre Servent describes the criminal behavior of the man who passed himself off as a hero : « In soup kitchens, people talked about summary executions and looting during searches of villages suspected of being proviet-minh. Then the rumors became more specific: summary executions, theft of gold from pagodas, silver ingots and ivory from houses. »

It's hard to imagine what such an ostrogoth could have done with impunity in Africa, where he spent most of his time. As Servent reveals (P. 73 - Les Septs Vies d’Adrien Conus - Perrin - 2023) : « Africa has become their land, the land where one can spread out without being too constrained by laws, conveniences and regulations. » In short, Conus and his henchmen are plundering the wealth of Africa's sovereign countries for their own benefit and, most likely, for the benefit of sponsors, violating their laws and perverting their institutions, with any form of resistance settled by the homicide of the recalcitrant or recalcitrants. They are the armed arms of a mafia-like, criminal colonization that operates on the same basis as that of Joinovici boss of nazi criminal organisation Carlingue, in France, during the occupation and whose institutional after-effects can still be identified today.

In passing, it should be noted that an army officer, a general moreover, in the service, a priori, of France, of the sovereign French state, a democratic state where, according its Constitution, power is exercised by the people for the people, is forging papers on order by a mercenary whose identity, service record and function do not justify acceding to the least of his requests, for nationals of other countries of more than dubious morality, call extraordinary Zouavethe whole constituting an act of treason falling under Art. 411-6 of the French Penal Code.

Although Servent neither sources nor dates Buis's remarks, which makes it impossible to authenticate them, they speak volumes about the deleterious workings of the French army, the repercussions of which are still felt today in the French and international secret services, as well as in the police, where Joinovici - who as well could be called Martin Bormann or Jean-Pierre François (Mitterrand's banker friend and translator of the Abvher, the Nazi secret service )- during the war, set up what could be called infiltration brigades, responsible for burying files or getting rid of troublemakers, himself escaping punishment despite all the crimes he committed in collusion with the Nazis, among others.

Some members of the Carlingue are implicated in the assassination of Medhi Ben Barka. In view of all these facts, which are piling up in the course of complaints, it would be advisable to consider reopening all the files by creating a brigade dedicated to Cold Cases. Who delivered Patrice Lumumba to Moïse Tshombé to be tortured and executed? The extraordinary zouaves of a Conus successor, an aka or acolyte, who think the African continent belongs to them or their sponsors? Once again, the mastermind behind this crime is Allen Dulles, trained at the élites' school, the Parisian Alsatian School : « We have decided that his removal is our most important objective and that, in the present circumstances, he deserves high priority in our covert action » (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba)

But by what right? Under what laws? After all, in the excerpt from the speech below, Patrice Lumumba is describing nothing other than the appalling system of villainy of the Conus and other terrorist groups that are plundering the sovereign countries of Africa, extraordinary zouaves, thieves, cheats, liars, plunderers and... killers!

The Dulles system, to which the Conus training belongs, is a complex tangle of mafia families headed by a godfather or a small group of godfathers (not forgett the godmothers), of whom the Zouaves Extraordinaires or Carlingue thugs are merely the henchmen, carrying out the dirty work. They pay for their good and loyal services by taking their tithe along the way, with, of course, the consent of the principals, who make sure they don't get too greedy.

In the face of these stealthy freebooters, a resistance developed, in a lot of countries, initially frontal, notably with the Parliament of Paris and French royalty. Then, as the crimes had accumulated, affecting the most honest leaders and rulers, this resistance also went underground. It was a question of survival. With all strata of civil society infected, as well as the spheres closest to the government, the opposing belligerents had to move forward, also masked, to suffer the fewest losses.

They was studied the enemy and resorted to a subversive defense system that could be summed up in one maxim: « lets the dogs bark for the caravan passes! » The aim was probably to dismantle their advanced what they were building as they went along. To counter the enemy's fifth columns, « Partisans who within a country favor the enemy's success », they probably organized, themselves, in columns, very compartmentalized as during the Resistance, to avoid infiltration as more as possible, and comprising as less individuals as possible to be reactive and indedectable formation.

A column is a military troop. A colonel is the military commander of a troop. But as these first « columns of resistance » were probably formed by soldiers from the nobility and order of knighthood, choice of column like war formation must also have had an explanation in the history of nations. For example, according to Pliny the Elder, before 267 BC, the column of Maenia was used as a marker to gauge the time of day. Slaves, thieves and bad debtors were judged at the foot of this column and sometimes tortured. The column's primary mission would therefore have been to point the way. The white plume of Henri de Bourbon, known as Henri IV. But it also, perhaps, acted as a warning: « we're going to beat you ». The column is also the court, which means that there will be a judgement, and therefore justice.

In fact, the military and political positioning of these columns is the opposite of the infiltrating terrorist entities. The column can also refer to the Rostral Column, which celebrates Duilius' victory, and evoke an alliance between France, the United States and Russia, since there are several Duilius columns in France (Paris - Bordeaux), one in New York (Columbus Circus) and one on Vasilievsky Island in St Petersburg. Given the systemic infiltration of organisations and institutions, and of any group, their room for manoeuvre must have been fairly limited. In fact, it probably got smaller over time, as the war went deeper and deeper into occult subversion.

Or, we can understand this by reading the letters written by André Dewavrin, aka Colonel (Colomn ?!) Passy, creator of the BCRA, when he was incommunicado like the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange, and when he referred to those he was addressing as « our ancestors were at "Bouvines". It's a key to identification. And Charles de Gaulle makes it explicit : « The real school of Command is general culture ». Beyond the art of war, there is the art of transmission, which is one of the fundamental pillars that lead armies to victory.

Only cultural connivance can enable us to deceive the enemy if we do not want to resort to the same weapons as he does: villainy and treachery. As the subversive war is secret, the infiltrated resistance factions act in dispersed order and find it difficult to federate. On the battlefield, identifying the enemy is clear.

But when the enemy advances masked and deploys with trickery without respecting any rules, positioning the counterattack becomes difficult. Today, in the field of operations, infiltrators and infiltrated are so intertwined that nobody really knows who is who, who does what, who is in charge and who could be the leader. Nobody knows which nation they work for any more, apart from those whose states still have a pilot at the helm. There are more undercover agents than deployed soldiers, carrying out missions that are absurd, stupidly risky, useless and, worse still, harmful to them and to the opposing camp and above all for the civil people who paid the more toll in this war.

These civilian populations are suffering without understanding and without being able to take a clear stand, because they are being subjected to massive propaganda of terror by the infiltrators. In recent years, some heads of state have tried to disclose the secret war and reveal the enemy, but there are still too few of them and they are up against massive propaganda based on defamation and slander. However, this is the only way in which peace talks can be held to bring this war to an end.

The subversive cold war of infiltration, usurpation of identity and function, and corruption of institutions and organizations is a « war of fools ». It can never end!

War Game, True war…

But why War Game? War is not a game, it's an abomination.

War Game because the subversive war to which civilian populations have been subjected, held hostage since the ceasefire of 1945 and probably for much longer, is staged in the manner of video or online games, on an artificial geopolitical chessboard whose rules are distorted, or worse, where the rules no longer exist.

Since the Lahaye Conventions, which were officially initiated by Nicholas Holstein Gottrop, says Nicholas II of Russia, it should be de rigueur for any conflict to be settled peacefully by the nations - "animated by the firm will to contribute to the maintenance of the general peace" (Lahaye Convention - 1907 - Title I - Du Maintien de la Paix - Art.1 - https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/26/305_271_293/fr), but for a conflict to be settled peacefully, it must be open and therefore visible, and diplomacy must be able to lay its cards on the table in order to iron out the differences between the various parties.

The current subversive war, the war waged against peoples and their national sovereignty since 1945, is a war of thugs that no belligerent concerned with respecting the laws of war, the Lahaye Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, or wishing to find a pacifist settlement to any conflict in compliance with the UN Charter, is in a position to win.

Why?

Because the subversive war is scripted in a war game by contingents of propagandists so that the conflict - it would be more accurate to say, the conflicts - are circumscribed, for the citizens subjected to this mental terrorist manipulation on a global scale, not on a clearly identifiable battlefield, between warmongers claiming their rights, legitimate or not, but off the ground, in a virtual dimension that escapes all control since it is only a hypothetical individual and therefore biased projection of what is actually happening on the ground. In this immaterial matrix, everything is conducive to confrontation, everything is a source of rivalry, everything is quarrelling, hatred, incitement to crime, campaigns of denigration, defamation, segregation and terror, and no solution can be found to any problem because it is impossible to determine who is fighting, why and what dangers need to be confronted.

Conducted in the fictitious universe of the war game, subversive warfare manipulates concepts and deliberately « antagonises » them in order to create the illusion of constant confrontation, in sometimes far-fetched areas, between ghostly adversaries who verbally spar in media arenas. Casus Belli only exists in the narrative structure of the story-tellers of the war game, and even then, it is sometimes shaky, not on the battlefield. The war game of subjective war is therefore a world where all bets are off, because nothing is true, nothing counts, and human life - and life itself - is excluded, along with all rationality. The war game of subversive war is nothing but a dramatisation of reality. In the context of subversive warfare, the Latin or Greek "drama", a play performed, becomes the play of war.

But it is the master piece of the subversive chessboard, for without it the emperor, stripped naked and whose cunning is matched only by his cowardice, perishes by checkmate.

This media war game is the sine qua non for triggering and then perpetuating subversive warfare and its armed wing, terrorism, a subversive variant of hot warfare. The first characteristic of subversive warfare, waged via the media war game, is therefore eternity.

Nothing can put an end to it, since it originates in a narrative, sometimes incoherent, between imaginary protagonists who are fighting over an imaginary motive. In reality, there is no actual declaration of war between two or more belligerents. At global level, subversive war does exist, but it takes place in geographically circumscribed hotbeds of war or in the course of sporadic terrorist operations whose hidden objective has nothing to do with the war being waged in the war game.

The war game is a smokescreen deliberately put in place to conceal the subversive war and its terrorist attacks. The citizen only comes into contact with the script of this subversive war, or more precisely with story-telling, which is a concealment of the real war. The enemy is always a concept (the climate, the pandemic, totalitarianism, energy, etc.) and therefore a chimerical erzats of an opponent, invincible because an abstraction, which precludes any possibility of negotiation through diplomatic action and therefore a return to peace. It's hard to negotiate a peace treaty with a virus or the climate, which, incidentally, are abusively designated as absolute evils by the story-tellers of the war game. Subversive war, thanks to the narrative of the war game, has no purpose and no end.

In the war substitute that the war game presents to its psychic targets, the "GOOD" player, or the "impregnated", fights virtually, essentially on his « psychic screen », for a universal cause. who can be called the impregnated, or the player, fights virtually, essentially on his "psychic screen", for a universal cause that makes him an imitation of the righteous among the righteous and authorises him, in the name of this illusory virtue that the "war spirit" adorns him with, to go on a crusade and destroy all those, the unimpregnated who, refusing to declare themselves players, do not adhere to the mystical quest for the puppet GOOD promoted by the scenario devised by the story-tellers.

The « GOOD » is the soldier of the « GOOD», a « GOOD » defined exclusively by the story-tellers, it goes without saying. In the course of the war game, those who are not impregnated are singled out for popular vindication as heretics, the enemy to be eradicated, the « BADDIES », or more accurately « EVIL » because, with a few exceptions, they are referred to in generic terms, as « anti-vax », « climate realists », « anti-LGBT », etc., assertions that dehumanise them. They take on the role of scapegoat.

The virtual demonisation of the opponent aims to create a collective mistrust which, as the slander spreads over the communication networks, turns into a witch-hunt, with the target being likened to a kind of social plague. The danger (pandemic, climate change, debt, etc.) against which war has been declared is obscured in favour of neutralising those who prevent the "GOOD" from achieving their ends, i.e. saving theirselve own skins by building wind turbines, for example, to overcome an evil planned energy shortage!

In any subversive war game, « the height of illusion becomes the height of the sacred ». And the people are used by propagandists to neutralise any form of dissent. Denigrate, discredit, demonise, smear, devalue, mock, devalue, scorn, despise, slander, defame and demonise are their «handguns »…

One of the characteristics of the war game of subversive warfare is to reduce reality, across all channels of communication, to three universes whose only exchanges are reduced to conflicting verbiage between media plenipotentiaries, with no legitimacy other than their right to express themselves, in the service of a terrorist mafia entity that may or may not have infiltrated the institutions of a state.

First, they bring to life a frightening maelstrom (a killer virus, a changing climate - that's its nature, that's why barometers were invented, but hey, the important thing is to believe in it - an energy crisis, the very nasty CIA, the disappearance of species, overpopulation, the Islamist Jihad, the debt that is swelling like the frog in the fable, etc, etc, etc). Then they divide up the roles, the followers (the GOOD guys) and the opponents (the BAD guys, or worse, the very, very, very bad COMPLOTISTS), who shout at each other on all sorts of media to flesh out the very mediocre narrative of the story-telling, which, more or less, is always the same, that of the American disaster film.

Operation Covid 19, the climate dossier and the energy crisis are, in fact, nothing more than remakes of The Towering Inferno, or more generally, given the degree of absurdity of the dialogue continuity, a variant of Is There a Pilot in the Plane, only much less funny. The storytelling of the subversive war game depicts a permanent imminent crash. It's contradictory and Orwellian, but the propaganda chiefs of staff make sure that no one notices by instilling a permanent sense of urgency that paralyses the cortex and neocortex of citizens. The Ariadne's thread of the subversive war game can be summed up as "you have to save your skin, or that of the planet, or that of the climate...", in the manner of Bruce Willis in The Christal trap. You have to save Private Ryan's skin or Roger Rabbit's, whatever it takes!

In the War Game of Operation Terrorist Covid 19, a killer pathogen, like a flu virus to which a mad scientist, like Sydney Gotlieb from Fort Dietrick, has coupled a bacterium, emerges from nowhere and spreads out at the speed of light to eradicate poor buggers with failing immune systems. However, the welfare state, which put eyes out and gassing citizens for months - in other words, it doesn't give a damn about their health - threw itself into the battle, organised a containment system and locked up sick, incubating and healthy people pell-mell (Fortunately, it wasn't the bubonic plague, because that would have been a bloodbath). ), gags his flock with a paper mask, a veritable sieve for microbes and a nest of miasmas, condemning them to self-contamination, and swears to all his great gods that he has a miracle product on hand, Doctor Strangelove's elixir, which prevents death (well, almost) for all those who inject it.

In a nutshell, a very nasty virus attacks. War is declared. Curfews, house arrests and Ausweis are introduced as a matter of urgency... The state unleashes its dictatorial weapons to save "its livestock". Except that viruses don't make war, at most they can be weapons manufactured in laboratories (Fort Detrick, Porton Down, Wohan, etc.), and that they never stop raging, as nature dictates, and have done since prehistoric times. So there can be no peace... Everything that happens in the war game of subversive warfare is absurd. Assuming that the virus had been particularly virulent, the sensible course of action would have been to isolate the sick in order to treat them and preserve the healthy. Above all, a sane government would have reassured its population instead of sending its limbic brain into overdrive before even knowing if there was any danger. Unless... there was premeditation!

Another of the characteristics of subversive warfare via the media war game is therefore that it begins as a kind of media game on a global scale in which civilian populations are taken as witnesses and in which they are encouraged to take sides with one side or another, to declare themselves to be players of sorts, a game that continues ad infinitum thanks to the constant appearance of apocalyptic events and cataclysmic twists imagined by the story-tellers.

 The war game of subversive warfare fulfils a specific mission: it artificially creates clans of fanatics who will form rival ghost camps disjointed from reality, based on scientific, political, medical, philosophical or legal dogmas invented from scratch and not based on any proven or demonstrable fact, which are repeated over and over again on all sorts of communication media so that they become a leitmotif in the individual subconscious and, consequently, in the collective consciousness, eventually becoming conditioned mental reflexes. This is no more and no less than a variant of the propagandist lie, conceptualised by the linguist Joseph Goebbels and verbalised by the criminal Adolf Hitler: « A lie repeated ten times remains a lie; repeated ten thousand times, it becomes the truth».

The propagandists of the war game of subversive warfare are not so much trying to manufacture a truth from a lie, even if this is systematically the case, as to condition each citizen to form a belief that serves as a truth, the effects of which, deleterious never beneficial, they project onto their psychic screen.
By imposing a limited territory on the individual's cerebral representation via widely disseminated messages from which contradictory debate is excluded, the terrorist propagandists in charge of story-telling apply social engineering that can be defined as an intrusive management of the intimate imaginary sphere, this dreamlike activity shaping a mechanical creative space for the individual, and by capillary action for the collective. Their manipulative attack respects a fundamental rule: to give the illusion to the victims that they are masters of their own choices (they do everything in their power to save their skins!), but deep down, this psychic invasion is a rape of consciousness, a rape that allows them to take control of it.

Sight is not the only sense impacted by the attacks of terrorist propagandists. The management of sound and noise also plays a vital role in the cerebral break-in orchestrated by the war game : music inducing specific sensations (fear, serenity, anxiety, etc.), jingles, the rhythm and sound of the sentences pronounced, all of which act as psychic harpoons preventing the victim from analysing the situation he is confronted with. The aim is to create a kind of intellectual chaos by distilling a deliberately noisy communication, a cacophony of sight and sound. This blurring of the analytical data-collecting organs - vision and hearing - creates a sensory blindness that neutralises the cortex and neocortex, except at the level of mental representation, which is continuously called upon to produce a distorted interpretation that remains at the level of emotional perception, which in turn activates the limbic brain.

Imagination is essentially a matter of affect, even if having recourse to it allows us to structure our reason, to conceive and to create. The continuous emotion induced by manipulation de facto annihilates any conscious act on the part of the victim. He experiences an emotional impact which he maps mentally but is unable to interpret to understand it because he is immediately assailed by a new impact. People who are subjected to constant bursts of distressing, misleading messages end up forging not an opinion but a mystique that protects them, like primitive populations, from the wrath of the Gods, and it's only a short step from mystique to fanaticism when fear becomes the driving force behind social relations.

The war game of subversive warfare therefore focuses the attention of civilians on a virtual battlefield, a mask for the real war, in which their psychic screen, a substitute for or extension of the material screen, becomes the terrain of operations. They act mentally, by projecting stereotyped data, gathered through contact with communication cables, onto their psychic screen. In colloquial terms, we would say that they are "making a film" to their. It would be more accurate to say that salvos of media lies lead them "to make a film of themselves". Guided by repeated allegations, they are in fact creating a substitute for reality, with an exclusively imaginary structure, disconnected from the cortex and neocortex, and therefore from their cognitive capacities. They are no longer able to think and analyse; they feel and react.

The more an individual is deprived of all social links, and therefore of communication with his fellow human beings and his microcosm, the more his limbic brain will be activated, sometimes to the point of overheating, and the more he will resort to his psychic screen in an attempt to reassure himself. Hence the importance of confinement, masks and social distances that enclose citizens in a psychic bubble, with propaganda feeding continuously, unfiltered, into their psychic screen. « The economic system based on isolation is a circular production of isolation. Isolation is the basis of technique, and the technical process in turn isolates. From the automobile to television, all the goods selected by the spectacular system are also weapons for the constant reinforcement of the conditions of isolation of « solitary crowds », says Guy Debord.

The war game is the "spectacular system" of subversive warfare as defined by Debord. It individualises excessively while simulating a false cohesion between people. The phrase "soyez solidaires, se isolez-vous" (« stand together, isolate yourselves ») in the terrorist Operation Covid 19 is a perfect illustration of the deleterious function of this desire to keep the individual solely face to face with himself, while giving him the impression of being an atom working collectively to build a common betterment.

Indeed, the constraint of isolation atomises the act of solidarity, which by its very nature is one of contact, and condemns the individual to refocus on himself. The individual's psyche then ends up forming emotional loops that generate existential anguish, as they are forbidden from sincerely verbalising their discomfort or fear with their fellow human beings.

Isolation is, according to Biderman's charter, phase 1 of torture: « Isolating the victim: depriving the person of the social supports and links that would give him the ability to resist. To develop in the victim an intense anxiety about him or herself. Make the victim dependent on authority ». (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charte_de_Biderman_de_la_torture_psychologique)

Gustave Lebon tells us that the figure of repetition, so dear to Napoleon, exerts an influence on the most enlightened minds. It is therefore the ultimate tool for manipulating crowds, one that leaves its mark in the depths of the limbic brain, the sphere of emotions that drives behaviour. Long before Dr Goebbels, Gustave Lebon explained: « By repetition, something asserted becomes established in people's minds to the point where it is accepted as a proven truth. (...) Something repeated ends up embedding itself in those deep regions of the unconscious where the motives for our actions are worked out. After a while, forgetting who made the repeated assertion, we come to believe it. »

This repeated assertion therefore becomes dogma. The important thing, however, is to free oneself from dogma, to determine who is speaking and why, so that one can compare one's theory with that of one's opponents or followers, in order to exercise one's free will and act according to one's soul and conscience, and therefore as an adult citizen, responsible for one's ego and the « re publica », in a democratic society.

All truth is formed on the soil of contradictory debate, hence the inviolability of the right to information and expression in democratic societies that respect the universal declaration of human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter. It is through multi-analytical confrontation that humanity has forged, and continues to forge, concepts that it has been able to set in stone and which serve as the basis for its evolution. The sine qua non of progress is cooperation.

As part of the massive propaganda campaign for the Covid 19 terrorist attack, Olivier Véran, Jérôme Salomon, Eric Dupont Moretti, and all the teams employed by the Macron government on communication media, are neither experts, nor doctors, nor lawyers. They are propagandist weapons, primordial weapons in the war game of subversive warfare, continuously broadcasting, one might say firing, a series of anxiety-provoking messages to place the population in a state of terror. This is psychological torture and a terrorist attack.

None of the statements are verifiable, sourced or proven, but repeated ad infinitum, they engender a sense of eminent catastrophe through the use of a semantic field of war and death (daily death counts, threats to kill grandma and grandpa, saturation of emergency rooms and hospitals, shortage of medicines, etc.). The use of shock images and pithy, violent formulas reinforces the feeling of immediate danger: a permanent crash is imminent! In subversive warfare, the victim of terrorist propaganda constantly switches from the end of the world to the Appocalypse, or vice versa.

Hence the « I've got to save my skin no matter what ». This is the second phase of torture, described in Biderman's Charter : « Monopolise perception: fix the victim's attention on a difficult and urgent situation, force his introspection. Eliminate information that might contradict that of the authorities. Punish all acts of insubordination. »

In the war game of subversive warfare, words are missiles and the human beings who pronounce these nouns are, in a way, « Lexical submachine gun » who do not spread the good word, but inoculate "ready-to-think", the aim of which is to create an emotional contagion.

According to Gustave Lebon, « assertion, repetition and contagion » are the three procedures used to induce a determined, and therefore studied, group to commit an action or comply with behavioural directives. There is therefore a clearly established strategy of manipulative communication that enables the individual to take control of crowds.

According to Gustave Lebon, the « Lexical submachine gun » in action on the media battlefield, Martin Blachier for example, has to make « pure and simple assertions, devoid of any reasoning or proof » to achieve his ends, and he adds « the more concise this information is, devoid of proof and demonstration, the more authority it will have, the more authoritative it will be », such as the assertions "Vaccination is our 'weapon of mass protection' against Covid-19 » made by François Braun, the French Minister for Health, or, again by the same Minister, in the style of Madame Irma, « there will be an increase in the number of deaths », or by Elisabeth Borne « As the current drought shows, climate change is already here. The time to act is now. »

Declined in multiple forms and on countless media, these assertions are transformed into juxtapositions of monoidism that key words, skilfully used, reactivate at will as in hypnosis. They initiate and then continually restore the phenomenon of contagion described by Gustave Lebon : « In crowds, ideas, feelings, emotions and beliefs have a contagious power as intense as that of microbes (...) Contagion explains the suddenness of panics. Cerebral disorders such as madness also spread by contagion. (...) Opinions and beliefs spread by the mechanism of contagion and very little by that of reasoning. »

The projection of a substitute reality onto a psychic screen on the basis of repetitive, unproven data is of the same order as the immersion of a faithful person in a religious rite, except that religion, despite its abuses, generally engages the individual, through adherence to dogmas, to reflect on himself, the world and his relationship with the world. The war game of subversive warfare, on the other hand, forces the individual to take part in an existential speculation in which he finds himself a « player » in spite of himself, and whose ins and outs he imagines on the basis of succinct and Manichean fallacious data. Except that the subversive cold war is a war that kills just as surely as a hot war. There are no players. There are just executioners, victims and a few resisters.

The victim of the mental torture of a media war game can alternate between the role of executioner and victim, each persecuting the other according to their degree of indoctrination and fanaticism. When the degree of indoctrination approaches fanaticism in some, they in turn indoctrinate and become the valiant little soldiers of the system, which will not hesitate to exterminate them if the survival of the infiltrating terrorists so requires

In a subversive war, to win, the combatant gives himself the right to resort to every kind of villainy. In a subversive war, the winner can only be the most deceitful, the most cowardly, the most cheating, the one who shoots his opponent in the back and accuses an innocent person of having done it, the one who manipulates and tortures the civilian population, who kidnaps and secretly holds any opponent, who murders or has murdered on the sly anyone who tries to thwart his plans, who infiltrates institutions and surreptitiously takes control of them, who resorts to acts of terrorism and false flag attacks to fuel conflicts that would never have taken place.

A gang war, a mafia war, a war in the service of private financial interests disguised as a geopolitical war between sovereign states. But which sovereign state could have an interest in such a war? None at all!

It is clear that to win such a war, it is essential for the belligerents who wish to move towards lasting peace to get out of the « war game » subversif. The field of hostilities and the fighting must take place in the « real world » and only in the real world.

The aim is not to multiply the number of hot battle zones, but to put the war into its geopolitical and social context so that the belligerents can be clearly identified. If we are to move towards peace, we need to know with whom we can negotiate and whether this negotiation is possible. With terrorists who have defined political demands, it is always possible to negotiate and find common ground. With mafia terrorists, no negotiation is possible because they lie, cheat, manipulate and betray. They have no word! They impose the rules and change them when they are no longer in their favour.

On the world chessboard, they play chess by making their opponents believe that they are applying the rules of chess, while at the same time deploying themselves according to the rules of the game of Queen or the game of the goose. An honest opponent has no chance of winning if he does not get out of this "war of trick". The only way is to return to the law and fight with Honour, Courage, Boldness and Loyalty. Loyalty... the magic word that leads to peace negotiations. Without Loyalty, there is no trust, and without trust, there is no social pact, no peace treaty, no trade. To sign a treaty, you must have the right to do so and be worthy of the respect of the person with whom you are negotiating. To restore trust, you have to tell the truth.

And telling the truth about the Assange affair is a first step towards international relations based on trust and cooperation. Without truth, there is no loyalty, and without loyalty, there is no geopolitical balance. The 1939-1945 war never ended because no peace treaty was signed. In order to sign one, it is vital to know who is entitled to sign it, or to ensure that each belligerent is entitled to sign it. The world war will not end until this treaty is signed.

Modus Operandi of subersive infiltration

France, like other kingdoms, has experienced state infiltration from Henri de Valois, known as Henri III. At that time, the Jesuits tried to spread their influence throughout the country, despite energetic resistance from the Parliament of Paris and the Sorbonne.

This infiltration, accompanied by plots, assassination attempts and assassinations - Henri de Valois, known as Henri III, and Henri de Bourbon, known as Henri IV, died by their daggers - was the work of the Society of Jesus or Jesuits. They are led by a General, also known as the Black Pope. « Their blind obedience to the pope and their general deprived them of liberated, so that their oaths and promises could not rightly be trusted. » Propos tenus par Maximilien de Béthune - Duc de Sully - Quoted In History of the Jesuit Conspiracies - Eugène de Monglave et Prosper Chalas -1825 - Ponthieu

It was in Notre-Dame de Montmartre chapel, on Assumption Day in 1534, that the Society of Jesus was founded under the impetus of Ignatius Loyola. The Jesuits form one of the Pope's secret armies. Their motto is well known: « The end justifies the means ».

About their Henri de Bourbon, known as Henri IV, says to Sully, who be afraid of his life, came him warns against Jesuits :

Unfortunately, the King of England's worries were to be realised, sooner or later, both in the House of Bourbon and in the House of Stuart, as the two kingdoms were plagued by constant infiltration from the jesuits and accomplice who crated constant dissension within the two kingdoms.

In France, this led to Henry IV being assassinated by a Jesuit dagger, and James II falling victim to a palace revolution that cost him his life, followed by a coup d'état that left the United Kingdom without a legal government until today.

After the assassination of James II, the United Kingdom became a lawless territory and has remained so ever since. It is not a sovereign country. After the execution of James II of England, the only heir to the Crown of England was his son, James Francis Edward Stuart, known as « Knight of St George ».

Louise Marie Thérèse Stuart, his legitimate daughter, is the only legitimate heir to the English crown after her brothers. Only Stuart heirs have legitimacy to reign over the Kingdom of England. This was true at the time of James II's regicide. It is true today.

According to some sources, Senior Jesuits are required to take a secret oath. This oath was recorded in the United States Congressional Record, Archives of the 62nd Congress (House Calendar # 397, Report # 1523 of 15 February 1913, pages 3215-3216.) https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1913/02/15/house-section

The oath is filed at the United States Congressional Record is that of the Knights of Columbus. It's hard to say that the two orders take the same oath, but they both work for the Vatican.

This oath was also quoted by Charles Didier in his book « Subterranean Rome », published in New York in 1843, translated from the original French.

Whether or not they take this oath, the Knights of Columbus and the Jesuits work together on all territories for the sole interests of the Pope and the Vatican, i.e. for private interests with no link to the churches (communities of believers). They operate in the same way as the Cagoule terrorist organisation in France.

They infiltrate all state structures, public, private and voluntary, pretending to be something they are not. It's the workings of agents belonging to structures that ensure the security of the territory but act for private interests and mafia-like ends. As these mafia and terrorist organisations have been acting in this way for many years in collusion at international level, it is legitimate to think that many governmental, institutional, armed and police structures, among others, and associations, are gangrened from within and therefore potentially dangerous for territorial integrity, state sovereignty and democracy.

It is now easier to identify them within these structures because they usurp functions, sometimes under usurped identities, they co-opt each other within these structures, they practise blackmail and threats while creating a constant feeling of anxiety through the use of contradictory and absurd directives aimed at destabilising all the individuals who make up the structure.

Louis XV expelled the Jesuits, implicated in the assassination of Henri de Valois, known as Henri III, and Henri de Bourbon, known as Henri IV, from the Kingdom of France, with other monarchs following his example. The Bourbons considered the Jesuits to be under the influence of a foreign power. King James I of England considered them dangerous.

He told Henri de Bourbon, known as Henri IV, about them before his death. Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II of Russia) and Frédéric II of Prussia were the only ones to welcome and protect them. Pope Clement XIV abolished the Society of Jesus with the Dominus ad Redemptor. It was dated 21 July 1773 and promulgated on 16 August. In France, the decree of the Parliament of Paris of 6 August 1762 preceded Clément XIV's decision by almost ten years.

Henri III and Henri IV, both assassinated by a dagger bearing the mark of the Jesuits, had to deal with this pernicious corruption of institutions by the Jesuits, obedient to their General or Black Pope, often referred to as the « fathers of virtue ». Molière brilliantly portrayed them in his Tartuffe! They always present themselves as defenders of the good, a good whose nature changes with the epochs and circumstances. Henry III tried to remedy their deployment by creating the Order of the Holy Spirit to compensate for the failings of the Order of Saint Michael, which had become gangrenous from within.

The members of the Holy Spirit Order, including the King, swore to serve God and not the Pope « in a single apostolic and Roman church », which therefore included Catholics and Protestants all who respect and serve Jesus Christ. Henri IV, who considered that there was « more ambition and greed than religion and justice » in them, resisted as best he could despite the threats, blackmail and attempted assassinations, of which there were around 11, knowing that he was going to die under them. « I am a Catholic, a Catholic king, a Roman Catholic, not a Jesuit Catholic. I know the Jesuit Catholics; I am not in the mood of those people, nor of their kind who are killers of kings. I am like the shepherd who wants to bring the sheep back to the fold with gentleness, not cruelty », he said before the Paris parliament on 16 February 1599, which was trying in vain to get him out of this subversive war by putting an end to the activities of this organisation, which he considered a dangerous sect, as all their writings attest.

It was not until Louis XV that measures were taken against their activities and they were expelled from most European courts. Nevertheless, Sophie Frédérique d’Anhalt-Zerbst, épouse Karl Peter Ulrich de Holstein-Gottorp dite Catherine II de Russie protected them and allowed them to develop in Russia, from where they were expelled by Alexander I by decree. They were only able to re-establish themselves in the country in the 1990s, which is surprising given that the Orthodox Church does not recognise the authority of the Pope.

In issuing the Order of the Parliament of Paris of 6 August 1762, Louis de Bourbon, also known as Louis XV, was very probably aware that royalty had little chance of surviving such a massive attack from such a pernicious subversive force, devoid of conscience, lawless, behaving like a "demon" while pretending to be the angel, the paragon of all virtues.

He was all the more aware of this as he had tempted to help his Stuart cousins to reclaim their stolen throne, eventually giving up in the face of the scale of the damage, with every scion of royal line, in all States, exposed to homicide or held incommunicado in secret, until death. He knew this all the more because his ancestor, Henri de Bourbon, known as Henri IV or Henri le Grand, had escaped eleven attempts on his life perpetrate by jesuites. He was all the more aware of this when he had to decline the offer of marriage from Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, Veselovska, Wasilewska, wife of Johan Krause or Rabe, then Peter 1st of Russia, known as Catherine I of Russia, who offered him the hand of her « daughter » Elisabeth, known as Elisabeth 1st of Russia. He knew this all the more because Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II of Russia) and Frédéric II of Prussia, known as a member of the « House of Hohenzollern », the « House » that supported Nazism during the war, both opposed the Dominus ad redemptor of Clement XIV and welcomed and protected the Jesuits.

Given the way in which the Gottrop family from Holstein infiltrated the Russian monarchy, it is legitimate to wonder, in the light of the 1762 decree of the Parliament of Paris, whether they were not themselves members of the Society of Jesus. It should be remembered that in 1566, Pius V yet set up a system of espionage called the « Holy Alliance », to which will added in 1910 a counter-espionage department, the « Sodalitium Pianum » (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Sapinière).

Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II), and Frederick II of Prussia, known as a member of the "House of Hohenzollern", "house" which supported Nazism during the war, both opposed the Dominus ad redemptor of Clement XIV and welcomed and protected the Jesuits. In view of the way in which the Holstein Gottrop family infiltrated the Russian monarchy, it is legitimate to ask whether they themselves were not members of the Society of Jesus, in view of the Arrêté du Parlement de Paris of 1762.

Identity theft, usurpation of office, hostage-taking of one or many members of a royal family, or how to take control of monarchical sovereign states

In the Assange family, no one is called Assange (presumed patronymics: ????), in the Windsor Mountbatten family no one is called Windsor or Mountbatten (presumed patronymics: Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg), in the Hohenzollern family no one is called Hohenzollern (presumed patronymics: Zollern and Margrave Brandenbourg), in the Rotshchild family no one is called Rotshchild (presumed patronymics: Mayer, Meyer, Bauer...) and in the Romanov family, after the death of Piotr Alekseïevitch Romanov known as Pierre II, son of Alexis Pétrovitch Romanov, himself a priori the son of Pierre Alekseïevitch Romanov known as Pierre 1er and Euxodie Loupothkine, no one is called Romanov (presumed patronymic: Holstein-Gottorp).

Dynastic rupture in Russia
A dynastic break occurred in Russia under Peter Romanov, known as Peter I or Peter the Great. The modus operandi for infiltration was much the same as for the Stuarts. Peter 1st married Euxodie Loupotkhine (Евдокия Фёдоровна Лопухина, Evdokia Feodorovna Lopoukhina, née Praskovia Illarionovna Lopoukhina), who gave him a son, Alexis Petrovitch Romanov, who in turn had a son, Pierre Alexievitch Romanov, with Charlotte-Christine of Brunswick-Lunebourg.

In 1666, Peter I repudiated Euxody in order to marry or live, depending on the source, with a schemer, a servant or a peasant girl, again depending on the source, of dubious origin and identity, Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, known by several surnames, Veselovska, Wasilewska, Krause or Rabe. She was said to be the daughter of a certain Samuel Skavronsky (Skovorodsky), a farmer, and Elisabeth Moritz. She is said to be from German-speaking Livonia.

Such a marriage is inconceivable for a monarch in charge of his country's territorial integrity and security. He has, in principle, a duty to enter into a marital alliance that will stabilise the country or strengthen its power internationally.

The life of Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa is at least as incredible and improbable as that of Adrien Conus, the son of the second wife of Russian collector Sergei Chtoukine, a Walt Disney tale. According to certain Russian documents, she was married to another man and was considered to be a mistress of Peter I.

This meant that the two daughters born of their relationship had no legitimacy on the Russian throne and bore the name of the previous husband, since divorce was impossible. By acting in this way, Peter 1st betrayed the interests of the Russian Crown and consequently his subjects. It would seem that Peter Legrand can be classed as a textbook case, as he is probably the only sovereign to have betrayed himself and failed to safeguard his state. But perhaps, as a result, the situation is more pernicious than it seems.

With the « Sobornoye Ulozheniye » code of 1649, which replaced the Sudebnik, the judicial code of 1497, Tsarist royalty was governed by a certain number of laws grouped together in a corpus. In the preamble to the Sobornoye Ulozheniye of 1649, we read: « These articles were to be written and drafted according to the decree of the sovereign by a general council, so that the people could express themselves in complete freedom ».

Before the accession of Peter I, Russia was a hereditary monarchy, obeying customary law and the rule of male primogeniture. Only a few tsars were chosen by the Zemsky Sobor. Michael Fyodorovich Romanov, known as Michael I, was one of them. His heir Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, known as Alexei I, implemented what can be likened to a « parliamentary monarchy » with the « Sobornoye Ulozheniye » of 1649.

As in France, before Peter I, the Russian monarchy was devolved on the basis of patronymic and fiefdom, which together justified belonging to a land, a homeland (no one could be king of a country of which he was not the authentic product), hence the importance of primogeniture in the paternal line of descent, the latter being the justification for the transfer of divine power vested in the father.

Like the King of France, the Tsar derives his power from God (not the Pope). He is his representative on earth. He is the interface between God and his subjects. This is also what gives him his omnipotence. However, since he derives his power from God, he must comply with the teachings of Christ, which are in a way the "constitution" of a monarchical state, a constitution being a "set of fundamental legislative texts serving as a permanent code for the life of a society". The constitution is the law of laws. Monarchical legislation is based on the teachings of God, and therefore of Christ. In Russia tsarist, the Synod ensures that these laws are respected.

Every royal marriage is, by implication, a commitment before God to ensure the continuity of the dynasty while creating a geopolitical alliance to ensure the stability, prosperity and security of a country.

After his meeting with Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, Peter 1st established an autocracy (Auto = self and cratie = power), a political system in which the sovereign derives his powers and legitimacy from himself.

Similarly, he seems to be the first person to have used the term « emperor » to designate the monarch of Russia, as the term « tsar » is still used by the people. His authority knew no bounds.

By virtue of his autocratic rule, Peter I therefore granted himself the right to choose his successor. He violated the rule of primogeniture by paternal descent, especially as the legitimate heir to the throne, Alexis Petrovitch, born of Peter I's first marriage to Euxodie Loupotkhine, had a son, Peter, who was, like him, the legitimate heir to the throne.

Furthermore, as Peter 1st did not designate his successor, which is strange for an autocrat, it was Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, known as Catherine 1st, an illegitimate sovereign according to Russian customary law, who, proclaimed queen by Peter 1st, subsequently decided who would be in charge of the Russian throne, the sole heir of Peter 1st and Euxodie Loupotkhine having, a priori, been thrown into prison by his monarch father and assassinated.

Peter I reigned jointly with his brother Ivan V who, by the rule of primogeniture, was heir to the Russian crown, with his grandson, Ivan Antonovitch of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, set to succeed him. Ivan had two daughters, Anna Ivanovna Romanova, who had no descendants, and Catherine Ivanovna Romanova, married to Karl Leopold zu Mecklenburg-Schwerin, whose daughter Anna Leopoldovna, married to Antoine-Ulrich of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, would have five children, all heirs to the Russian crown, but Elizabeth I would not give them the opportunity to take control of the country.

When their eldest son, Ivan Antonovitch of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, known as Ivan VI, was born and proclaimed tsar, a coup d'état, in which France was involved according to some unclear sources, brought Elizabeth, the illegitimate daughter of Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa and Peter I, to the throne.

As a baby, Ivan VI was locked up in a fortress, where he died as an adult in 1764. He was known as « prisoner no. 1 » or the « Iron Mask ». Anna Leopoldovna, her husband and their four other children were locked up in a fortress, cut off from the world and subjected to deprivation. Anna Leopoldovna died in childbirth in 1746. She was just 28 years old.

In France, another prominent prisoner, another « iron mask », also died sixty-one years earlier, in 1703, in the Bastille

In 1762, on her accession to the throne, Sophie Frédérique of Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp, known as Catherine II, proposed to Antony-Ulrich of Brunswick that he be released on condition that he return to Germany and give up his children, the legitimate heirs to the Russian throne, whom she considered a threat to the position she had taken for herself. The prince refused to abandon his children. He died blind in 1774.

The Brunswick descendants, the legitimate Romanov heirs, were released in 1780 but, according to the documents found concerning them, years of abusive confinement had rendered them unfit to live in society. They were taken in by their paternal aunt, Juliane Marie de Brunswick, wife of Frederick of Oldenburg, King of Denmark, but placed under house arrest by order of Catherine II on an estate in Jutland. Officially, the last Romanov tsar to bear the Romanov name was Pyotr Alekseyevich Romanov, known as Peter II, son of Alexis Petrovich Romanov, himself the son of Peter I and Euxody Loupothkine. By the end of his short reign, no one in the Romanov family could or would be called Romanov.

From Catherine II and Peter II onwards, the ruling dynasty on the Russian throne was called Holstein-Gottorp and the Russian crown was given to them by Peter Legrand via Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa when he crowned her queen. In fact, Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp, known as Peter III, husband of Catherine II, was the founder of the reigning line that died out with Nicholas II, himself called Nicholas of Holstein-Gottorp and not Nicholas Romanov.

Karl Peter Ulrich de Holstein-Gottorp was born of the union of Anna Petrovna, a priori, according to Russian law, with the surname Skavronskaya, or Veselovska or Wasilewska of her mother if she was unmarried, or Rabe if her mother was married, or, more correctly, her father's name, Samuel Skavronsky (Skovorodsky), if the latter was never married - daughter of Peter I and Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa - and Charles Frédéric de Holstein-Gottorp.

Peter I was only able to act by violating the « Sobornoye Ulozheniye » of 1649, which remained in force until 1917. Was Peter 1st a hostage?

Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa is known by several surnames: Veselovska, Wasilewska, Krause or Rabe. She was the daughter of a certain Samuel Skavronsky (Skovorodsky), a peasant, and Elisabeth Moritz, but was orphaned and placed as a servant in a family. It seems that Peter I himself called Marthe not Skavronskaya, but Veselevskaya or Vasilevskaya.

In any case, if Peter 1st married her, there is a record of the dissolution of his marriage to Euxodie Loupothkine and a record of his marriage to Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, under one name or another, in the Synod registers. There must also be birth certificates if their offspring were born in wedlock, which would seem impossible under the Orthodox laws mentioned above.

Furthermore, by marrying her - the marriage of Peter I and Catherine I is said to have taken place on 19 February (1 March) 1712 (there is therefore a trace of this marriage in the Synod registers) - and by making her queen under the name of Catherine 1st, Peter 1st betrayed his country by placing it under the guardianship of a schemer who had no legitimacy to reign as she did not belong to a hereditary royal line (rule of heredity by primogeniture of paternal descent) and, have the effect on doing it put under the guardianship of another country. Peter 1st accomplished great deeds, but did he do them for the Russian people, for the Russian land or for private interests?

Peter III came from the Holstein Golttrop family, as did his wife Sophie Frédérique of Anhalt-Zerbst, Catherine II, through her mother, Jeanne Elisabeth, who was also called Holstein Gottrop. Through her father, Christian-Auguste d'Anhalt-Zerbst, Catherine II was Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, married to Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp.

By marrying Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp, Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst married her « second cousin », whom she later killed. Their common grandfather was Christian Albert de Holstein Gottrop, son of Frédéric III de Holstein Gottrop, their common great-grandfather.

Charles Frédéric de Holstein Gottrop, father of Karl Peter Ulrich de Holstein-Gottorp (Peter III) and Jeanne Elisabeth de Holstein Gottrop, mother of Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst (Catherine II), were cousins, and respectively the children of two of Christian Albert de Holstein Gottrop's sons, Frédéric IV and Christian Auguste de Holstein Gottrop.

The marriage between Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp (Peter III) and Sophie Frédérique of Anhalt-Zerbst (Catherine II) was impossible due to the risk of consanguinity, and no church would give its approval. The Tsar could not "have marital relations with close relatives", not any king or anyone else for that matter.

Once again, we are in the presence of an illegitimate marriage, and it would be wise to search the registers of the Synod.

What's more, it is highly unlikely, given the facts, that Peter III could have been the father of Paul I. The story that Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst (Catherine II) suggested that Paul I was her son and that of Sergei Saltykov is far-fetched, to say the least. Even if this were the case, no member of a royal family would spread a rumour that could jeopardise the accession to the throne of an illegitimate heir.

Sergei Saltykov was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary in Paris in 1762. Sergei Saltykov's father, Count Vasily Fyodorovich Saltykov (1675-1751), was a Russian statesman, an anchorite general and a general-master of police in Saint Petersburg.

Surprisingly, the Russian throne was passed down by Peter I to two German families, as Russia was no longer ruled by ethnic Russians. Until 1917, the throne was under German rule, under the Holstein Gottrop. None of them was called Romanov. None of them was Russian. According to Russian law, none of them had legitimacy on the Russian throne.

However, it is worth asking about the period after Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II), which began with the reign of Paul I, whose father does not appear to be Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp (Peter III), nor Sergei Saltykov. Did the synod keep an act proving the biological father links of Paul I, who could be Romanov?

Paul Ier would he merely be the hostage of an « illegitimate German court », as were no doubt other members of the Tsar's family and the nobility, these hostages hindering the action of the police, the army, the boyars and the Russian government who wanted to combat this subversive takeover of the country by a foreign force.

Elisabeth's nephew was Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp (Peter III), the son of his sister Anna, daughter of Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, Veselovska, Wasilewska, wife of Johan Krause or Rabe (Catherine I) and of Peter I.

The modus operandi for infiltrating and neutralising Russian royalty is much the same as that employed by the City of London Corporation to rob the Stuarts of their throne via the Glorious Revolution and the installation of George I. In the United Kingdom, some of the royal and noble offspring were probably taken hostage, as in Russia, a "war game and human shield" that enabled the buccaneers to remain in power to this day under the registered trademark Mountbatten-Windsor.

Some Western monarchies understood the manoeuvre of this piracy of royalty and certain monarchs, including Louis XV, refused to marry the illegitimate daughters of Peter I and Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, Veselovska, Wasilewska (Catherine I). This did not stop Elizabeth I of Russia from crowning herself - you are never better served than by yourself - and taking over Russia and handing it over to the Holstein Gottrop family. Whatever Elisabeth 1st did, she did it for a private entity and not for the Russian people or the Russian nation.

With Paul I, a sort of internal resistance seemed to be organised within the Russian court. He did not get on well with Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II), whom he considered responsible for her father's assassination. Since there is little chance that this father could be Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp (Peter III), a first cousin who did not seem to share his wife's bed, and since the lover Sergei Saltykov is hardly more credible, we cannot help wondering whether there might not be a third hidden father, the other two being there merely to fool the gallery.

Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II) exiled Paul I to the palace of Gatchina. Isolated from the court, he reconstituted his own "court" and his own "army". He organised reviews and exercises. Two parallel courts seemed to coexist. One legitimate, the other illegitimate, the legitimate one seemingly a prisoner and hostage of the other.

Are there any traces left in the Russian royal archives of secret dealings between a legitimate court and an illegitimate government? This would be a way of negotiating the conditions of captivity, a kind of life insurance and perhaps also a means of defence for the territory secretly under external control.

In 1777, when her son Alexander was born, Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II), immediately took him away from his parents and gave him to people of her choosing to bring up.

It's strange, a monarch always takes care to ensure that he himself initiates his heir into the affairs of state.
This instrumentalisation of the child, this commodification of the child, can be found in the Pact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration wich was signed in 2018 under the aegis of United Nations.

The theft or kidnapping of children, the incommunicado detention of children, the exploitation of children in networks, the enslavement of children, the rape and torture of children, the employment of children without identity for menial work of all kinds, including criminal work, the prostitution of children, the theft of children's organs is the basis of the structure of the mafia and terrorist Parakratos that infiltrate countries. They are used as bargaining chips, to blackmail and threaten against targets beforehand isolated , as free or almost free labour, and as sex objects. These people, who are born, live and grow up outside the legal system, have no way of asserting their rights. These Spartakus are the invisible cogs in the mafia and terrorist parakratos.

Among these children who are removed from the protection of their parents and from the protection of Sovereign States that respect the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child, are « children of value » who are used to put pressure on States. They are the human shields used by the terrorist mafia Parakratos to hold on to power and ward off any legal action taken against them.

As long as these children, some of whom, like Ivan VI, have aged in the system and died there without anyone knowing what they were used for eitheir they have lawful descendants with birth identity in keeping with their parents, no peace talks can be undertaken between the belligerents in the global subversive war.

An international peace process aimed at creating a lasting geopolitical balance cannot be put in place until these prisoners of war, hostages and human shields have been identified, revealed to the civilian populations and released. Revealing the truth to the civilian population and ensuring transparency in the handling of these cases is the sine qua non for negotiations leading to their release come to a successful conclusion. Henri IV had realised that the only bulwark he could use against the Jesuits was his parliament and his people.

Today, only the involvement of the civilian population, most of whom defends of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, will make it possible to free these hostage prisoners of war and support the implementation of a peace process.

Democracy is impossible without a people who are educated, invested in the affairs of the state, who have become adults, therefore actors in their own destiny and not subjects of an all-powerful father, whether monarchical or state government. There can be no democracy without the people asserting their free will. But to exercise your free will, you need to be informed. Truth is the key to ending the subversive war and getting rid of the terrorist mafia Parakratos.

Cleaning up a corrupt system can only be done with the help of all the honest forces, concerned with defending principles that respect human life, the common good and the good of each individual. An educated people is a mature people that acts as an auxiliary to the governments it has set up and to which it provides assistance when its country, the lives of its children, the world's geopolitical balance, etc. are in danger.

This is what the Parliament of Paris did for Henry IV. It is probably what the Synod or part of the Synod and boyars did for the Russian royalty. An international resistance federated and created a subversive counter-offensive that forced it to cloak itself in a « cloak of invisibility » in order to survive and preserve the lives of its « soldiers » as best it could.

But invisibility is incompatible with truth. Little by little, these soldiers resistant must walk towards the light in order to come out of hiding. The final battle against these mafia and terrorist Parakratos can only be a frontal one, last fighting must take place in broad daylight. This is the only way to win a subversive war fairly. It is also the only way to recreate fair exchanges between states and between individuals, which will make it possible to engage in peace talks and re-establish safeguards in institutions and in governments.

The citizen known as Julian Paul Assange is the essential key wich can bringing down the terrorist and Mafia Parakratos because he has, most likely, been a victim of this system since he was born. He has been ill-treated, instrumentalised, humiliated, forced to do things he did not want to do, held incommunicado, tortured. His image is today manipulated without being given the right to oppose the lies wich says about him and about the reality of his existence.

At the first hearing attended by a delegate from the human rights organisation WikiJustice Julian Assange, the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange said, « My children's DNA was stolen from me ». WJJA delegates have carried out numerous investigations to understand the comments made by the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange.

Today, in the light of the information in their possession concerning the courts of England and Russia, they are in a position to put forward a hypothesis. Taking control of royal governance systematically involves the introduction of a false wife who poses as the mother of a fictitious progeny in which ostage takers hidd he royal offspring, the legitimate heirs to the crown.

This is true for the Stuarts with Anne and Mary absolutly not legitimate on the throne d'Angleterre. It is true for Catherine and Elizabeth who are absolutly not legitimate on the throne of Russia. In both cases, the surnames of those arbitrarily enthroned as heirs by the hostage-takers are not known and are not those of the legitimate heirs.

WJJA delegates have identified other families in UK which hostage-takers could have used this kind so that ploy to gain possession of the inheritance, office and name of the lineage, in particular those of the Dukes of Beaufort family.

The citizen known as Julian Paul Assange testified publicly, during hearing in the Wesminster Court, that his children's DNA had been stolen from him and some time later. Well, intriguing woman by the name of Stella Moritz aka Stella Smiths Robertson, Aka Sara or Stella Gonzalez Devant claimes, today, to be the mother of his children. She claims to have married the man known as Julian Paul Assange in prison.

Stella Gonzalez Devant, aka…, to be the wife of the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange, as his name is neither Julian Paul Assange nor Julian Paul Assange.

She says her name is Stella Assange, which is absolutely false. This is simply impossible! She claims to had children with the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange, but this is absolutely impossible, as Julian Paul Assange name is neither Julian Paul Assange nor Julian Paul Hawkins.

Moreover, he has never said publicly that he married Stella aka or that he had children with her. On the other hand, the WJJA delegates can testify to the fact that he said during the hearing at Westminster Court: « my children's DNA has been stolen from me ». In the light of the above, this could mean that his children, his descendants, have been stolen from him. And the only people who can be suspected of stealing children's « Assange » are Stella Moritz, John Shipton and Cie…

So those who sequester him in secret in a Dark Place and torture him. In other words, the Mountbatten-Windsor Brotherhood, which runs the City of London Corporation and, via the Navigation Act, the Virginia Corporation-Washington DC, and Dominions and Commewelth States

As long as the prisoner of war, hostage or human shield known as Julian Paul Assange is not free to move around and express himself in his own name, all those who speak on his behalf can only be considered as impostors, except those who can, with proof, reveal his birth name and a relationship with him proved judicial.

If anyone knows the birth identity of the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange or (and) has a judicially provable family relationship with him, we urge them to contact WJJA so that it can make these court documents public.

If anyone knows the birth identity of the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange or (and) has a judicially provable family relationship with him, we urge them to contact WJJA so that it can make these court documents public and ask he will be imediate release.


If anyone knows who stole the DNA of the children of the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange, or the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange' s children, the human rights association WJJA urges them to come forward for WJJA lodge a complaint against the thieves, kidnappers and jailers who are holding them incommunicado

Paul Holstein Gottrop known as Paul 1er of Russia

This extraordinary story-telling of a king, George 1, going undercover at the court of Hanover as « Monsieur Busch », or George Busch, to find a wife for his son, George II, George Bush junior, points to a link between the Windsor Mountbatten system and the Holstein Gottrop.

Does the facetious storry-teller of the Wikipedia entry want his readers to understand that the Montbatten-Windsor system and the Busch system are two sides of the same mafia organization? If this is the case, it also certifies that the system is sustainable over time.

With Paul 1er, a resistance, to the illegal governance barely perceptible by outside seems to be organized and articulated within the system itself. There are signs that two governance are coexisting: a legitimate one, stemming from the legitimate Romanov lineage, and an illegitimate one called Holstein Gottrop, in league with the Mountbatten-Windsor system via the Victoria system.

Paul Holstein Gottrop became tsar at the age of 42. His first royal act, surprising act, was to do crown the late Peter III, his father. A priori, he should already have been crowned, since Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst become Empress of Russia after married him He was therefore emperor at the time of his marriage.

Who was this Peter whom his son Paul had dug up, crowned post mortem and reburied in the Peter and Paul Basilica, where he should already have been buried as tsar?

Piotr Alekseïevitch Romanov, known as Pierre II, who died without descendants?

After all, Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp, also known as Peter III, was born with Karl as his first given name...). Sis first last birth name is Karl not Pierre.

Why wasn't Peter III buried in Peter and Paul Cathedral, the final resting place of the Tsars, at the time of his death?

The first document promulgated by Paul after his coronation was the "Act of Succession to the Throne". According to this law, direct male descendants of the tsar become heirs, and women can only claim the throne if there are no direct descendants.

Paul 1er : https://histrf.ru/read/biographies/paviel-i-pietrovich

The Russian monarchy reverted to the primogeniture by paternal descent from Ivan the Terrible. Paul 1st seemed to want to re-form the Romanov dynasty, which was apparently extinct, and to restore legitimacy to the Russian kingship and, at the same time, to the Synod and Assemblies. He was to pay dearly for this act of resistance, as on the night of March 11-12, 1801, conspirators burst into his apartments and demanded his abdication. Paul refused, defended himself but was killed in the ensuing battle.

His son, Alexander Pavlovich Holstein Gottorp (Alexander I), whom he had never seen grow up, having been taken away from him at birth and entrusted to the care of educators appointed by Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Karl Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II), was proclaimed the new Emperor of Russia. In accordance with the deed of 1797 drawn up by his father, Paul I, Constantine would be heir to the Russian throne.

According to the deed of 1797 drawn up by his father, Paul I, Constantine, officially the second son of the siblings, would be heir to the Russian throne.

Killing the protester is the surest way to force by example hostage POWs to submit to the hostage-takers,. No usurpation is possible on the scale of governance without taking hostages and threatening them to be assassinated for example, so that maintain a level of terror conducive to obedience and silence. It's as old as war.

On the death of Paul 1st, there are signs that a legitimate Romanov dynasty recreate officialy by Paul, would once again be forced, under threat, to hand over the reins of the country to the Holstein Gottrop, illegitimate to the Russian throne, and would be sequestered in secret as a certain citizen known as Julian Paul Assange is today in the UK. If we look at the descendants of Paul I, the behavior of his son Constantine could lend credence to this thesis.

There's another point that bears this out, and it's both religiously and politically crucial. In fact, Paul 1st became Grand Master of the Order of Malta, also known as the Order of the Hospitaller Brothers of Saint John the Baptist of Jerusalem, which appeared in 1104.

They are dressed in the black habit of the hermits of Saint Augustine, on which is sewn the white canvas cross as if anchored, a reference to Saint Benedict of Nursia (Order of Saint Benedict) and with eight points, representing the eight beatitudes. After the recapture of Jerusalem by the Saracens, the Knights Templar settled in Italy, France and Spain, while the Hospitallers crossed the seas in their ships before settling, in 1308, on the island of Rodhes, from which they were eventually driven out by Suleiman. They then took refuge in Sicily and beyond on the island of Melita, today Malta where they settled.

The order comprised eight nations, also known as languages: Provence, Auvergne, France, Italy, Germany, Aragon, England and Castile.

This ordination, which may seem insignificant at first glance, was in fact a momentous event in a kingdom of divine right. Hospitallers, like the Knights Templar, are at the service of Christ and God and not at the service of a clergy or the Pope.

They are God's representatives on earth and the guarantors of Christ's justice. This is written into the oath they take. « The illustrious order of chivalry was established to reward virtue, maintain civil society in union and harmony, uphold the church and justice, defend orphans and widows from all oppression and to exercise mercy towards all people… »

Their vocation is to protect the Church (Community of Christians), which is anchored only in God and serves the Roman Apostolic religion, i.e. the Christian community as a whole, without making any distinction between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox, even if the word Catholic dominates their oath. Only the Patriarch of Russia is therefore in a position to have asked them to settle a religious problem, and consequently a state problem, concerning Paul I and the Russian Orthodox royalty.

In this context of the appropriation of the Russian state by a foreign entity, the aim is probably to save what remains of the Romanov dynasty, if there are still any authentic Romanovs at court, to restore religious legitimacy to the Russian kingship and thus legitimacy to the sovereignty of the Russian state, and to make it possible to identify, in the near or distant future if necessary, the legitimate descendants to the Russian throne.

The enthronement of Paul I as Grand Master of the Hospitallers consisted in stamping his royal or noble birth, since to enter the Order you had to prove that you belonged to the nobility, with documents proving it, for four generations, on both your father's and mother's side.

This means welcoming him into the Church, guaranteeing that he has the legitimacy to reign, while at the same time allowing the Synod to register the official descendants by authenticated deed, as only these descendants can claim the Russian throne, since they can only descend, in a direct line, from Paul I and a wife who can attest to an equivalent lineage.

He could be welcomed as a royal bastard, but given that he has done nothing of merit, his appointment as grand master would be impossible. Furthermore, neither his presumed father nor his presumed mother are of royal blood. He could not therefore be a royal bastard on either his father's or mother's side.

On the face of it, although we must remain cautious given the opacity of the workings of the Russian court from Catherine I onwards, summoning the Hospitallers was a strong political action by the Synod against the "invaders", since this stamping of Paul I's lineage by the Hospitallers officially rendered illegitimate the Holstein Gottrop, the illegitimate children of Peter Legrand, and any other pretender to the crown. If the aim of the Patriarch and the Synod was to validate Paul I as the sole heir to the crown, then only his descendants who could prove that they belonged to the recreate dynasty by Paul 1er could claim today the throne of russia.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the Romanov surname and filiations have been duly recorded in deeds. To sum up, is there any trace in the Synod registers and Russian archives of the birth of authentic Romanov descendants legitimately bearing the Romanov surname?

« (...) I gird you with this sword, and place it at your side in the name of Almighty God, of the Glorious Virgin Mary the mother, of the Glorious Saint George patron of Knights, in whose honour you give the order of Knighthood, so that just as by patience, and true faith, he was victorious over his enemies, so you imitate him in all your actions, so that he may impregnate in you the grace to do well. »

As well as being the patron saint of knights and horsemen, George is one of Moscow's patron saints. George's fight against the dragon symbolises the victory of Faith over Evil. It was therefore a declaration of war against the invaders and a first blow to the usurpation of the Russian royal office.

As for Saint John the Baptist, also known as John the Forerunner, he was the prophet who announced the coming of Christ and baptised him on the banks of the Jordan, having designated him as "the Lamb of God". He is one of the most venerated saints of the Orthodox Church.

With the intervention of the Hospitallers, the Russian nation returned to its Orthodox roots and enthroned a monarch in charge of defending it. Paul I pledged, first and foremost, to be honest, and therefore to put into practice the holy spirit, the spirit of truth : « The first quality that a knight must have is to be honest, and from honesty depend four principal virtues, namely prudence, by which you will know all things concerning the memory of the past, you will order the present, and foresee the future . The second is justice, which is the Queen and Princess of all the virtues; it is justice that keeps all things in equal balance with reason and equity. The third is strength, which will give you courage and valour against your enemies. And the fourth is temperance which will moderate all your actions. You must clothe yourself in these four virtues, possess them and keep them if you wish to acquire the reputation of a brave knight. »

It was a solemn commitment to his country, to God and to the Church (the community of Christians) that Paul 1st was to pay for with his life.

The value of this commitment is all the greater given that, according to certain archive documents, both the Knights Templar and the Hospitallers were in possession of Christ's relics. Only the Knights Templar are supposed to have recovered them, but as they were taken on board a Catalan, a light boat, and then transported by sea, and as the Hospitallers were experienced sailors, it is quite possible that, if it took place, it was a joint action by the two Orders.

These orders are said to have protected the Christian relics to this day, keeping them safe from the covetousness of evil-doers, and to hold one of the sacred Ampullae containing the oils and blood of Christ with which the kings of France were anointed on the day of their coronation, this anointing guaranteeing that they became God's representatives on earth, undertaking to rule the country according to the teachings of Christ, becoming fathers to their subjects and possessing the power to heal. The legitimacy of these orders to guarantee divine power is far superior to that of the popes. They are considered the guardians of Christianity.

Without access to religious registers and Russian archives, it is impossible to shed any light on legitimate royal births, but if the Hospitallers intervened, there are bound to be traces of their actions in Russia. By agreeing to become Grand Master of the Hospitallers, Paul I undertook to defend Christianity, and therefore to act in accordance with the teachings of Christ and respect the monarchical rules of Divine Right.

Paul I entered into a military alliance with the Hospitallers when he agreed to become their Grand Master. By offering him this position, the Hospitallers made Orthodox Russia the ninth language or nation of the Order, the first being Provence, Auvergne, France, Italy, Germany, Aragon, England and Castile.

It would seem that an alliance was being forged between certain monarchs and members of the nobility, all Christians, at International level, to fight against an enemy that was infiltrating states and taking monarchies hostage. Before, Louis de Bourbon, known as Louis XV, had refused to marry Elizabeth 1st of Russia because he did not want a misalliance and had tried to restore the Stuarts to the English throne. He has expelled the Jesuits, implicated in the assassination of Henri de Valois, known as Henri III, and Henri de Bourbon, known as Henri IV, from the Kingdom of France, and other monarchs have followed his example.

The Bourbons considered the Jesuits to be under the influence of a foreign power. Sophie Frédérique d'Anhalt-Zerbst, wife of Holstein-Gottorp (Catherine II of Russia) and Frédéric II of Prussia were the only ones to welcome and protect them. Pope Clement XIV abolished the Society of Jesus with the Dominus ad Redemptor. It was dated 21 July 1773 and promulgated on 16 August. In France, the decree of the Parliament of Paris of 6 August 1762 preceded Clément XIV's decision by almost ten years.

With Alexander Holstein Gottrop, known as Alexander II, a second dynasty was formed when he married Ekaterina Mikhailovna Dolgorukova, who came from an illustrious Russian princely house whose Rigin origins go back to Saint Vladimir and Rurik. The Dolgoroukovs are descended from Michel of Chernigov. The surname comes from the nickname of one of the princes of Obolensk, who was nicknamed Dolgoruki, which means "long-armed" or "long-handed" in Russian. Many Russian generals and statesmen have descended from this family. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_Dolgoroukov

This alliance with a Holstein Gottrop is surprising, to say the least, coming from such a prestigious Russian princely family, which is very involved in the history of its country. Given the origins of the Holstein Gottrop, this marriage looks like a misalliance for the Dolgourokovallo.

The question of dual governance, with one descending directly from the Romanovs, is once again raised. Indeed, if Alexander III were a genuine Romanov, his marriage to Ekaterina Mikhailovna Dolgorukova would have allow reconstituted a genuine Russian royal dynasty. Their children and their children's children could be the true heirs to the Russian crown.

Whatever the case, if there are heirs of the Kingdom of Russia, they can in no way descend from the Holstein Gottrop, nor from the line of Pierre Legrand with his second companion Marthe Hélène Skavronskaïa, known by several surnames, Veselovska, Wasilewska, Krause or Rabe, who is said to be the daughter of a certain Samuel Skavronsky (Skovorodsky)

.
If there is an authentic Romanov lineage, heir to the Russian crown, only the Synod and the Russian archives will one day be able to reveal it

.
In the light of all these facts, the Soviet revolution of 1917 appears in a different light. Indeed, by ridding Russia of the Holstein Gottrop, they did not destroy Russian royalty, but liberated their country from hostile foreign rule.

This raises a number of questions. If Louis de Bourbon, also known as Louis XV, foresaw the end of French royalty in 1762, rotten to the core by Jesuit infiltration, could a genuine Romanov family of Russian origin, Holstein Gottrop ostage, have seen no other way out than through a revolution led by Bolshevik socialists to save their country?

This could perhaps explain why the author of The Last Tsar's Secret Diary refers to a meeting between Stalin and Nicholas II. But what Nicholas II? The one in the Lahaye conventions, peace architech, precursor of UN Chart, or the one who writes a diary in Ekaterinaburg that is disconcertingly insipid given the situation in which he and his country find themselves?

This could explain why some of our informants told us about a certain Darrigade, who would be the name of Nicolas II, who would lived in Paris after the Revolution and had a daughter? When lies come in all shapes and sizes, every where, the truth is sometimes everywhere and nowhere before deploying itself in its irrevocable form.

Article 64. Betrayal of the Fatherland

"Betrayal of the fatherland, i.e. an act deliberately committed by a citizen of the USSR to the detriment of the sovereignty, territorial inviolability or security of the State and the defence capability of the USSR: defection to the enemy, espionage, communicating State or military secrets to a foreign State, fleeing abroad or refusing to return to the USSR from abroad, assisting a foreign State in carrying out hostile activities against the USSR, as well as plotting to seize power.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Государственная_измен

« To render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. To render unto God the things that are God’s. »

There is a strange link, between Russia and France, involving a Russian collector called Sergei Chtoukine, a mercenary who rose to the rank of Companion of the Liberation, Adrien Conus, and a certain Calouste Sarkis Gubelkian, a polyglot businessman, majority shareholder in the newspaper Combat, art collector and who, under the terms of a legendary agreement, granted the exploitation of « black gold » to four major companies : Anglo-Persian Oil Co, now BP, the Royal Dutch-Shell Group, Compagnie Française des Pétroles and the Near East Development Corporation, a consortium of the six major American oil companies.

Sergei Chtoukine

Without collectors of the calibre of the Botkines, Shtukins and Mozorovs, contemporary art would not have experienced its meteoric rise worldwide. Through its penetration of Russian soil, it left an indelible mark on the heart of the Slavic soul that resonates in the works of a Lentoulov, a Bourliouk, a Bohomazov or an Altman.

Surprisingly, Sergei Chtoukine's life is inextricably linked with the history of France, and more specifically with that of the Fondation Vuitton and the Resistance, even though there are many grey areas in the lives of the people associated with him that make it impossible to form a precise idea of his life after the 1917 revolution. Sergei Chtoukine is said to have descended, through his mother, Ekaterina Petrovna Botkine, from a family of tea merchants that included a large number of senior civil servants, artists and academics.

Yevgeny Botkin, personal physician to Tsar Nicholas II and son of the famous Sergei Petrovich Botkin, whose assistant Pavlov was, died with the imperial family in 1918. Another of his sons, Sergei Sergeyevich Botkin was married to Alexandra Pavlovna Tretiakova (1868-1959), daughter of the patron Pavel Tretiakov, founder of the eponymous gallery. Like the Botkin and Shtukin families, Tretyakov, along with his brother Sergei, ran a textile company that employed thousands of people.

The Botkin and Tretyakov families have been patrons of the arts for generations. Through contact with members of the Botkin family, the Shtukin brothers, each in their own field, became collectors who enriched and preserved Russian culture as well as foreign cultures. Wladimir and Ivan moved to France together in 1883. Wladimir died in Biarritz in 1887. His remains were repatriated to Moscow by his governess.

Ivan, for his part, moved to 91 avenue de Wagram where, every Tuesday evening, he ran a literary circle attended by Degas, Rodin, Renoir, Anton Chekhov, Dimitri Merejkovsky, Nicolas Goumilev and others - the « Shtukin Tuesdays ».

A man of many talents, a lover of Paris and Parisian life, a professor of history at the Université Nouvelle in Brussels from 1897 to 1908, and of religious history at the Russian École des Hautes Études Sociales in Paris from 1900 to 1906, Ivan was a scholar and an aesthete. Ivan and his cousin, the painter Fiodor Botkin, whose paintings S.P. Diaghilev appreciated, together introduced Sergei Chtoukine to art, introducing him to the milieu and drawing his attention to French modern art.

Alongside artists, Ivan Chtoukine welcomed Russian émigrés, tourists and political refugees, including, among the most famous, Anatole Lounatcharsky, Lenin's future People's Commissar for Public Education. Lenin and Inès Armand may also have frequented Avenue Wagram at this time.

In 1907, Ivan Chtoukine donated a large number of his books to the library of the School of Modern Oriental Languages in Paris (now INALCO). He was promoted to Chevalier de l'Ordre de la Légion d’Honneur. In 1908, Ivan committed suicide in his apartment on Avenue de Wagram, while Fyodor died in 1905 while committed to a psychiatric clinic in Le Vésinet.

Fiodor Botkine : https://www.liveinternet.ru/users/6318384/post475016011/

Sergei Chtoukine is said to have visited Paris in 1897, where he went to Durand-Durel on rue Laffitte to buy his first Monet, Lilacs in the Sun, which he brought back to Russia. He would later buy of the Gauguin and then of the Matisse. Over a ten-year period, from 1898 to 1908, Sergei Chtoukine's collection grew to include thirteen Monets, including the complete version of Déjeuner sur l'herbe, eight Cézannes, including Mardi Gras, and sixteen Tahitian Gauguins, which Sergei hung side by side in his dining room. Four Van Gogh, three Renoir, five Degas, four Maurice Denis, two Puvis de Chavannes and many other masters were to follow. He installs these works in his palace, the Trubetzkoy Palace.

In 1904, Sergei Chtoukine visited Matisse in his studio on Quai Saint-Michel. In 1909, he commissioned two large panels to decorate the staircase of his Palais. They were exhibited at the 1910 Salon d'Automne in Paris, before leaving for Moscow, where they arrived in early 1911. Sergei made several trips to Paris, visiting the Louvre and the Galerie Kahnweiler.

In autumn 1911, Sergei Shtukin invited Matisse to Moscow. The director of the Tretiakov Gallery, Ilia Ostroukhov, took the artist to museums, churches and monasteries, introducing him to the art of icons, which he rediscovered. Matisse was overwhelmed by Andrei Rublev's icons, which he said summed up his entire artistic quest.

Between 1909 and 1914, Sergeï Chtoukine bought fifty paintings by Picasso. He installed them in a small white room in the Trubetzkoy palace, which he called his « cell ».

In his private life, Sergei is said to have married Lydia Grigorievna Koreneva, whose family made their fortune in the Donbass mines in Ukraine. Together, they had four children: Ivan (1886-1975); Grigori (1887-1910), Sergueï (1888-1905), Ekaterina (1890-1977). In some publications, including Russian ones, we find them under the diminutives Katya, Vanya and Grisha. His Wikipedia entry credits him with only one child, Ivan.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergueï_Chtchoukine

In 1905, Sergei, the youngest son, disappeared. The Neva returned his body in 1906. The circumstances of his death remain unclear. Following this tragic death, Lydia Grigorievna Koreneva fell ill and died, in her turn, after a few months, in January 1907. Sergei, after losing his youngest son and then his wife to illness, had to face the suicide of his brother Ivan in Paris on January 15 in 1908, and that of his second son, Grigori, who shot himself in the head on the anniversary of his mother's death in 1910.

Sergei was left with only one son, Ivan, and a daughter, Ekaterina Sergeyevna Shtukina, who was married to Count Michel de Keller, a member of the Tsar's army but of whom there is no trace. Together, they would have six children. After the Revolution of 17, Ekaterina Chtoukine, wife of Keller, was curator of the Moscow MNZj before emigrating to France, where she lived until her death, in 1977, at Saint-Clair, in the Lavandou region between Toulon and Saint Tropez.

Chtoukine's last son, Ivan, aka Vania (https://vm.ru/society/378415-on-ne-lyubil-nachalo-yanvarya-lichnaya-zhizn-i-sudba-mecenata-sergeya-shukina), an Orientalist and professor at Beirut University, died in 1975 at the age of 89, the victim of an attack that destroyed the plane he was on, arriving from Budapest and approaching Beirut airport. He had studied at the Philological Institute of Moscow University, then History at the Sorbonne, which shows that neither Sergei nor his son Ivan had cut their ties with Russia, which had become the USSR.

t's astonishing to note that from 1908, the date of his meeting with Nadejda Afanasyevna Mirotvortseva, aka Mirotvortaeff, mother of two children, Adrien and Nathalie, born of her alleged marriage to pianist Lev Konyus, aka Lev or Léon Conus, friend of Rachmaninov, Chtoukine's life became a kind of chaotic narrative where the improbable verged on the absurd. In 1914, Nadejda Mirotvortseva is said to have divorced Lev Conus and remarried Sergei Shtukin, but divorce did not exist in Tsarist Russia at the time. Only the Synod (Religious Authority) could break up a marriage, with proceedings lasting up to twenty years and only on four grounds laid down in the Svod zakonov, the corpus of Russian laws: adultery by a spouse established with supporting evidence; impotence or sterility prior to marriage; civic degradation; absence for 5 years or 10 years for soldiers. Divorced women, who were considered "abandoned" and inferior, could not remarry. They could live with another man, but they could not marry him and therefore could not bear his name, and any children born of this union could only bear her maiden name, as they were born out of wedlock.

https://kulturologia.ru/blogs/120423/55962

/http://www.history.nsc.ru/website/history-institute/var/custom/File/4RNMK/021_Yunusova.pd

fhttps://fr.rbth.com/histoire/86366-empire-russe-divorce

It is therefore highly unlikely that Nadejda Mirotvortseva was one of the « divorced »women of Tsarist Russia, and even if she had been, she would not have been able to remarry anyone, given the status of repudiated women at the time. Her surname is also surprising, to say the least, as it means « one who creates peace » (mir = peace + tvorec = to create). It's more of a pseudonym than a surname. It is reminiscent of the Ukrainian website, Myrotvorets or Mirotvorets, launched in 2014, which publishes the details of people considered to be enemies of Ukraine.

Myrotvorets ou Mirotvorets :

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrotvorets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrotvorets

Furthermore, there is no record of musician Lev Konyus aka Léon Conus ever having been divorced. Lev Conus (1871 - 1944), son of Edouard Konstantinovich Konyus, is only credited in accessible documents with one wife, Olga Kolvaleskaya, also a musician.

From 1920 until 1934, the couple lived in France, then in 1935 they emigrated to Cinccinatti in Ohio (USA), a very strange destination for a musician's couple. Lev died there in 1944, and so did Olga later.

The couple appear to have had no children. Lev Edouardovitch Konyus aka Léon Conus had two brothers, Julius Edouardovitch, aka Yuli, aka Jules Konyus aka Conus who had two sons, Serge and Boris, husband of Tatiana, daughter of Rachmaninov, and Georges (Guéorgui) Edouardovitch Conus who had a daughter Nathalia.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Conus

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-journal-herald-19540331-sr-olga-conu/40920067/

According to Pierre Servent in his book Les 7 vies d'Adrien Conus, in 1908, the year following the death of his wife Lydia Grigorievna Koreneva and the year in which his brother Ivan committed suicide on 15 January, Sergei Chtoukine was staying in Menton with Ivan and Ekaterina, his two living children, Nadejda Mirotvortseva and his two children, Adrien and Nathalie.

We can imagine that Sergei, in organising this trip, wanted to follow in the footsteps of the famous Sergei Botkin, to whom he is related through his mother and who died of a heart attack in Menton in 1889. In those days, however, it was customary for both men and women to observe a period of mourning of at least one year before taking up with a new partner. Given his bourgeois origins and out of respect for his children and in-laws, it's very strange that Sergei should have broken this rule. Besides, he would have felt a strong love for his wife

In 1908, if this article is to be believed, Sergei Shtukin seemed more preoccupied with paintings than with women. Stranger still, Pierre Servent states on page 49 of his book : « In May 1914, after seven years of married life, the lovers took the plunge. They decided to make their relationship official and get married. » We are astonished to discover that Sergei Shtukin was seeing Nadezhda Mirotvortseva during the year in which his « much-loved » wife died, in 1907. He was therefore having an adulterous relationship with Nadezhda Mirotvortseva when his wife, who was very ill, was dying and he had lost his youngest son the previous year.

One can only wonder about Sergei Shtukin's behaviour. How could he have started a relationship with Nadejda Mirotvortseva when he was on a pilgrimage to Cairo and meditating at the Monastery of Saint Catherine of Sinai, also known as the Monastery of the Transfiguration? (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastère_Sainte-Catherine_du_Sinaï).

Either Nadejda Mirotvortseva was his mistress before 1907, when his wife was still alive, or he met her afterwards and, in terms of the conventions of the time, they could not have lived together for seven years. They had to be dating before making a formal marriage proposal to her parents. In France, as in Russia, women were under guardianship at the time. In principle, she could not make any decisions without the authorisation of her family or her husband, who in the case of Nadedja Mirotvorsteva was Lev Conus. This rule applies all the more when family assets are at stake.

Moreover, cheating on a dying woman is an offence to her in-laws and her two living children, and a reason to take custody of them away from her in order to preserve their inheritance. Under Russian law on separations, Sergei Shtukin cannot marry Nadezhda Mirotvortseva except she is not married to Lev Conus, but if she is not married to Lev Conus, who is the father of Adrien and Nathalie?

Who gave her permission to marry Sergei? What's more, Sergei Shtukin installed Nadezhda Affanassievna Mirotvorsteva in a private mansion but not in his Trubetzkoy Palace, treating her, as the bourgeois of the time did, as a mistress to be hidden away and looked after rather than as a wife.
According to Pierre Servent, in 1914, the year war was declared, Sergei Shtukin and Nadezhda Mirotvortseva went on their honeymoon to Paris and Italy.

« However, Sergei Shchukin's personal life took on happier colours. He met a piano teacher, a divorcée in her forties, Nadejda Affanassievna Mirotvorseva. Now they were travelling through Europe, Venice, Paris and the Italian lakes. »

http://quilesfrederique9.e-monsite.com/pages/dossiers-1/coll.html

Such a trip was highly unlikely, if not impossible, during this period, when from August 1914 to 1917, Russia was fighting alongside the member countries of the Triple Entente. (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russie_dans_la_Première_Guerre_mondiale).

Even in January 1914, Sergei Chtukine could not have been unaware that war was imminent and that he had military obligations to fulfil, even though he was no longer 20 years old. What's more, if his wife was pregnant - Irina was born in May 1915, the pregnancy having begun in September 1914 - he had to keep her away from Moscow to protect her. In France, during the war, the bourgeoisie sent their children to the south of the country, whereas in Russia, they sent them to Siberia, far from the front. If Sergei and Nadedja were in France or Italy in 1914, with their unborn child, the father would moved the future mother to a safe place, such as the south of France, even though he himself was returning to Russia to carry out his duties as a soldier. The question then arises, where was Irina born? Was she born in France? Was she born in Russia? Italy? somewhere in Europe?

But the Chtoukine saga does not end with the appearance of an intriguing woman... With the appearance of Nadejda Mirotvortseva, two colourful characters, with tumultuous and incredible lives, where the shadowy side dominates, Adrien Conus and Pierre Fourcaud, invite themselves into the biography of Sergei Chtoukine.

The first was born of the union of Nadedja Mirotvortseva with the musician Lev Konyus aka Léon Conus, and was therefore Sergei Shtukin's stepson; the second was the husband of his daughter Irina, born, in 1915, of his relationship with Nadedja. Irina is said to be the mother of André Delocque Fourcaud, a member of Jack Lang's cabinet, Minister of Culture, head of several museums and cultural institutions, author of detective novels and film scripts, editor of cultural magazines and President of LA COLLECTION CHTCHOUKINE ASSOCIATION.

From Shtukin the art collector to Conus the killer

Adrien Conus, whose name appears on the list of companions of the Liberation, the presumed son of pianist Lev Conus and Nadezhda Afanasyevna Mirotvortseva aka Mirotvortaieff, is a troubled character, an elusive, multi-faceted adventurer. If his storytelling is anything to go by, he is a poacher, a trafficker in human beings, arms and precious stones, a gold digger, a safari organiser, a planter, a genius mechanic and, incidentally, a resistance fighter. And if we give credence to Joseph Kessel's short story about him in his book Tous n'étaient pas des anges, published in 1963, he is a killer, as he himself confesses: « I've had enough of killing men," he says. It's all I've done for the last five years. In Africa, in France, in Germany, in the rice fields... Kill, kill, kill! »

Such confessions are reminiscent of the criminal exploits of Jean, Paul, Robert Filiol, aka Jean Filliol, aka Fifi, aka Hubert, aka Philippe, aka Deschamps, aka Palmalade, aka... the famous killer of the french organisation « Cagoule » who, on the orders of Joseph Darnand, became head of intelligence for the Limoge militia, tortured members of the Resistance and, on 9 June 1944, took part, alongside the General Staff of the Das Reich Division, in the preparation of the Oradour sur Glane massacre. Was he one of those who hanged 99 men, chosen at random, in Tulles? It's hard to say...

Filiol, who benefited from multiple protections, escaped justice. With his unfathomably perverse imagination, he is said to have designed the Dark Place La Futaie in Rueil Malmaison, where victims whose names remain unknown to this day were tied to a post and tortured. Jean Filiol and his friend Jean Bouvier, both implicated in crimes, both childhood friends of François Mitterrand, himself decorated with the Francisque and an early Pétainist, worked for the General Commissariat for Jewish Questions (CGQJ), headed by Xavier Vallat, in charge of anti-Semitic actions carried out by the French state.

There is an avenue Colonel Conus in Ombella-M'Poko, Bangui, in Central Africa, the enlargement of which was published in the JO in 1957, but there are few archives or documents concerning him. According to Kessel, who met him at Marrakech airport in 1943, he was in charge of recruitment during the war, in tandem with Commandant Bourgoin. They would told Kessel about their mission during an eight-hour flight aboard an American bomber bound for England.

It's a strange way to recruit soldiers and treat human beings. A strange way of respecting the law and honouring freedom and equality. A decaying conception of the values of the sovereign nation of France...

The life of Adrien Conus, aka Canonne, aka Cunot aka Volume, described by his biographer, Pierre Servent, as a mix of Géo Trouvetout and Mad Max, is an adventure novel, the outline of which he himself - never better served than by yourself - bequeathed to posterity when, according to Kessel, he confided in Claude André Charles Antoine Marie Hettier de Boislambert, who ,a few years later, says to the same Kessel of this epic tale : « You and I know a lot of amazing stories about the Resistance. But none like this one ».

It's true that the adventures of Adrien Conus are at least as far-fetched as those of Indiana Jones, Karl Friedrich Hieronymus, Baron Münchhausen, or Mike Giver, with the episodes being adorned with more or less truculence depending on who's telling them.

Adrien Conus was born in Moscow in 1900 and came to France in 1917, sent by his father Lev Conus with his sister Nathalie, where and with whom, we don't really know. Nor do we understand why this stable father, who arrived in France in 1920 and stayed until 1934, did not look after his legitimate offspring. According to other sources, Adrien Conus arrived in 1919 with his presumed mother, Nadejda Mirotvortseva, her sister Véra, his father-in-law Sergei Chtoukine, the latter's son Ivan, and a certain Nicolas Miasnovo, the tribe initially ending up in Nice.

From then on, in the wake of Nadejda Mirotvortseva-Conus and her son Adrien Conus, Sergei Shtukin's life plunged into a kind of narrative muddle where nothing even remotely matched reality. As « I » (presumably Conus aka... but the document is anonymous because it is not signed) so aptly put it in Conus's account of his exploits in the Vercors, entitled The tragic Captain's Mission Volume (Bulletin d'Aux Armes dated 1 October 1944, an extract of which is held by the Archives Nationales), from the first reading of the Chtoukine-Conus fable: « we already felt as if we were in the unreal ».

Conus has the gift of ubiquity. Inspired by the title of Robert Brasillac and Claude Jeantet's collaborationist weekly Hebdomadaire, whose brother Gabriel, a hoodlum, camelot du Roi and member of the Front National, was one of the godparents of Mitterrand's Francisque, and whose son Pierre, a newspaper boss, became chairman of the board of Le Monde in 2007, he is everywhere and nowhere. Yes, Conus is everywhere and nowhere.

He makes a brief appearance in some reports and then disappears off the radar. He is said to have been in Africa, London, France and the Maghreb, ignoring distance and time... He is said to have passed the BAC twice, once in Russia (in which Gymnasium? A mystery) and once in France (in Nice? At Louis le Grand? A mystery). What we can say, after reading Pierre Servent's biography of him, is that he failed a preparatory at Louis Legrand in 1920, that he graduated from the Ecole Supérieure des Travaux Publics (P 67) in 1923, that he had his student deferment extended until 1924, He was posted to the 51st regiment in Rabat (no date), where he was appointed chief sergeant in 1925, then posted as a reserve non-commissioned officer to the regiment of Senegalese riflemen in Chad.

From 1924 to 1926, he took part in the fighting in Morocco. But... At the same time, in 1920, again in Servent's book, he met Pierre Louis Bourgoin in the French colony of Oubangui-Chari, where he was headmaster of the regional school in Boassangoa (P. 72 - 7 vies...), again in the book, on another page (P 67) Conus moves to Lomé in Togo, then works (no date given) for a public works company in Gabon, gets into a fight with one of the executives of the company that employs him, sends his victim, depending on the source, to hospital or to the cemetery, slips away to Chad to escape justice, then moves to Central Africa. According to Kessel, Bourgoin and Conus spent most of their lives as men in equatorial Africa, where Conus was happy to poach.

In addition to the fact that, until proven otherwise, no being, apart from ghosts and the creations of the Office of Legends, manages to be in two places at once, and therefore no more Conus than any other, it should be remembered that the age of majority in France was 21 until 1974. So either Nadedja Mirotvortseva-Conus Chtoukine aka... is totally scatterbrained, or she is not in charge of her son Adrien's education.

As for Lev Conus, if he is indeed the Adrien father, he is not fulfilling his duties: « Each parent contributes to the maintenance and education of the children in proportion to his or her resources, those of the other parent and the needs of the child. This obligation does not cease by operation of law when parental authority or the exercise thereof is withdrawn, or when the child comes of age ». (371-2 - French Civil Code).

So who is responsible for the misdeeds of the minor Adrien Conus? A mystery!

One episode in the Dantesque and, to say the least, improbable life of Adrien Conus deserves a closer look because its revealing the role he played on the world geopolitical stage right up to his death.

Andrien Conus and the The two Eucalyptus missions in the Vercors region

Adrien Conus is said to have taken part in the Eucalyptus Mission in the Vercors. Surprisingly, in the National Archives, the report on the Eucalyptus mission is in the papers of Louis Mouchon, who the Foundation of Free France tells us was an Alpine hunter, a member of the BCRA and assigned to the Services Spéciaux (Extract from the Revue de la France Libre, no. 242, 1st quarter 1983 : https://www.france-libre.net/louis-mouchon/).

In Louis Mouchon's file, this mission is not described at the beginning of the report, report named « Rapport des événements qui conduisirent à la liquidation de la mission Eucalyptus », dated 17 October 1944, numbered Rapport 86 on some pages, of which there is an English version (same date) under the title « Interallied Mission Eucalyptus to the Vercors », although it should be described. According to Guy Giraud (few other sources), linked by several combatant associations, it was implemented by SOE.

« The Special Operations Executive (SOE) Eucalyptus mission - staff meeting in the field, 1944. The photograph shows the mission leader, Major Desmond Longe (Refraction), in the centre, and Colonel Zeller (Faisceau, Joseph), Resistance leader for south-east France, on the far left; the man with his arm outstretched, indicating a location, on the right, is Forester Boissière. It should be noted that the radio team of British Major Francis Cammaerts (Roger) supervises the various Allied missions in the South-East and liaises between Colonel Henri Zeller and the Allied headquarters. »

In the Report of events leading to the liquidation of the Eucalyptus mission (Dossier Louis Mouchon - Archives Nationales), Captain Conus (Volume - French), Captain John Vincent Houseman (Refraction - English), Sub-Lieutenant André E. Pecquet aka Paray (Bavarian), a Franco-American radio operator and member of the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) who only appeared in the combat zone during the operation in the Vercors, Lieutenant Jean-Yves Croix (Penguin - French), his deputy Bourdon (Chiffreur) and Lieutenant Pierre Saillard (Touareg or Pierre - French).

Appearing in the body of the report: Major Martin, Major Roger whose name would in fact be Francis Cammaerts (SOE Agent - French Section - Jockey Network), Captain Lemoine, Colonel Descours (Spelling Descour - Bayard, Perimeter) chief of staff, Major Vincent (Azur) who worked for the OSS in Algiers and would have died around 25 June 1944, Daniel, Azur's assistant, also an OSS officer, who sent messages to Algiers in clear text, Clément (President of the National Committee for the Liberation of Vercors), who had links with the OSS, and Colonel Joseph, who thought the Major was just a « little young man ».

There is evidence of a Resistance member called Léon Martin (Michon), a doctor of medicine, in the Vercors, but he did not return until Grenoble was liberated in September 1944, having taken refuge in the Creuse after his arrest and escape in 1943. He was not a major. Gustave Boissière, who was in charge of finding a cave to hide the radio equipment and who acted as a guide. Lieutenant Dubreuil, probably Lieutenant André Jullien dit Jullien Du Breuil (Dubreuil) and Miss X (19), his secretary, called Léa Blain (22) in Pierre Servent's book. In Les sept vies d'Adrien Conus, both are hired by Conus, Dubreuil as a cipher, Mademoiselle X - Léa Blain as his secretary. Dubreuil is shot.

Léa Blain is murdered by the Nazis in both the book and the report on the Mouchon case. The body of Mademoiselle X - Léa Blain in Pierre Servent's book, as in the report, was found on the Saint Laurent side, her legs pulled back from her back, disemboweled from top to bottom, her entrails placed around her neck. Corporal Louis Sabatiani (Cook). Léon Ricard (Cipher). Jean-Jacques, Huet's driver, Henri Coche, liaison officer sent by Major Longe. A certain Pirelli.

According to Maitron, the biographical dictionary of those executed, André Jullien aka Jullien Dubreuil aka Dubreuil was assigned by Major Tanant to the Eucalyptus interallied mission, where he served as an interpreter and liaison officer with the rank of lieutenant. He is thought to have died in action. Léa Blain, a liaison officer working under the pseudonym Louise Bouvard, was not Conus's secretary but Dubreuil's. She died in combat, shot in the head.

So who is the Mademoiselle X found with her guts around her neck, as described in the report on the Louis Mouchon case?

Be that as it may, the person who wrote the Report on the events that led to the liquidation of the Eucalyptus mission specified that he had in his possession photos of the bodies of Resistance fighters murdered by the Nazis: « Lieutenant Bouise, Lieutenant Raymond (who had accompanied M. Clément on his trip to Algiers), Lieutenant Dubreuil and an unknown member of the maquis joined Captain Jean Prevost (Goderville - Jean Prevost the well-known writer). Clément during his trip to Algiers), all five of them were killed trying to leave the Vercors in the region of the Gorges d'Engins (in the North). I have photographs of their battered bodies. »

How did these photographs come into his possession? Did he take them? The author of the report is a member of the OSS, as he himself states in the report. How is the OSS involved in this crime? Was the author of the report at the scene of the crime? If not, who gave him the photos and why?

Regarding Mademoiselle X, he says: « A report reached us in August (so after Huet's dispersal order of 23 July) that the Major, with Captain Houseman, had contacted another maquis on their way to Switzerland. According to Boussière (we assume Boissière), most of the group with whom Major Houseman had originally been had died, perhaps all of them. Miss X.. The secretary we have already mentioned was 19 years old - her body found in the Saint-Laurent area (west of the Chapel) had her legs pulled up behind her back; it was open from top to bottom, and her entrails surrounded her neck. »

Léa, Elise, Regina Blain (22//02/1922 - 01/08/1944) : https://fusilles-40-44.maitron.fr/spip.php?article236215

André, Gaston, Pierre Henry JULLIEN aka JULLIEN DU BREUIL aka Dubreuil : https://fusilles-40-44.maitron.fr/spip.php?article236064

Jean Prevost aka Merlin aka Goderville : https://fusilles-40-44.maitron.fr/spip.php?article153512

According to the report in the Louis Mouchon file, Captain Conus arrived in the Vercors on 14 July 1944 in the company of Pierre Saillard, known as Touareg (P1 in the report). He left again on 21 July to contact the "captain (?) at OISANG" (P7 in the report).

He therefore left the area three days before François Huet, military leader of the Vercors, gave the order to disperse. Conus' first name is never mentioned. The report says nothing about what he did or may have done. According to Bulletin 49 of the Pionniers du Vercors, which publishes Captain Volume's Odyssey, Conus arrived in the Vercors on 10 July 1944, coming from the Ain where he had parachuted on 2 July with the 2nd Eucalytus mission made up of Captain Modot (Pellat) and British Lieutenant Pierre (P. Sauverby).

So there would have been two Eucalyptus missions. There is no mention anywhere of an Eucalyptus 2 mission except in Le Pionnier du Vercors and, apart from Conus, none of the members of mission 2 are mentioned in the file. Furthermore, two missions are never given the same name to avoid any confusion, even if they are complementary.

From page 2, it is clear that Eucalyptus, the code name of the mission, is also the code name of one of its members : « Eucalyptus explained his mission and purpose to Lieutenant Colonel Huet ». Unless the mission itself explains who it is and what it is doing, there is bound to be an Agent Eucalyptus. Who is Agent Eucalyptus? Two majors, Martin and Roger, whose name was in fact Francis Cammaerts (SOE agent - French Section - Jockey Network), questioned the mission's authority, on the pretext, as the reporter pointed out, that the mission came from London and they from Algiers.

Even though the narrator does not sign his report, it belongs to the OSS, « Clément asked me, as I was a member of the OSS, to contact Algiers about the Azur mission ». The report states that the Azur mission had to be kept secret because « the French would not have appreciated a Frenchman secretly sending information to an American organisation ».

We learn that men from the secret Azur mission, without this mission being defined, were working in Marseille or elsewhere. Did the Azur mission have any connection with the Cote d'Azur, the region where the Cagoule, to which Darnand belonged, was active? At the bottom of page 2, an operator's name has been deleted.

Les Femmes de l’Ombre du Vercors Résistant / Guy Giraud : https://museedelaresistanceenligne.org/musee/doc/pdf/260.pdf

Association Nationale des pionniers du Vercors : https://www.vercors-resistance.fr/notices-biographiques/

From 14 July onwards, according to the report, they were bombed and cannoned without respite (P4). How were Conus and Touareg able to reach the Eucalyptus mission in such conditions? According to the narrator, the mission took refuge in a cave. Gaston Roque guided them there. The report does not say where Huet and his men are. The report says that he was transmitting from the cave on the 14th but, in the next paragraph, specifies that it was not found until the 21st by Boissière (Grotte de Briasc - Briasq plateau in the Alpes de Haute Provence).

On the 22nd, they took off and found Major Longe at his HQ. According to the report, Conus was at the Goderville HQ on 21 and 22 July, so in theory he was not with the Eucalyptus team... They left the cave, returned to it and planned to leave for Spain. The report is extremely confusing and writes much later than the mission itself (17 October 1944). The reporter says that he is liaising between the Americans and Colonel Huet, without specifying in what context or for whom.

He says that he left the Vercors between the 17th and 18th August with the mission, and was stationed in Lyon under the orders of Major Bonner and three colonels, Gowans, Davies and Bartlett, and that he met Bartlett in Lons le Saunier. « Boissière made a report, the first part of which I took to England, the second part not having been completed when I left Lyon, was to be passed on to Major Conus in Lyon. » Conus would therefore be in Lyon in August. With Alain Le Ray aka Ferval aka Rouvier, aka Bastide, head of the departmental FFI in Isère, to whom he claims to have made his report after his miraculous escape?

Alain Le Ray aka Ferval aka Rouvier, aka Bastide : https://museedelaresistanceenligne.org/media5567-Alain-Le-Ray-premier-chef-militaire-du-Vercors

At the end of the report, we see that Conus has been promoted from captain to commander in just a few weeks and that he is on a mission in Lyon. To whom? A mystery.

One thing is certain, the report says nothing about his actions in the Vercors except that he arrived there on 14 July, or 10 July in Captain Volume's Odyssey, in the company of Touareg and left on 21 July. If the report is anything to go by, the Eucalyptus mission was a fiasco, carried out by a bunch of war clueless.

What kind of resistance fighter, in the middle of a Nazi offensive, places tins of Corn Flakes (and where do they come from? We're in France in 1944.) around the camp to make it easier to find (P. 6) : « I arrived safely at Lieutenant Colonel Huet's HQ. Henri had come back saying that the commando group had moved and that despite all his efforts, he hadn't been able to find it. (Note : According to Mr Boissière, the group was always in the same place; boxes of Corn Flakes had been placed around the camp to make it easier to find). »

Here is initiative of marking must have greatly made the task of the Nazis tracking the resistance fighters a lot easier and provided unfailing support to Hervieux, who had been holding out for 56 hours against three Nazi divisions!

On reading this report, it becomes clear that questions need to be asked about the infiltration, sabotage and betrayal to which the Vercors maquisards fell victim. The responsibility of London and the OSS for the massacres committed must be examined.

We need to find out who, as Hervieux put it, "committed them to such an adventure" and who they were. We need to ask about the missions of the ghost Conus. We need to look into the sabotage actions carried out against SOE and BCRA and find out who carried them out.

The Vercors was a massacre. Suspicions of treason are still at the heart of debates in the region. There should be no statute of limitations on war crimes and crimes against humanity. All victims must obtain justice.

Furthermore, in view of the massive infiltration to which France and many other countries fell victim, it is important to determine whether those involved in sabotage continued to be so after the war.

In fact, at the end of the report, Colonel Roger told the rapporteur that London and the French were going to investigate Housman and Longe's departure for Switzerland, where they contacted another maquis, similar in their behaviour to the military mission's sales representatives, and that he thought the two men would try to blame him for their « lack of contact ».

But none of this tells us what Captain-Commandant Conus was doing in the Ain, the Vercors and Lyon, or who he was working for, or why the rapporteur had to give him the second part of his report in Lyon. As Kessel so aptly put it after meeting him and Bourgoin at Marrakech airport: «Bourgoin was to take charge of the Free French parachute battalions. A year later, he would lead them, jump into France during the Allied landings and become a legendary figure - a one-armed colonel. What Captain Conus did is less well known.»

But where the exploits of capitano-commandant Conus verge on the Homeric sublime is in the report he wrote, an extract of which is in the Louis Mouchon file (Archives Nationales), La tragique mission du Capitaine « VOLUME », published on 1 October 1944 in Aux Armes (Aux Armes - Bulletin De Liaison Des Forces Françaises De L'intérieur De La 1ère Region F. F.I.), reprinted with variants in 1963 by Joseph Kessel in his collection of short stories Not all of them were angels The Shot), then republished under the title L'Odyssée du Capitaine Volume in Le Pionnier du Vercors (Bulletin no. 49 - 1985), and finally updated in 2022, with other variants, by Pierre Servent in Les 7 vies d'Adrien Conus.

This extraordinary account, strangely look like reminiscent of the one describing the exploits of Pierre Fourcaud, his presumed brother-in-law, tale named Résumé de la Pierre Foucaud's heroic and brilliant conduct during the 1916-18 and 1939-45 wars, written by a certain Antoine Razillet, on 8 January 1996, in Paris, and deposited in the Archives Nationales.

In the Chtoukine-Fourcaud-Conus tribe, only exceptional individuals predestined for glory and honours seem to be born.

In his testimony, Conus explains that Colonel François Huet aka Hervieux was looking for an officer to carry out a liaison mission with the Oisans maquis in order to inform it of the deployment of 30,000 German troops in the Vercors and to « prepare its participation in the fight ». The colonel is not very reactive. It's hard to believe that he's not the type to apply Sun Tzu and his art of war : « He who excels in solving difficulties solves them before they arise. - He who excels in defeating his enemies triumphs before their threats materialise ».

Conus added that between the 22nd and 23rd, he was at Captain Goderville's HQ. However, on these dates, Captain Goderville was apparently no longer at his HQ.

Moreover, this is not vital information, as the battle raged between 22 and 23 July 1944. The Oisans region must therefore have been warned of the looming danger by a liaison officer before these dates. 30,000 soldiers taking up positions did not go unnoticed.

To sum up, Conus left the Eucalyptus mission, the exact nature of which and what he was supposed to do were unclear, on 21 July, at the start of the most terrible fighting, when François Huet aka Hervieux was supposed to be in the field holding his positions and Goderville, surrounded, had to take refuge in the Grotte des Fées with other Resistance fighters.

As for the leader of the Oisans maquis, he was Captain André Lespiau, aka Lanvin, perhaps the captain (?) in the report, an active officer in the Troupes coloniales. A member of the Secret Army since its inception, he was in charge of a company of Indochinese riflemen when he was asked to take charge of the Basse-Romanche sub-sector. (http://www.maquisdeloisans.fr/le-maquis/un-maquis-militaire/). He's been in the know for a long time, since he apparently sent Jail to Hervieux, according to Conus himself in his testimony

https://dissidence44d2m.forum-actif.net/t3857-topo-historique-maquis-de-l-oisans-bataille-de-vizille

https://www.vercors-resistance.fr/le-vercors-resistant/#:~:text=Avec%20plus%20de%2010%20000,du%20Vercor%2C%20encerclant%20le%20massif

On 21 July, according to the report, Conus went to the Briansc cave where the Eucalyptus mission had stored its equipment. Indicated by Corn Flaxes boxes? Who knows!

In the first paragraph of his account, Conus divests himself of some of the money he has on him and leaves in the company of the Oisans liaison officer, Léon Marie Joseph Léopold Jail aka Vigneron aka Jimmy, who completed his mission with Colonel Huet aka Hervieux on 19 July 1944. Why two men on the same liaison mission? Generally, the liaison officer travels alone to avoid being spotted by the enemy and he memorises his message so that he doesn't have any compromising papers on him.

According to Conus, on 21 July they first left the Goderville HQ, where Goderville was no longer, with « a patrol heading for the CORRENCON outposts ». After being shot at by Germans, they turned back and returned to the HQ. On 22 July, they set off again, at 2am, with two guides, Charles Campiglio and Marcel Peyronnet, and two Senegalese riflemen, according to Le Pionnier du Vercors, this time in the direction of Pas de l'Ane. Marcel Peyronnet says that he received the order, although it is not known who gave it, on 20 July : « On 20 July 1944, while at La Sambue, I received orders from my comrade Campiglio to go down to Captain Goderville's H.Q., which was on the Herbouilly estate." In his report, Conus did not give the names of the guides and did not mention any Senegalese riflemen. Where does this information come from?

If Jail is the liaison officer for the Oisans, he doesn't really need a guide, as he knows the area. But let's concede it... Arriving at the pas de l'Ane (no date), the two guides jumped on a mine, one seriously injured and the other concussed, according to Conus. In his own words, Conus was injured: « I received numerous bruises that bothered me a lot afterwards ».

However, Conus and Jail abandoned the two men and set off again in the company of Lieutenant Jean Marie Foillard, who was trying to find his group at the Pas de Balme. How did they meet up, why and where exactly? A mystery. By ten o'clock, they were in Chateau-Bernard. What were they doing in a village? The area was lock down by Germans? Conus was wounded and therefore easy to spot by a patrol. Jail, like all liaison officers, had to pass only through the mountains when on a mission.

Not surprisingly, they were arrested by a "German detachment", who handed them over to the "German police".

From then on, the versions vary according to the authors. At the roadblock, according to Servent's biography, Conus presented himself as Adrien Canonne, a surveyor born in Epinal in 1900. Having been bruised by a mine explosion, he must have had visible traces of the blast on him. His cover doesn't hold! Except in a film, and even then...

According to Servent's account and to Conus himself, Conus was carrying 180,000 francs, 200,000 francs according to Kessel, and a micro-photo of the secret radio code, but he was not a radio operator. If he was a radio liaison officer, what was he doing with a sum of money on him that could only compromise his mission? According to Servent, Conus is carrying several micro-photographs that he hides between his fingers.

« After giving us a severe beating, the police carried out a meticulous search. I had 180,000 francs on me and a microphoto of the radio code, which I fortunately managed to hide between two fingers. »

The tragic mission of Captain "VOLUME", published on 1 October 1944 in Aux Armes - (Aux Armes - Bulletin De Liaison Des Forces Françaises De L'intérieur De La 1ère Region F.F.I. - Extrait dossier Louis Mouchon- Archives Nationales

What is Conus' mission? Why were none of the safety rules observed? If Jail is the Oisans liaison officer, why doesn't he have the micro-photo and silk handkerchief with him? Never two missions in the same group. Too risky! Partitionning is the rule in communications. Moreover, to carry around such a large sum of money with a liaison officer on a mission, when you were yourself a liaison officer on a mission, was stupid and criminal for all the combatants in the field, especially as the German offensive was at its height in the region, as Hervieux's message alone, quoted in the Eucalyptus report, attests.

It is legitimate to ask whether Conus knows the safety rules of the resistance. It is legitimate to wonder whether Conus knows the rules of the army. It's legitimate to wonder whether Conus is sabotaging Jail's mission and setting Goderville up. It is legitimate to wonder who Conus is working for. If all the resistance fighters had acted in this way, the war would have been lost!

After the arrest, we plunge, as Conus himself says, into the unreal. Jail, Fouillard and Conus are « brutalised and thoroughly searched ». Conus makes this clear in his report. Meticulously. We know what this word means when we talk about the German police or the Gestapo. It is therefore impossible for the Nazis to have found the money without finding the micro-photographs and the silk scarf that every radio liaison officer carries. German searches left nothing to chance.

During a beating, Conus, in his own words, « fell to the ground and managed to bury the precious code in the gravel », a code that is multiplied in Servent's book and that he retrieves before he is taken to the place of execution, this « he » taking the form « the code was later found » without it being specified by whom or where in the Odyssée du Capitaine Volume published in Le Pionnier du Vercors in 1985 (Bulletin 49).

eThen they were put on « a coach accompanied by three people also picked up near Saint Guillaume ». So there were six of them on board. The formula is strange, to say the least. "People", used exclusively in the plural, not adjectivised, refers to an indeterminate number of people considered collectively, but here they are counted. « Three people ». Not individuals! If we refer to the Latin « gens, gentis », the word refers to caste, family, race... Why does he use the term "ramassés" and not "arrêtés"? The verb ramassé is hardly appropriate for human beings unless it is used as a synonym for rafle, based on the meaning of « to gather 

"For 6 hours, the Krauts beat us with their feet, heels, fists and walking sticks.
No doubt believing that I was the leader of this expedition, they took me aside and attacked me in a very particular way. They constantly threatened to poke my eyes out and even tried several times to execute me by throwing the iron end of a mountain cane at my face. I dodge the blows but my forehead still bears the marks of this savagery. Then they dislocate my shoulders, squeezing my elbows tightly behind my back. Between two brutal blows, they kept asking me the same question over and over again: "Are you from the ALGIERS or the LONDON A.S.? I don't answer."

Captain VOLUME's tragic mission, paru le 1er Octobre 1944 dans Aux Armes (Aux Armes - Bulletin De Liaison Des Forces Françaises De L'intérieur De La 1ère Region F.F.I. - Extrait dossier Louis Mouchon- Archives Nationales

The Nazis, like the Gestapo, did not ask those tortured whether they were from Algiers or London. They were pragmatic. Interrogations focused on identity, mission, networks, etc. Henri Rosencher, one of many Resistance fighters deported to Dachau, clearly describes these tortures and interrogations in Salt, Ash and Flame.

Henri Rosencher : https://www.judaicalgeria.com/pages/commentaires-et-temoignages-sur-henri-rosencher.html

According to Conus, after torture and interrogation, there were six of them on a coach that took them to the execution site, but in the next sentence of the report, they got off a car. Bus or car, the capitano-commandant Conus seems to have memory lapses, unless he was in a car and the executioners were in a bus... They were taken to the site of a former cement works, on the route de Saint Guillaume. Conus describes their ascent to death: « The Germans then took us up along the side of the ravine, at the bottom of which ran a stream, and we sat down in the meadow, one beside the other. The firing squad took up position 20 m from us and we remained under the guard of five men. The feldwebel came forward and shouted, the first two. It was Lieutenant FOYARD and a young man who were thus designated. Without saying a word and with supreme dignity, they advanced towards the place of execution. They knelt down and were immediately massacred from behind by seven or eight Germans armed with pistols and machine guns. »

Then it was the turn of Jail and « the second youngster ». They suffer the same fate. Finally, Conus shakes hands with a seventeen-year-old boy - impossible with two dislocated shoulders - in the Kessel version, he whispers a "watch out, good luck", more compatible with his condition; in the Servent version, the young maquisard drops his hand - which Conus cannot hold with dislocated shoulders - and does not follow suit.

From then on, Conus goes into Rambo mode. Despite his two dislocated shoulders, which he can't move, his fingers crushed with a hammer for Servent or with sticks for Kessel, his fingernails torn off on his left hand according to his « Compagnon de la Libération » card, his forehead pockmarked with bloody holes, the after-effects of the torture inflicted and the bruises from the mine explosion in the Pas de l'Ane, Conus stood up straight and ran towards the firing squad 20 metres away, a squad that executed condemned men from behind and on their knees.

Not exactly a firing squad! The Russian-German shoots but misses. The other Germans aim at him, shoot but miss. At 12 or 15... They were really not very talented, or badly trained, or not motivated... The shots came from behind and from the sides but, braving the bullets that seemed to refuse to hit him, Conus leapt into the void which, according to him, was ten metres away. After the 20 metres of the firing squad? The capitano-commandant Conus was not very clear... Then... the Angel's leap!

Where he fell, 10 metres below. Fortunately, a tree, a hazel tree in Kessel's case, set the scene - it's not certain that hazel trees grow on rock faces - braked his fall and prevented him from crashing to the ground. He lands among the corpses - since the Nazis riddled them with bullets while they were kneeling in the vicinity, they had to push them, but that's not in Conus's report - in a hail of bullets, well, it depends on the version.

He lands on the ground, picks himself up and flees, pursued by the Germans (Which way? - Raidillons along the wall - so it's not a ravine). With both his shoulders dislocated, his fingers broken, his fingernails torn off, the after-effects of torture, the holes in his forehead, Conus runs into the river (running in a mountain river is far from easy, even with wellies, especially when the arms can't be used as a balance), finds a hole in the bank, dives in, still without his arms, like a penguin perhaps, and hides under some branches. He covers himself with dead leaves, earth and mud. Not easy with dislocated shoulders, broken fingers, torn nails and several hours of torture. But in Conus, nothing seems impossible!

The Nazis explored the banks but did not discover him. He managed to leave the area by crawling between two sentries. « The men were arranged in a circle around my retreat, a few metres apart. I hear that they are going to fetch the dogs. So in the half-light of a splendid night, I decided to give it my all. I managed to pass between two sentries in the direction of the execution site, then, having climbed the bushy slope without being seen, I moved away as quickly as my strength would allow. » Reading these lines, the adventures of the heroes of the Papa Schultz series, also known as Stalag 13 (Hogan's Heroes), are bound to come to mind.

A man who has difficulty walking because he has been bruised by a mine explosion, his body devastated by several hours of torture, both shoulders dislocated, with arms that cannot be moved or hardly moved, surrounded by Germans, cannot escape from a Nazi mousetrap in this way. You only have to read one or two accounts by survivors of this kind of treatment to realise that the body is no longer able to act.

However, the superman Conus walked non-stop for several hours, finding his way without difficulty, even though he didn't know the region and needed guides to get around, and without coming across a single German, even though there were 30,000 of them deployed and the fighting was raging: « The sky is full of stars. I got my bearings and headed back south-east towards the Oisans. I reached the edge of the DRAC early the next afternoon. » Goderville, Prevost, Blain and all the others, those who were brutally murdered, were surely the unluckiest of the unlucky…

Conus's account is riddled with inconsistencies. Six men, including Jail and Foillard, were taken to the execution site with Conus at 9 p.m., but no firing squad could act at such an hour, even under a starry sky. Besides, why bother moving the prisoners, all they had to do was kill them on the spot like so many others. If the Germans have taken them to a farm to torture them, it's because it's empty. There's no reason why they shouldn't kill them on the spot and leave the bodies there.

Furthermore, when the scouts search for Jail's body on Conus' instructions, they find it among five other bodies, but Foillard is not one of them. If the two resistance fighters were executed as Conus claims, they would must been on the same site. According arrange bodies were found, it seems that they were summary executions carried out in a hurry, without it being possible to determine by whom. The dates of death do not coincide with what Conus says either, since apart from Foillard, they are later than the date on which they should have occurred.

The facts contradict Conus' report, which was written in October 1947, well after the crimes were committed. What's more, this report is not the account of a seasoned soldier who describes the facts as close as possible to reality to enable his superiors to see a situation clearly. So the question remains: what was Conus doing and where was he at the time of the executions? Is he really a soldier?

The end of his account is hardly more convincing: « An old woman met me. I was a frightening sight, my face torn by German blows and thorns, my clothes in tatters. I was immediately taken in, looked after and fed. In a small village, I met the priest. He welcomed me and took me to the DRAC. At 4pm, I was received by the FFI, who took me to the officer commanding the La Mure sector and from there to Major Bastide, to whom I reported. My mission is accomplished. » No date, no location, no name; only a timetable is given for the sake of argument, so none of the statements made can be verified.

Not a very military report! How do you find a priest when you don't know what parish he's in? As for the old woman, she meets him, that's all. At no point did Conus say that she was looking after him. The FFI didn't receive anyone in this way. The use of the verb "to receive" is strange and refers to social occasions such as « being received for dinner or tea »... Conus has no papers, no proof of his identity and the partitioning of the different formations made it difficult to identify him quickly, especially in the middle of an offensive.

The head of Grenoble Sub-Section 1, to which La Mure must have been attached, was probably Georges Bois aka Sapin. Why didn't Conus mention him in his report? As for Alain Le Ray aka Bastide, since 13 May 1944 he had been the leader of the Isère FFI and was a man to be shot. He was therefore extremely cautious. He wouldn't risk meeting a stranger, even if the stranger was called Conus and « he is known by everybody ». Finally,

Conus says he has completed his mission, but which mission : to warn Lespiau on behalf of Hervieux to prepare for battle, to carry a microfilm that we don't know when it was found and by whom, but to whom - this is not the mission he claims to have been entrusted with at the beginning of his report - or another mission that we don't know for whom it is being carried out and for what purpose?

The answer may lie in the continuation of the Conus epic novel. In April 1945, he was stationed in Germany. That same year, he created the Conus Commando aka Les Conus, which was active in Laos, Vietnam and all over Asia. Second lieutenant Zenaide aka Zina aka Xénia Maximovitch became a member. Once again a nickname, Maximovitch is not a Russian surname. So it's a false identity. She is Conus' mistress. Conus's assistants were Commandant Bechtel, aka Grand Bill (a Swiss Franco - no further details), Paul Guénon and André Blanchard. In Servent's book, they are presented as alter egos of Conus, of whom he is the undisputed leader.

In all, the commando group comprised 80 people and was reminiscent of the Popsky Private Army or PPA founded in Cairo in 1942, in agreement with Bernard Law Montgomery aka Monty, by Major Vladimir Peniakoff aka Popsky, born in Belgium of Russian parents who had studied in England, the country for which his unit was working in North Africa and probably elsewhere. Like Bourgoin, Peniakoff is an arm amputee. Like Conus, he is an engineer. He wrote his memoirs, Mon armée Privée (Gallimard - 1953).

This army did not exceed 200 men and survived by raiding enemy lines. In 1940, in command of the Lybian Arab Force Commando, of which the PPA was a kind of resurgence, Popsky's mission was to prevent communications and supplies to front-line units, and to gather intelligence.

Jail's murder was a case of transmission sabotage of the kind practised by the PPA, since he was a liaison officer... The question now is who killed him!

The PPA only took orders from Montgomery, who was NATO's Commander-in-Chief Europe until 1958. Conus, for his part, claims to have acted with the agreement of Leclerc in Pierre Servent's book. Harassment, sabotage and guerrilla warfare were the PPA's main missions, with no holds barred. In particular, the PPA mingled directly with German or enemy columns, donning uniforms similar to theirs, infiltrating rear posts and paying for its good and loyal services by pillaging, like the Conus Commando. (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popski%27s_Private_Army)

In 1945, Conus would also be in the Ruhr, in Anglo-Saxon territory, where the CIC and then the OSS, the American intelligence services, were working hand in hand with Reinhard Gehlen, aka General Gris, head of Nazi intelligence, who became head of American intelligence in Germany within the Gehlen Network, of which he was the founder and, once it had been disbanded, the first director of the BND, the intelligence service of the Federal Republic of Germany, his successor. Klaus Barbie worked for the Gehlen network and the OSS, and therefore MI6, from the end of the war.

If Conus was in the Ruhr in 1945, there is a strong chance that he was linked to the Gehlen Network and related networks. It is also highly likely that he was linked to Alliance, itself linked to the OSS, the creation of Dansey, MI6 and Z, also created by Claude Dansey (MI6) in Bern, all acting in collusion under the aegis of the City of London Corporation led by the Mountbatten Windsor brotherhood.

According to Servent, the members of the Commandos Conus, Les Conus, disguised themselves. One mission followed another, in Laos in particular, but Servent's accounts are perplexing because they describe Conus and his men as a bunch of criminals and murderers.

Adrien Conus's reputation as a thief and killer precedes or follows him. Nothing is clear about his life, not even the Chtoukine period, which is, to say the least, marred by grey areas. Indeed, just after marrying Nadedja Afanasyevna aka Mirotvortseva aka Mirotvortaieff, between 1914 and 1915, in a rather disconcerting move given that Russia's relations with Sweden were not the best, Sergei Shtukin transferred some of his money to a Swedish bank. (Pierre Servent - Les 7 vies d'Adrien Conus - Perrin 2022 - P 49)

Why such an action when the Revolution was still a long way off and Chtoukine was very involved in his country's economy? Was it a sort of ransoming, a practice in which the Conus, under Adrien's leadership, shamelessly indulged on the battlefields, according to André Larpin's testimony, which Pierre Servent did not deign to source?

This transfer of funds was followed by a trip abroad during which Irina was conceived. Admittedly, Conus was only 14 at the time, but given his more than dubious genealogy (a father who appeared to have no children, a mother whose surname was a nickname), it is legitimate to wonder about his real identity and age.

Irina was born in 1915, but her name cannot be Chtoukine, since it is highly unlikely that her mother was divorced from Lev Conus under the laws of the time in Russia.

Then came the improbable escape of Nadedja, Irina and the governess via Kiev to Weimar, a country that was Russia's enemy and unstable, while the Russians mainly fled the Bolsheviks via Odessa to France on French boats to Marseille or via Istanbul to Bulgaria, always with France as their final destination.

There is nothing in this excerpt render the historical context, Slavic behaviour or what Russia is all about.

You only have to look at Russian or foreign classics on the subject, such as Ten Days That Shook the World by journalist John Reed, Ibycus, which traces the destiny of a high-flying swindler, and The Way of Torment, by Alexei Tolstoï, The Peaceful Don, by Sholokov of or watch Sergei Michailovich Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin (https://youtu.be/048SEBstzBM?si=JUVf39sLo2OkKMUF) or Warren Beaty's Reds (https://youtu.be/7R1F9vZ8Jcw?si=briqIO7mXJ7X2nEA), to be convinced.

What's more, no father worthy of the name would make two women take such risks, including a young mother and a baby under the age of three.

In 1919, Sergei Chtukine would pick up his daughter and his young wife in Weimar, move to Switzerland, the stronghold of Z, where Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, was stationed and where Pierre Bénouville regularly stayed, then on to Nice, the stronghold of the Knights of the Sword, one of the armed wings of the Cagoule organisation. According to Christina Burrus in Russian collectors, Chtoukine would settle in Paris a few months after the revolution. She does not mention children

Sergei Chtoukine, Nadedja, Irina, Ivan Chtoukine junior, Adrien and Nathalie Conus, married with Michel Catoire, Véra, Conus' maternal aunt and Nadedja's sister, and Nicolas Miasnovo, one of Sergei's nephews, settled in Nice (Pierre Servent - Les 7 vies d'Adrien Conus - Perrin 2022 - P. 150), but where and when did Adrien Conus pass his second BAC (Fiche Compagnon de la Libération)?

Pierre Servent's anecdote that Matisse snubbed Sergei Shtukin because he stopped buying paintings from him makes no sense in terms of the relationship between Chtukine and Matisse, especially as Matisse was staying in a 4-star hotel (Hôtel Beau Rivage) at the time, before moving to Cimiez, one of Nice's most exclusive districts. So he was not short of money.

According to Christina Burrus, Sergei Chtukine lived until his death in 1936 in the large flat he had bought on rue Wilhem near the church in Auteuil, surrounded by works by Raoul Dufy, Henri Le Fauconnier and Pedro Pruna, a flat he bequeathed to the Conus-Fourcaud tribe. Not to his son Ivan or his daughter Ekaterina. This is surprising, to say the least.

« Before leaving for the Far East, Adrien went to collect his mother from her holiday home in the Puy de Dôme, as well as his aunt Véra, his half-sister Irina and Irina's son André-Marc, known as « Dick ». To bring them back to Paris, he used his famous limousine (Kessel says is a sports car) with the « Interallied Mission » logo. Chtoukine's widow was able to return to the family flat on rue Willem in the Auteuil district. She had left it in 1940 when the Germans arrived. All these years, thanks to her husband's fortune, she had been able to live with her family from one hotel to another. Shchukin's nephew, Nicolas Massiovo, kept the house throughout the war. »

Les 7 vies d’Adrien Conus - Pierre Servent - Perrin 2023

In this flat, strangely enough, "one companion of liberation replaces another". But what is a companion of liberation in a world where no law, no rule seems to be de rigueur. Adrien Conus shares his mistress Zina with her husband Victor Maximovitch, whose description in Servant's book matches that of Pierre Bénouville, who ran Marcel Dassault's business and was the man who whispered in Mitterrand's ear.

Together, they went into business. This trio is reminiscent of this of Eugène Deloncle, Jacques Corrèze, Mercédès Cahier, sister of Edith Cahier, wife of Robert Mitterrand, brother of François. Adrien sleeps with Zina in a rue Verderet flat rented by Irina, where she herself meets up with her conquests. As for her ex-husband, Pierre Fourcaud, also a companion of the Liberation, he doesn't seem to care in the least about his son André-Pierre, or his education, any more than he cares about his ex-wife.

If we refer to Servent's book, the Military Security Service has been interested in the activities of Maximovitch and Conus since the war. Zenaide aka Zina aka Xénia Maximovitch, born Aiafoussoff either, according to her, on 26 July or 5 August 1910, in Tangarog. She was said to be a nurse and to have met Adrien Conus in 1944.

Her husband Victor Maximovitch (not a Russian surname) was born in Saint Petersboourg on 9 July 1886. He lived at 36 Rue Nungesser et Coli in the 16th arrondissement of Paris, was in possession of a French passport and would be a member of Trepper's Red Orchestra, which contradicts his record of service, since he was said to have dealt with the Nazi organisation of Dr Fritz Todt, regulator of the building industry, which, it turns out, fits perfectly with Conus's profile as a public works engineer. Todt died in a plane crash shortly after meeting Hitler. Albert Speer took his place.

In 1945, Conus is said to have intervened (in what capacity? A mystery) with General Leclerc to have the management of the French Red Cross entrusted to the Maximovitchs. It would seem that in this position, Zina and Victor were guilty of some misappropriation of funds, but this is not very clear in Servent's book. It was this « indelicacy » that would earned Conus 60 days' « punishment ».

Between 1945 and 1946, Zina and Conus made several trips to Austria and Germany. Zina is said to have been involved in a diamond and gold major deal. Remember, Shtukin's diamonds and gold were transported in a doll to Weimar, via the Ukraine, by Nadedja Mirotvortseva Conus.

It is therefore legitimate to wonder whether there might not be a connection between the diamonds transported by Nadedja Afanasyevna aka Mirotvortseva aka Mirotvortaieff in 1917 or 1918 and the diamonds in Zina's care in 1945. Thieves are patient when it comes to putting back into circulation products of important theft that are too easy for the authorities to identify. Strangely enough, the Autobahn project contributed to the creation in 1926, under the Weimar Republic, of a private consortium from which the Todt organisation would emerge.

Organisation Todt : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Todt

Along with the Maximovitchs, Bruce William Courtenay Gosling came into Conus's life. He was born on 25 April 1909 in Bedford (UK) and lived in Maine et Loire. It seems that he stayed several times in Indochina with the Maximovichs at the Hôtel Continental, which appeared to be one of their headquarters. He worked for the British secret service. He was said to be the lover of a certain Rita Essayan, who, although she bore not the same name as him but that of her mother, Nevarte Esseyan, was said to be the daughter of Calouste Sarkis Gubelkian, a multilingual businessman, majority shareholder in the newspaper Combat and art collector. He is buried in Kensington, London, in the Armenian church of Saint Sarkis, which he financed.

He was educated at Saint Joseph's College in Istanbul, where he learned French, and then studied petroleum engineering at King's College London.

He was the negotiator who defined a general framework for the exploitation of the oil industry in the Middle East, validated by an agreement signed in 1928. Under what international law? Mandated by which Sovereign States? Who does he work for?

It granted the exploitation of « black gold » to four major companies : the Anglo-Persian Oil Co, now BP, the Royal Dutch-Shell Group, the Compagnie Française des Pétroles and the Near East Development Corporation, a consortium of the six major American oil companies. His nickname is Monsieur 5%. In 1922, he moved to 51 Rue d'Iéna and installed his art collection there. From 1937 to 1942, he lived in Bénerville near Deauville, then from 1942 until 1955, in Lisbon, where he died.

He is also said to have skilfully negotiated with the Soviet government, allegedly short of foreign currency, around April 1929, the purchase of certain works from the Hermitage Museum and thus part of the Shtukin collection. It would be Wladimir Illich Oulianov, aka Lenin, himself who would lead the negotiations for the sale of this Russian heritage. But the Soviets are not looking for currency. The economic effort was directed within the country, in particular with the five-year plans. Lenin also knew Chtukin and the Botkin family. Ivan Chtukine received Anatole Lounatcharsky, Lenin's future People's Commissar for Public Education, in Paris. Lenin and Ines Armand may have frequented the place. Russians also have great respect for their cultural heritage. It's not like them to part with it for a few dollars, which is economically useless given their geopolitical isolation. So why this secret deal? Ransom payment? Was the fledgling USSR being blackmailed?

Who was in charge of selecting the paintings in Russia and negotiating with Calouste Sarkis Gubelkian? A mystery! Today, the Sarkis Gubulkian collection is housed in the Galouste-Gubelkian Foundation museum in Lisbon.

Calouste Sarkis Gubelkian : https://www.indeauville.fr/gulbenkian

William-Rita-Calouste... Once again, we have a trio, two men and a woman, the same configuration as for Eugène Deloncle, Adrien Conus or Henri Déricourt, an MI6 agent under the orders of Nicolas Bodington and Karl Boemelbourg, head of the Gestapo in France, suspected of having eradicated the Prosper resistance network linked to Churchill's SOE.

Déricourt, whose birth identity is not known according to Bob Maloubier's biography of him, killed himself in a plane crash after falling out with François Mitterrand, according to rEdern Hallier, and announcing that he was writing a book entitled I know you know I know.

With Gubulkian, once again we are faced with a double surname that does not match that of the lineage, as in the case of Pierre Fourcaud, who became Delocque Fourcaud. With Gubulkian, once again, the children do not bear their father's name. Calouste Sarkis Gubelkian is said to have had a son called Nubar Sarkis and a daughter, Rita Sivarte.

None of the Gubelkian children are called Gubelkian, as in the Assange family where no one is called Assange. The same applies to the Windsor family, where no one is called Windsor, the presumed name of the lineage in place being, since the marriage of Elisabeth Bowes Lyon to Philip, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, a very German name for a British royal dynasty, or the Rotschild family, where no one is called Rotshchild but Mayer, Meyer or Bauer or in the Romanov familly where evryone call Holstein Gottrop, a very German name for a Royal Russian Dynasty.

If we look at his son's name, Calouste is called Sarkis and not Gubelkian, so his surname is his father's first name, which is Sarkis Gubelkian. In Turkey, as elsewhere, children bear their father's name. « The family name of the spouses is the husband's name » Art. 187 - Turkish Civil Code and « A child whose parents are married bears the family name; if they are not married, it bears the mother's name » Art. 321 - Turkish Civil Code. (http://jafbase.fr/docAsie/Code_civil_turc.pdf)

In France, Turkey, Russia, England and most other countries, children are born with the same surname as their father. As Gubelkian's parents were married, Calouste should be called Gubelkian and not Sarkis Gubelkian, and his son should be called Gubelkian and not Nubar Sarkis. If Sarkis is his mother's name, then he was born out of wedlock and was not recognised by his father.

This raises the question of the legitimacy of Calouste Sarkis Gubelkian's use of the Gubelkian surname, since his son should also be called Nubar Gubelkian and not Nubar Sarkis, and of the legitimacy of the person so named to manage the Gubelkian family estate.

The Chtoukine affair now appears from a new angle, one that might suggest hostage-taking combined with fraudulent appropriation of assets through extortion.

And Adrien Conus seems to practise extortion with impunity on every continent, so much so that this detail alone makes his connection, even if it is nowhere acknowledged, with a kindly music teacher called Lev Conus, author of a universal piano method, almost surreal.

We recall! Servent attests to this in his biography of the « hero » : « There were rumours of summary executions and looting during searches of villages suspected of being proviet-minh. Then the rumours became more specific: summary executions, theft of gold from pagodas, silver ingots and ivory from houses ». It’s not hard to imagine the abuses that such an ostrogoth could have committed with impunity in Africa. As Servent reveals (p. 73 ): « Africa has become their land, a place where you can spread out without being too constrained by laws, conventions and regulations. »

In short, Conus and his henchmen are plundering the wealth of Africa's sovereign countries for their own benefit and, most likely, for the benefit of sponsors, by breaking their laws and perverting their institutions, with any form of resistance being met by the murder of the recalcitrant or recalcitrants. They are the armed arms of a mafia-like and criminal colonisation that operates on the same basis as that of Joinovici and the Carlingue, in France, during the occupation and whose institutional after-effects can still be identified today.

With Adrien Conus, it is clear that the wolf has entered Sergei Shtukin's sheepfold and, beyond that, has been able to parazitize some of the political, institutional and economic machinery to appropriate the property of others, including public property in all its forms. And so as not to be confused, this "oddball" change their identity.

We remind you… In passing, it should be noted that an army officer, a general moreover, in the service, a priori, of France, is forging papers, on behalf of a mercenary whose identity, service record and function do not justify acceding to the slightest of his requests, for nationals of other countries of more than dubious morality, the whole constituting an act of treason under Art. 411-6 of the French Penal Code.

Servent, on page 331 of his book, specifies that Victor Maximovitch, Zina's husband who bears the same name and therefore benefits from the same network of false papers, would have been one of "these extraordinary Zouaves", which amounts to saying that Maximovitch exists under one or more false identities, or even that he does not exist. He's an empty shell...

Even if Servent does not source or date Buis's comments, which makes it impossible to authenticate them, they tell us a great deal about the poisonous way in which the French Army functioned, the repercussions of which are still felt today in the French and international secret services as well as in the police, where Joinovici, during the war, Joinovici set up what we might call undercover brigades, tasked with burying files or getting rid of troublemakers. Despite all the crimes he had committed, including collusion with the Nazis, he himself escaped punishment.

We remind you… Some members of the Carlingue were involved in the assassination of Medhi Ben Barka. In view of the facts, we should consider reopening all the files by creating a Cold Case brigade. Who handed Patrice Lumumba over to Moïse Tshombé to be tortured and executed? The extraordinary zouaves of a successor, an aka or an acolyte of Conus who think that the African continent belongs to them or to their sponsors? Once again, the mastermind of this crime is Allen Dulles, trained at the school for elites, the Ecole Alsacienne in Paris: « We have decided that his removal is our most important objective and that, in the present circumstances, he deserves the highest priority in our covert action ». (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba).

The thanatos cult

Stealing inheritance, usurping identity and function, seem to have become the fundamental rules of a coalition of Parakratos - from the affix para, "beside" and cratos, "power" in Greek, i.e. "power beside power" - mafiosi, some of which have been identified: the City of London Corporation in the UK, Washington DC - Virginia Corporation in the USA, which the Americans call the Deep State. The latter is managed by the City of London Corporation, the American presidents being merely governors in the service of the English Mountbatten Windsor Brotherhood and the City of London Corporation.

In addition to these two mafia parakratos, there is the Vatican, led by two popes, the Pope of Christianity and the Pope of the Jesuits, known as the Black Pope, the Jesuits being the secret service of the Papacy, Switzerland, the hub for the transit of the world's dirty money. In France, the parakratos is a structure belonging to several networks, including the famous Cagoule, which can be found in the army and police, in all institutional and associative sectors, with major branches in Paris (Système Perrety, Sudreau), in the south-west and south-east (Système Deferre, Fresh, etc.), closely linked to the Mittérandian system, itself very involved in the Vichy regime and the collaboration. During the war, these Parakratos, who took hostage the institutions of the countries they surreptitiously colonised like termites, all supported the Nazi regime and participated in its atrocities.

They now control certain states in the same way this parasites that take control of the brains of certain species and use colonized host to get what they want.

In France, inheritance-grabbing seems to have become a lawyer's sport, if the writings of Jean-Edern Hallier are anything to go by. According to him, Roland Dumas was tracking down the future widow, preferably a billionaire, he didn't care about the working poor, to descharge her of all her worries by taking up the estate of her late genius of a husband : « As soon as Roland Dumas spotted a potential widow, he hs rushed in, in the same way that undertakers, estate agents, the taxman, bailiffs and the small para-judicial professions rush in to deal with deaths or bankruptcies. The Ball of the Vultures is the Sarabande of an industry of death whose legal swarming is that of the infernal vermin. (...) He was sniffing out widows long before they became widows. He kept himself informed about the health of famous and ageing artists. It was his taste for still life. As soon as they had a dubious cold, he would sometimes telephone and send a rose. As soon as it turned into pneumonia, he would send a bouquet. The coma he sent the flowers sheaf, to waiting for the crown. As soon as the illness seemed inexorable, he became thoughtful, attentive, curious about its progress, flattering and outrageously helpful. (...) This is how he looked after the widow Picasso, the widow Ernst and the widow Giacometti, to name but a few. »

Roland Dumas

https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2007/05/10/roland-dumas-definitivement-condamne-dans-l-affaire-giacometti_908667_3224.html

https://www.liberation.fr/societe/1998/12/26/un-trou-dans-la-succession-giacometti-le-role-joue-par-dumas-dans-la-vente-d-une-statuette-reste-a-e_254365/

https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/affaire-roland-dumas-le-procureur-general-de-paris-saisit-le-batonnier-191854

https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/les-petits-arrangements-de-roland-dumas-epingles-30-09-2016-2072503_23.php#11

Of course, Hallier doesn't like Dumas, whom he accuses of having ordered his assassination, but it should be noted that the lawyer-minister was convicted by the courts in connection with the Giacometti estate and, incidentally, for a few other trifles of the same kind. As for the contract on a client's head, he seems to have resorted to it regularly, since the « suicidal » François de Grossouvre, whom history may one day eventually prove right, is said to have said: « If I am found one day with a bullet in my head, you should know that it will be Pierre Joxe or Roland Dumas. »

When states glorify mercenaries who, under the Geneva Conventions, come under criminal law and not the laws of war, when they encourage looting and summary executions, when they allow mafia-like terrorist cells to set up and persist, usurping identities and functions while granting themselves the right to apply summary justice, they allow active corruption to take place within their vital organs, which in turn engenders corruption, both active and passive, in all strata of society, the combination of the two destroying large bodies from within as surely as a widespread cancer degrades an organism and leads inexorably to its death. The voracity of Mafia terrorist cells, at every level, becomes insatiable. As Plato said in the Republic, hornets plunder the hive, and when the hive runs out of honey, they end up destroying it.

Unfortunately, when bumblebees plunder the hive, they stop at nothing and only an iron fist can stop them.

The Dulles system, to which the Conus training belongs, is a complex tangle of mafia families headed by a godfather or a small group of godfathers (the godmothers should not be excluded) of whom the extraordinary Zouaves or the Carlingue thugs are merely the henchmen, carrying out the dirty work. They pay for their good and loyal services by taking their tithe along the way with, of course, the consent of the principals who make sure they don't get too greedy.

A political question, the word political being used here in its original Latin meaning politicus, « relating to government », this government itself being, by essence, in charge of the res publica, « the public thing », and therefore of the social pact concluded between citizens and a state: How could a scoundrel of the calibre of Adrien Conus, whose birth identity and heroic exploits are open to question, be made a Companion of the Liberation and receive prestigious medals?

No sovereign state can honour as a hero someone who is guilty of theft, embezzlement, looting, poaching or summary executions, because a hero, remarkable for his bravery, self-sacrifice, sense of sacrifice and honesty, is someone who by his magnanimity and greatness of spirit honours his country selflessly, embodying its morality and uprightness.

No sovereign state can survive deception, duplicity, perversion and lies, because "the treasure of a nation is its honesty". This cardinal virtue is the sine qua non for the survival of a democracy. Lies corrupt the heart of institutions and consciences, imprisoning individuals in a constant subversive war during which the most spineless, the most devious, the most pernicious, the most amoral, without faith or law, arrogate to themselves all rights. Without mutual trust, mutual respect and free expression, no social pact can function, no treaty can be signed, no rule can be respected. A single black sheep unjustly elevated to the pinnacle and the whole edifice totters, derailed by vice.

Honour, says Alfred de Vigny, « is conscience, but an exalted conscience. It is respect for oneself and for the beauty of one's life brought to the purest elevation and to the most ardent passion ».

This is the honour that the Order of Liberation pays tribute to : the honour of the man or woman who has only one word to say, the honour of the man or woman who dies on the battlefield, the honour of the man or woman who takes every risk to save his or her country or save lives, the honour of the man or woman who dares to bring down the enemy, the honour of the man or woman who works for a noble cause, the honour of the man or woman who gives instead of taking, who devotes himself or herself to his or her fellow man, the honour of the man or woman who speaks the truth at the risk of his or her life…

No nation can or should tolerate a scoundrel being elevated to the status of hero, even if he has occasionally rendered salutary services. A hero is and must remain a authority, a rare being, a paragon to be emulated, otherwise any reward is no more than a rattle to be waved in front of capricious conceited people, « quarters of probity » awarded to dark swindlers or even ersatz merits distributed to usurpers.

It's time for the French nation, the French army, the French police, the French security agencies and the French institutions to rid themselves of their collaborationist garb, of the mafia-like groupings that have infiltrated and corrupted them from within, by purging themselves as they should have done in 1945 of false heroes, fraudsters, blackmailers, terrorists and all those who have acted for private interests contrary to those of their country.

A single Companion of the Liberation who does not live up to his title brings opprobrium on all the others, and worse, on all those who have worked with honour, probity and courage in the positions they have held. The wheat must be separated from the chaff if trust is to be reborn between the people of France and those they elect to serve Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Only truth, loyalty and justice will lead inexorably to peace and geopolitical stability.

United Kingdom, a lawless territory with interchangeable parakratos

In England, a dynastic break occurred with the advent of George I, who seized power by entering into a personal union with Anne Stuart in the year of her death, relying on the Act of Settlement of 1700, which was a violation of the Treason Act of 1351.

« Declaration of offences to be tried as treason (...) or if a man raises war against our Lord the King in his Kingdom, or adheres to the King's Enemies in his Kingdom, giving them aid and comfort in the Kingdom, or elsewhere, and is [X5probably] afflicted with an open act by [X6the People] of his condition. »

Access to the throne, in all kingdoms, is hereditary and subject to the patronymic, itself fixed by the initial fief, anchored in the territory and based on property deeds. If the monarch has no direct descendants (rule of primogeniture), his successor will be his closest relative by degree of kinship. If this rule is not respected, the family that takes the throne without war or conquest has no right to reign. A monarchy is a state governed by the rule of law and respecting customary laws. The sovereign does not act at will, nor do his subjects.

The Act of Settlement of 1700 is merely the justification, a posteriori, of a coup d'état perpetrated by a German dynasty whose noble quarters deserve to be investigated, the House of Hanover, with complicity within the Parliament of the United Kingdom against the reigning aboriginal dynasty, the Stuarts, i.e. « a violent act by one part of the public powers against the other », in short, a coup d'état, or more precisely a palace revolution.

In any monarchy, the monarch and his parliament are the guarantors of the integrity of the territory under their responsibility, as well as its inviolability, which guarantees the security of the subjects and the prosperity of the country. For this reason, no one can reign over a territory unless he or she is a native of it and part owner of it, as was the case with the Stuart dynasty in Scotland and the Tudor dynasty in Wales, but not with the House of Hanover.

In 1688 and 1700, when the Act of Settlement was passed, Parliament could not hand over power to a branch from a country other than the United Kingdom, provided it had a link with the crown, which is far from proven, without violating the Treason Act of 1351.

« And that the sole and full exercise of royal power be exercised by the said Prince of Orange in the names of the said Prince and the said Princesses during their happy life and after their death, the said royal dignity and crown of the said kingdoms and dominions shall revert to the heirs of the body of the said Princess and, failing that, to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and, failing that, to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange. The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Communes request the said Prince and the said Princess to accept the same thing accordingly. »

Déclaration de Droits 1688 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2

In 1688, after the death of James II, James Francis Edward Stuart, known as the « Knight of St George », should have been placed on the throne of the United Kingdom, not Mary or later Anne, his « half-sisters ». Both were born of a secret marriage between James II and a certain Anne Hyde (Hide = to conceal in English), the daughter of a magistrate, a marriage incompatible with the position of an heir to the crown such as James II, since all royal marriages are contracted on the basis of geopolitical interests.

With such a mismatch, James II would have been ousted from the throne by the Stuarts themselves, in favour of another heir or heiress. The son of James Stuart, known as James II and Mary Beatrice Eleanor Anne Margaret Isabella of Este, Princess of Modena, James Francis Edward Stuart was, on the death of James II, according to monarchical rules, the sole legitimate heir to the crown of England. His son Charles Edouard Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart, « The young suitor » or "Bonnie Prince Charlie", subsequently also became heir to the crown of the United Kingdom.

The Parliament of the United Kingdom, through the Bill of Rights of 1688, placed on the throne of England an illegitimate heiress born of an impossible secret marriage (Hyde hide) and then, through the Act of settlement, placed the United Kingdom under the trusteeship of a foreign state, an act of treason falling under the Trahison Act of 1351, « Declaration of offences to be tried as treason... adheres to the King's Enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere ».

The King's enemies are all those who wrongfully appropriate his kingdom, his property or usurp his office, whatever the means used to do so. In view of the facts, it is clear that only a Stuart heir has the right to reign in the United Kingdom today, and none of the members of the registered trademark Windsor (which is not a surname) is related to the Stuarts.

In fact, to this day, from a legal point of view, the United Kingdom is neither a legitimate Royalty - whether it is parliamentary or not does not change its illegality - nor a democracy. Consequently, the United Kingdom has not been a sovereign country since 1688.

All acts signed or all decisions taken by the legally undefined foreign entity which has been its guardian since that date have no legal value and can be contested by any legitimate heir, Stuart descendant, to the crown of the United Kingdom or by any head of state of a sovereign country which has signed a treaty in any area whatsoever. Sign anything with the Windsor Parakratos is akin to a fool's bargain, since a contract of any kind can only be signed by the person who has the legitimacy to do so, without any form of coercion.

For reasons of international and, as far as the UK is concerned, national security, it would be vital for an heir to the crown to quickly assert his or her right to reign, with proof of lineage, in order to re-establish the sovereignty of the United Kingdom on the world geopolitical stage. It would be up to him or her to lead the country towards a constitutional monarchy or a democracy, taking care to endow it with a Constitution, preferably in agreement with its people, a Constitution that would place its "rule of laws" under constitutional rules that would make it a homogeneous corpus respectful of fundamental rights and principles.

As the Dominions and all the countries of the Commonwealth are placed under the aforementioned non-legally defined entity known as the Parakratos City of London Corporation - Confrérie Windsor-Mounbatten, the legitimate heir to the crown of the United Kingdom will also have to accompany these countries towards sovereign autonomy. Until all these steps have been taken and legally enshrined in official texts, there can be no global geopolitical balance.

Who can contemplate compromising with countries that have no legal autonomous governance and are under the tutelage of a mafia-like parakratos with tentacular ramifications?

And who, like greedy ogres, silently appropriate everything that can satisfy their insatiable need to possess, dominate and subjugate. For example, an Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, made up of a dozen or so companies and led by the Parakratos City of London Corporation - Confrérie Windsor-Mounbatten, whose members' identities and the legitimacy of their functions have yet to be proven, is in charge of the world's food supply. The main companies in the cartel were cereal companies : Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, André and Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer. The cartel has a monopoly on the distribution of cereals (wheat, maize, oats, barley, sorghum and rye), but also controls the production of meat, dairy products, edible oils and fats, fruit and vegetables, sugar and spices.

All these commodities are the subject of stock market speculation, which is why it is legitimate to think that this cartel, steered by the Parakratos City of London Corporation - Windsor-Mounbatten Brotherhood, most probably via the Navigation Act of 1660, uses all sorts of stratagems to influence stock market prices, in particular by organising shortages. We can legitimately wonder whether the sale of all French wheat stocks by the Macron government in the midst of Operation Covid 19 is not part of a speculative plan on commodities on a global scale.

The Parakratos City of London Corporation - Confrérie Windsor-Mounbatten is also said to run the Islands Club, an informal association of "royal and princely families", whose lineage should be verified, based mainly in Europe, a kind of secret society of royalty. Is the island of Eipstein part of this VIP circuit?...

The Islands Club is said to have assets estimated at 10,000 billion dollars. It controls companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, which brings us back to Calouste Sakis Gubelkian, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc and Anglo American DeBeers.

It is said to manage the world's stocks of oil, gold, diamonds and many other raw materials. And today, after investigation, it is legitimate to wonder whether all these companies have not been the subject of wild takeovers, the initial creators being ousted in one way or another by the «termite bumblebee ».

About the Windsor Mountbatten family, aka Bowes Lyon, aka… and wrongful confinements…

One of the first problems with the Windsor Mountbatten family, aka Bowes Lyon, is that none of their surnames is one of the lineages that can claim to rule the British Empire.

Why is Elisabeth Bowes Lyon, aka Elisabeth II, aka Elisabeth Windsor, married to Philip Mountbatten, not named after her father? The paternal surname at birth determines affiliation to a royal lineage.

Why doesn't Elisabeth Bowes Lyon doesn’t bear the name of his presumed father Albert Saxe Cobourg Ghota? Only this name gives him legitimacy on the throne of England. The name of Bowes Lyon does not give him any.

Why doesn't Elisabeth Bowes Lyon bear the prestigious name of her husband who is supposed to be called Philippe of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, Russian by his grandmother, related to the family of the Romanov tsars, Prince of Battenberg by his illustrious mother Alice, just among the righteous, and pretender to the throne of Greece by his father André Philippe of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg?

Why does Philip of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg have such an insignificant name as Mountbatten when it gives him all the legitimacy to rule England?

Why do some Englishmen and women say, « Philip's a playboy who's won the jackpot? »

It is astonishing, to say the least, that the citizen known as Philip, his children and grandchildren are known only by fanciful titles and not by their birth names, since it is he who determines legitimacy on the throne.

In the Windsor-Mountbatten family, aka Bowes Lyon, aka, no one is named after a family of royal lineage or appears to be affiliated with a family of royal lineage.

Through his mother, Irène de Pfeffel of Alsatian, and therefore French, origin, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a descendant of the Braunschweig Luneburg Coburg, so, from the family of Hannover reigning in England from 1707 to Victoria! He therefore belongs to one of the families that can claim to reign over England.

About Boris Johnson

https://www.rfgenealogie.com/infos/l-etonnante-genealogie-du-maire-de-londres

https://www.alsace-genealogie.com/spip.php?article254

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-Charles_de_Wurtemberg

https://www.nettyroyal.nl/genealogy/the-royal-ancestry-of-boris-johnson-the-queens-14th-prime-minister/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeffel_family

Through his mother, Mary-Ann MacLeod of the Stuart line, President Donald Trump, himself, seems to have more legitimacy in claiming to rule the British Empire than the Bowes Lyon family.

The Bowes Lyon family seems to be accustomed to abusive kidnappings of family members affiliated to British royalty. There are traces of hidden cousins of the citizen known as Elisabeth Bowes Lyon. They are believed to have been the daughters of John Bowes Lyon, the brother of the mother of Elisabeth Bowes Lyon junior, Elisabeth Bowes Lyon senior, known as "the Queen Mother", wife of King George VI.

The mother of Nerissa and Katherine Bowes Lyon, is Fenella Hepburn Stuart Trefusis. She is said to be the daughter of Charles John Robert Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis, the 21st Baron Clinton and Jane Grey McDonnel.

Through his mother, Fenella was affiliated to a family of royal blood that could claim the throne of England. These five daughters, Patricia, « Anne Ferelith Fenella supposed wife of Anson », « Nerissa, Jane Irene, » « Diana Cinderella Mildred supposed wife of Somervell» and « Katharine or Katherine, Juliette » (See doc. above) were just as legitimate, if not more so, than their cousin Elisabeth Bowes Lyon, who does not bear her father's name, Albert of Saxe Coburg Gotha. The name Bowes Lyon is not of royal lineage.

Anne Ferelith Fenella Bowes Lyon is said to have been married to the Prince of Denmark Georges Wlademar Axel of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg.

Why is name Anne Ferelith Fenella Anson and not Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksbug?

Why is his son Patrick's name Anson and not Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg?

It is astonishing that in the Bowes Lyon family, women marry members of the nobility belonging to prestigious lineages, but it is not named after them. In those days, however, women automatically took their husbands' names. On the other hand, all children bear the name of their father, who is now sometimes referred to as their mother.

The only son of Prince Valdemar of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg of Denmark not to have achieved a morganatic union, Prince Axel of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg holds various official positions in his country. From 1920 to 1938, he was President of the Kongelig Dansk Automobil Klub, which led to his appointment as a member of the International Olympic Committee in 1932

If the marriage of Prince Axel of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg is a morganatic marriage then neither his children nor his wife could endorse his titles and privileges. His son George could therefore not be a prince.

Georges' mother came from a younger branch of the Bernadotte family, a bourgeois family from the South West of France

.
Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Marshal of the Empire, received the courtesy title of Prince of Pontecorvo, created especially for him by Napoleon I.

It is likely that the marriage is morganatic because the title of Axel of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg and Marguerite Bernadotte because the title of the latter is not inherited.

Anne Ferelith Fenella Bowes lyon, wife Aston, cannot bear the title of Princess since her husband could not bear it. Because of her morganatic marriage, her father could not pass it on to her.

Moreover, at that time, it was rare, if not impossible, to divorce in the families of the nobility. A divorced woman could not remarry without the permission of the church.

If Anne Ferelith Fenella Bowes lyon, wife Aston, does not bear the name of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, it is probably because she was never married to Georges of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg

About Bernadotte Family

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_Bernadotte

According to the Canadian Maclean, Nerrissa and Katherine Bowes Lyon lived in the family manor in Scotland until 1941, when, in the midst of the Blitzkrieg, they would have been interned in the Royal Earlswood asylum for Mental Defectives, a psychiatric hospital allegedly specializing in mental illness. Nerissa would have been 22 years old and Catherine 15 years old.

They were interned for these illnesses, knowing that at the time it was common practice to lock up anyone who did not conform to social norms in such places, especially single women accused of hysteria. Patients were treated there more by torture and electroshock than by benevolent care? The Royal Earlswood Asylum is located in Red Hill, 60 km south of London, on the road to Brighton, now next to the major European airport at Gatewick. (land registry today).

Why did the Bowes Lyon family hide and imprison these young women in solitary confinement in a psychiatric hospital?

Because, according to the testimonies, no one has ever visited them, sent them parcels or paid for their care. Even then, this was not how children with disabilities were treated in families that could afford to support and care for them at home. Charles de Gaulle had a daughter with Down's syndrome, whose existence was never hidden from him and who was cared for by him and his wife.

English citizens were shocked to learn that Nerissa, who died in 1986, in a plastic grave in the local cemetery, was identified by a simple number as a pauper. The Bowes Lyon family, aka Mountbatten Windsor, aka… has erased a descendant of the authentic British Royal Family from the collective memory of the English, Irish and Scottish peoples, erasing part of their prestigious history.

The Bowes Lyon family, aka Mountbatten Windsor, aka… also had Harriet's three daughters, Fenella's sister « Edonia Elizabeth », « Rosemary Jean», and « Etheldreda Flavia », known as their presumed father Fane, incarcerated in solitary confinement in an institution.

It would appear that the Bowes Lyon family, aka Mountbatten Windsor, aka... has made sure that all traces of possible heirs to the British crown have disappeared. In fact, there are no photographs or documents concerning these authentic descendants of royal families. In the United Kingdom, it would seem that only the Bowes Lyon aka Montbatten Windsor family, who bear no royal lineage, are the only ones to represent British royalty in the press.

Once again, it is, belatedly (Queen's Hidden Cousins of Channel 4./2011), through the press that we learn of the existence of the two sisters interned and abandoned in a psychiatric institution. A nurse testifies to the Bowes Lyon family's abandonment of these young women, the mistreatment they suffer and the destitution in which they find themselves while their mother's royal lineage. Nothing is said about the illnesses the Bowes Lyon family claimed they were suffering from.

At the time, people who did not conform to social norms were willingly locked up in such places, especially single women accused of hysteria or cumbersome heirs. The presumed father of the two young girls is said to have died in 1930. It was their mother, Fenella, who would have had them in her care and declared them dead when they were placed in a psychiatric hospital. This scenario, fabricated from scratch by storytellers, was not a laughing matter, since Fenella was in charge of five girls. What happened to the other three?

We ask the judicial institutions of sovereign countries to investigate who and why the daughters of Fenella Hepburn Stuart Treffusis and his sister were committed to a psychiatric hospital.

We request the judicial institutions of sovereign countries to open an investigation to determine the birth names of the daughters of Fenella Hepburn Stuart Treffusis and her sister.

About Queen's Hidden Cousins

https://trakt.tv/shows/channel-4-uk-documentaries/seasons/2011/episodes/27

Channel 4 (UK) Documentaries - The Queen's Hidden Cousins - TheTVDB.com

The Queen's Hidden Cousins, Channel 4, review (telegraph.co.uk)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-08-mn-235-story.html

https://pressfrom.info/us/news/entertainment/-597917-queen-elizabeth-ii-deported-to-psychiatry-there-are-more-cases.html

https://libcom.org/blog/royal-family-revolting-cruelty-13112011

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon

https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/tv-movies/a34576867/queen-elizabeth-hidden-cousins-nerissa-katherine-bowes-lyon/

https://apnews.com/article/5b09608308afd26817f13690347fea13

https://www.bunte.de/royals/britisches-koenigshaus/queen-elizabeth-ii-die-psychiatrie-abgeschoben-es-gibt-noch-mehr-faelle.html

It was in Red Hill that Ann "Hamilton Byrne", guru of the Family Cult, owned real estate. Ann Hamilton Byrne is said to have been protected by the Australian, and therefore British, secret services.

Since Australia is still a colony, it is a dominion dependent on the English Crown and has no foreign policy of its own. It is therefore ruled by the Windsor Mountbatten family, aka Bowes Lyon, aka ...

In Australia, the Cult family sect was run by doctors and linked to hospitals. A legitimate question then arises with regard to the Royal Earlswood Asylum for Mental Defectives. Is this royal property not, in fact, one of the properties of Ann Hamilton Byrne, guru of the Family Cult?

There are testimonies that the children of the sacte had several passports under different surnames and that they were sent to undergo torture and MKultra-style "training" in England at the sect's properties. They could not travel without the agreement of the British authorities, and therefore without the knowledge and cover of the royal system Hamilton Byrne fled to England and the United States to evade prosecution when the cult's Australian Lebensborn was dismantled in 1987.

Does she live in Redhill? Sarah Hamilton, one of the girls she recognised, who died from the last of her suicide attempts in 2016 at the age of 46, is the one who mentions the Red Hill property in her book. (See Complaint 1 and excerpt from the book).

The citizen known as Julian Paul Assange was allegedly raised in this cult by his pseudo stepfather, Leif or Lev Meynel aka Leif or Lev Hamilton and his (pseudo) mother, Christine Ann Hawkins, aka Christine Ann Assange. The citizen known as Julian Paul Assange mentions the cult in Mark Davies' film "the Whilsteblower" (2010) and in Jan Vellman's film, released in 2012 but obviously shot in 2009 or 2010.



Secrets with Julian Assange (janwellmann.com) : https://www.janwellmann.com/secrets-with-julian-assange/

Alice Montagu Douglas Scott and her sons known as Prince William and prince Richard Montagu Douglas Scott, aka duc of Gloucester

Alice Montagu Douglas Scott cannot bear the title of Princess since she is the daughter of the Duke and wife of the Duke.

Through her paternal and maternal ancestors, she comes from a line of dukes. Only those whose lineage carries the title of Princess may bear the title of Princess. On the other hand, his marriage to Henry of Gloucester, who has no birth name and is known only by a fanciful title, is a very strange misalignment in the eyes of his ancestors.

Alice Montagu Douglas Scott's two sons are elevated to the rank of princes, but according to their maternal and paternal origins, they cannot be. They do not belong to a royal line. We recall that titles are hereditary and cannot be passed on. They would have to be the son of a king or at the very least the son of a prince to have the title of prince.

Courtesy titles can be tolerated when the citizens who bear them are not involved in the management of territories they claim to own. Indeed, it is membership in a royal lineage that gives the right to claim ownership of a territory. This title is hereditary in monarchies.

Alice Montagu Douglas Scott is said to be a descendant of Charles Stuart, known as Charles II, through her paternal branch.

If this is the case, she would also be a descendant of King Henry of Bourbon, known as Henry IV or Henry of Navarre, since Charles II is Stuart on his father's side and a grandson of Henry of Bourbon on his mother's side, Henriette Marie of Bourbon.

« She was a descendant, in an unbroken male line, of Charles II through his eldest but illegitimate son, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, himself a major political figure during the years leading up to the Glorious Revolution. As she was born on Christmas Day, she was given the middle name of Christabel.[3] »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Alice,_Duchess_of_Gloucester

If this is the case, it is highly unlikely that the family of Alice Montagut Douglas Scott would have consented to a marriage with the citizen known as Henry of Gloucester whose birth name is unknown.

Once again, we remind you that a title is not a birth name and that Windsor is not a birth name either. Windsor is at most akin to a trademarked name. It is surprising that members of the descendant lines of the reigning lines have been relegated to second rank in favour of a Bowes Lyon family who have no legitimacy to hold the crown of England.

None of the descendants of George I er or George II are also heirs to this crown since George Ier would have usurped his wife's position.

Accordingly, we request the judicial institutions of the sovereign countries to initiate an investigation to determine the birth name of Henry of Gloucester and the birth names of his alleged sons William and Richard.

Once again, we call on the judiciary of sovereign countries to investigate who is the true heir to the British crown and its territories.

About Margareth Montagu Douglas Scott (Born Bridgeman)

https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp63544/margaret-alice-montagu-douglas-scott-nee-bridgeman-duchess-of-buccleuch

About Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas Scott

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Montagu-Douglas-Scott

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Montagu-Douglas-Scott

http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/archives-mariage-du-duc-de-gloucester-et-de-lady-alice-montagu-douglas-scott-en-1935/

https://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/alice-montagu-douglas-scott?family=editorial&phrase=alice%20montagu%20douglas%20scott&sort=best

https://geneee.org/alice/montagu+douglas+scott?lang=fr

https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/350506783473770740/

https://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/alice-montagu-douglas-scott?family=editorial&phrase=alice%20montagu%20douglas%20scott&sort=best

About the citizen known as Prince Richard, aka Richard of Gloucester, aka… (No birthday name)

https://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/richard-of-gloucester?family=editorial&phrase=Richard%20of%20Gloucester&sort=best

https://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/alice-montagu-douglas-scott?family=editorial&phrase=alice%20montagu%20douglas%20scott&sort=best

https://www.gettyimages.fr/search/more-like-this/456145924?assettype=image&family=editorial&phrase=Richard%20of%20Gloucester

About Stuart and Bourbon lineage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Maria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Scott,_1st_Duke_of_Monmouth

About the citizen known as Prince William, aka William of Gloucester, aka…

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/search/more-like-this/78988852?assettype=image&family=editorial&phrase=prince%20william%20of%20gloucester#license

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193349/How-Queen-sabotaged-passionate-affair-cousin-Zsuzsi-Starkloff-tells-story-Prince-William-Gloucester-fell-scandalised-royals-process.html

https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/405957353902769780/

The Hanovre kingdom and Victoria imposture

Legitimacy of George I and George II

The first of the problems that George II might want to hide is that of personal union which concerns the Duchy of Hanover. A personal union is generally not hereditary. It must be renegotiated upon the death of one of its signatories.

The personal union that George Ier would have contracted with Anne Stuart thus ended at her death. Her son George II would have had to renegotiate the agreement with the rulers of the Duchy of Hanover, which became the Kingdom of Hanover by a process that seems to have nothing legal or official.

A personal union is made between two or more states that recognise the same head of state, usually a monarch. This is the case in Commonwealth countries that depend on the British Crown. There is then a governor in each province.

This governor is at the orders of the monarchy on which he depends. With regard to the Kingdom of Hanover, which is a geo-politically, legally and economically ill-defined entity, it is necessary to determine which monarch of the Kingdom of England, Scotland and Ireland has entered into Personal Union with the Duchy of Brunswick-Luneburg or with the Brunswick-Calenberg lineage. Generally, a duchy does not have the vocation to take the governance of a kingdom, especially a kingdom as powerful as that of England, Scotland and Ireland.

The personal union is signed in 1714, the year of Queen Anne Stuart's death. This personal union was not possible because neither Anne nor Mary Stuart were the legitimate daughters of James Suart known as James II. For politics reasons, no king marries in secret a woman who is not of his standing, which is what Mary Hyde was.

It is she who signs this personal union? From a monarchical point of view, it is a highly improbable act.

Heir of kingdom was Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart, also called the Bonnie Prince, the young pretender or the young chevalier, is the direct heir to the crown of England. Moreover, he will also try to recover the crown.

In view of the historical elements in our possession, it is legitimate to doubt the authenticity of the personal union that George Ier took advantage of to appropriate the crown of England that belonged to Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart.

« George's marriage to Sophie-Dorothée was dissolved, not for reasons of adultery but on the basis that Sophie-Dorothée had abandoned her husband. With the support of her father, George had Sophie-Dorothée imprisoned in her hometown of Celle at Ahlden Castle, where she remained until her death in 1726. She was refused visits from her children and her father, and she was not allowed to remarry or even to walk alone outside the castle. Nevertheless, she was granted an income, land and servants,13 and a crew that she could lead outside the castle, albeit only under supervision. »

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ier_(roi_de_Grande-Bretagne)

Indeed, none of the shares of George Ier and his descendants who acceded to the throne can have any legal value since they are the work of a usurper acting abusively in the name of the true owners of the British Empire.

From a geo-political point of view, this question is central because it raises the legitimacy of the United Kingdom as a sovereign country as well as that of the dominions and former colonies.

We therefore call on the judicial bodies of sovereign countries to investigate who holds power in the UK and whether this governmental structure is consistent with international law and fundamental human rights.

Until this major legal problem is resolved, no country under the rule of the Crown of England, which is in the hands of the Windsor Brotherhood, can be recognised as a sovereign country, subject to international law.

In Complaint 1, we demonstrated that the United States was not a sovereign state since it was still under the control of the Crown of England through the City of London and the Navigation Act of 1660. Since, in view of the facts described above, the United States of America cannot become a sovereign state until it has legally obtained its independence after negotiation with the monarch of the British Empire. The legalization of this independence can only be validated by the authentic sovereign of the British Empire, not by impostors who usurp its functions and illegally appropriate its property.

Moreover, directly or indirectly, many sovereign countries have been deceived and cheated by this false monarchy.

We request the judicial authorities of the different countries to open an investigation to determine the legal nature of the Duchy of Hanover, which is on German territory. If it is a territory belonging to the Mountbatten-Windsor family, aka Bowes Lyon, aka..., it is not a subject of international law.

What is the law of a sovereign country? To the city of London, via the Navigation act of 1660? To the German government? 

With whom did Victoria renegotiate the Personal Union between the Kingdom of Hanover and the Kingdom of England, Scotland and Ireland?

We request the judicial authorities of the different countries to open an inquiry to determine the legal nature of the Kingdom of Hanover and whether it is indeed attached to the Crown of England, Scotland and Ireland by a Personal Union signed in 1714 between Anne Stuart and George Brunswick-Calenberg, aka George 1er.

Therefore, we ask the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to kindly open an inquiry to determine who is the authentic sovereign by lineage and birth name of the Crown of England, Scotland and Ireland, to restore him or her to office in order to give the British Empire a legal status that will allow the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, the Dominions and all its possessions to enjoy legal status as well.

After investigation, it appears that the royal dynasty that ruled the United Kingdom after the death of George II seems to have no legitimacy and seems to have imposed and maintained itself in power by a succession of usurpation of identities and functions. The first identifiable impostor seems to be Frederick, Prince of Wales. He only bears the name of the Brunswick-Calenberg lineage.

Brunswick-Calenberg and the kingdom of Hanover were able to impose themselves on the throne of the United Kingdom to the detriment of the descendants of the Stuart, Tudor and Romanov (authentic descendants of Michel Fiodorovitch Romanov aka Michel 1er - Михаи́л Фёдорович Рома́нов).

In Complaint 1, we showed that the Kingdom of Hanover was an artificial entity whose legal nature, poorly defined, was the door open to all malpractice both on the legal point, and on the geo-political and economic point.

We asked the judicial authorities of the sovereign states to open an investigation to determine whether the Kingdom of Hanover was not at the same time a tax haven and an area of non-legal law. In view of the new facts discovered, we reiterate our request for an investigation.

The United Kingdom, as we have shown above, has itself been a lawless territory without legitimate governance since

The United Kingdom, as we have shown above, has itself been a lawless territory without legitimate governance since the overthrow of James Stuart, known as James II, followed by a coup d'état.

The United Kingdom does not have a Constitution. It is not a constitutional monarchy. The Constitution is the "fundamental law or body of fundamental principles and laws which define the essential rights of the citizens of a state, determine its form of government and regulate the functions and operation of the public authorities".

With no Constitution, the UK has no defined government and those who run the country are not subject to any regulatory laws. Without a Constitution, a country has no legal, political or institutional framework.

Anyone can direct and apply any law. It's a lawless territory that can never be a reliable interlocutor in international negotiations or when signing treaties.

The United Kingdom is not ruled by a legitimate monarchy that derives its power from God.

All legitimate monarchies derive their power from God, which means that they place themselves under religious authority and govern according to religion. In the West, royal divine right comes under the Roman Apostolic Church (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) and royal governance has as its "constitution" the teachings of Christ.

In a parliamentary monarchy, such as the one in France until 1789 or the one in the United Kingdom, parliament only has legitimacy if the royalty is itself legitimate. To be legitimate, this royalty must respect the rules for accession to the throne: be of dynastic lineage giving the right to reign (Patronym and fiefdom), primogeniture in male descent, be crowned by the church to receive the powers that will legitimise the throne.

In a parliamentary monarchy, such as the one in France until 1789 or the one in the United Kingdom until James Stuart, aka James II, parliament only has legitimacy if the royalty is itself legitimate. To be legitimate, this royalty must respect the rules for accession to the throne: be of dynastic lineage giving the right to reign (Patronym and fiefdom), primogeniture in male descent, be crowned by the church to receive the powers that will legitimise the right to manage the state.

In France, God's power was transmitted to the king by anointing with oils containing the blood of Christ brought back from the Holy Land by the Knights Templar. Through this oil, including blood Christ, God conferred his powers. In exchange, in front of God, he undertook to respect and apply the teachings of Christ. It was a pact between God and the king. But to make a pact with God, you have to be authorized to do so, and to be authorized to do so you have to belong to a lineage that allows it, the transmission of power depending on the family name, the fiefdom and the seniority of the lineage in the territory.  All members of the nobility must be able to prove their lineage and possessions by means of original deeds authenticated by the king. Evidence of this practice can be found in feudal laws and knights' oaths.

The self-styled royal rulers of the United Kingdom do not appear to belong to any royal lineage or to any lineage of the territorial nobility of the United Kingdom. The so-called Windsors who claim legitimacy on the UK throne have fancy, pseudonymous titles that have no noble legitimacy whatsoever. The surname Mountbatten appears to be a pseudonym. Windsor is a registered trademark.

In fact, the United Kingdom is not royalty. The United Kingdom is not parliamentary royalty, since the rouyauté is false. Nor is it a democracy or a constitutional monarchy. From a legal point of view, the UK has no government, and therefore no state. It is a territory of lawlessness of unknown legal form.

The Assange affair demonstrates that the Parakratos that runs UK respects no law, neither the laws of the United Kingdom, nor international laws, nor treaties signed with sovereign states, nor the UN Charter, nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a territory of lawlessness, where every legal or administrative decision is arbitrary, and none act is never in accordance with any written law or unwritten moral law.

The United Kingdom's territory of lawlessness is a threat to the international community and a threat to its people, who are not protected by the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a state under legitimate governance.

To get out of this deleterious situation quickly, it would be imperative for a genuine heir to the UK throne to be identified and proven, so that a genuine monarchy is in power in the UK. He or she would then have the legitimacy to form a new government, and from there, either move towards a constitutional monarchy, or towards a constitutional democracy.

The constitution is the only text that guarantees the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights and the continuity of our mode of governance.

We call on the governments and judicial authorities of sovereign countries that respect the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to help the United Kingdom regain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and legitimate governance, so that it can resume its place on the UN Security Council, from which it must be provisionally excluded since only a sovereign state can sit on it.

As long as the United Kingdom has no legitimate governance, it cannot be considered a reliable state by other states. As long as the UK does not have legal governance, it will not be able to negotiate internationally and sign treaties, because to sign treaties or contracts of any kind, you need to have the legitimacy to do so. Without governance, it is not "entitled to"

The United Kingdom has been under the control of the Kingdom of Hanover since Geroge 1st.

In Complaint 1, we showed that the Kingdom of Hanover was an artificial entity whose legal nature, poorly defined, was the door open to all malpractice both on the legal point, and on the geo-political and economic point.

We asked the judicial authorities of the sovereign states to open an investigation to determine whether the Kingdom of Hanover was not at the same time a tax haven and an area of non-legal law. In view of the new facts discovered, we reiterate our request for an investigation.

Nothing in the existence of Frederick of Wales, father of King George III, seems to link him to his father. He is not named after the Brunswick-Calenberg lineage. He would have lived until the age of 14, separated from his parents, which is historically impossible. A first born in a reigning family is a precious child, called to reign. He is under the protection of the royal administration and is involved very early on in the conduct of state affairs by his sovereign father. No king worthy of the name leaves his firstborn child alone. He makes sure that he receives an education in accordance with the functions that may come to him in the future.

We note a first illegality in the transmission of the patrimony as early as George II, who was not empowered to settle the succession alone. It is legitimate to wonder what George II wanted to hide by stealing this will. His avarice alone does not explain this illegal behaviour.

It is surprising to note that as soon as the Windsor Mountbatten, Bowes lyon and Cie Brotherhood, was installed on the throne of England, it began with usurpation of office, the sequestration of a queen in secret and the violation of laws. Although Parliament emphasized the seriousness of these facts, it did not oppose them.

Are some of their members already accomplices of the Windsor brotherhood? Are they members of the mighty merchant brotherhood of the City of London? Did they conspire with George Ier to make this usurpation of office possible?

Be that as it may, the Windsor Brotherhood gained and maintained itself on the throne of England by a swindle, the implementation of a false justice, via the Navigation Act of 1660 and the sequestration in secret of part of the authentic heirs of the crown of England.

From George Ier to Charles of Wales, one word seems to sum up perfectly the way in which they proceed to dispossess a victim of his property, his titles, his function or to infiltrate an institution they wish to take control of, it is the noun substitution. As far as the crown of England is concerned, they always seem to have operated according to the same stratagem, reminiscent of the way cuckoos take over someone else's nest. They seem to have proceeded by mixing legitimate heirs and false heirs within families where one of the members ensures, in a consensual way or not, it remains to be determined, the link with an authentic lineage being able to claim the throne.

The process is flagrant as far as Elisabeth Bowes Lyon is concerned, whose husband, Philippe of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, is the only one who can claim to reign over the British Empire. Indeed, he alone bears the name of a lineage which can claim the throne of England. Why is he given the title of prince consort when it is legitimate that he claims the title of king?

In the case of Philip of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, we find a secret psychiatric incarceration of his mother, Princess Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt, who became the wife of the King of Greece, André of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. We deliberately decide in this complaint not to link Princess Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt to the father attributed to her by the story-telling Windsor brotherhood because Battenberg is a very dubious title and still, very dubious, and therefore cannot be the name of Louis Battenberg, Alice's alleged father.

Therefore, we ask the judicial authorities of sovereign countries to determine the birth name of Louis Battenberg, the presumed father of Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt, and if it turns out that he is not her biological father, to determine who may be.

We request the judicial authorities of sovereign countries to open an investigation to determine the birth name, given by her biological father, of Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt, wife of André of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, King of Greece
.We ask the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to find out in which psychiatric institutions and why Princess Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt was held incommunicado and why.

We ask the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to determine why Philipp of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg was entrusted to an uncle who bears neither his father's birth name nor any birth name in connection with  Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt, of whom he is supposed to be the biological brother.

We ask the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to determine the birth name of Louis Mountbatten. This is all the more important since Louis Mountbatten is involved in cases of paedocriminality.

We recall that "Battenberg" is a title and cannot be considered as a birth name. We remind you that biological brothers and sisters have the same birth name. Members of Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt's siblings from the union of their two biological parents must have an identical birth name, as must all members of the Windsor Brotherhood. This applies to all legitimate children. Generally, illegitimate children bear the name of their mother if the father has not recognised them. Any child, born out of wedlock, not recognised by its father, bears the birth name of its mother.

The process is also the same in the case of Victoria and Mary Von Teck who is the daughter of two mothers (Alice of Albany and Mary Adélaïde of Cambridge) and two fathers (Alexander of Teck and François of Wurtemberg) (see documents below). Such a gross error is impossible, even in a participatory encyclopedia, concerning a queen whose lineage is necessarily known since it is this lineage that ensures her legitimacy on the throne.

If we consider that Francis of Württemberg, one of the presumed fathers of Mary of Teak, is indeed her father, she has no legitimacy on the throne because he does not descend a priori from any of the lineages that can claim the throne of England and he comes from a morganatic union, which means that he is not the holder of the titles of the Württemberg family and that he cannot transmit them to his children. The titles of Duke of Teak and Marquis of Cambridge are fancy titles.

" Son of Louis-Frédéric of Württemberg and Henriette of Nassau-Weilbourg, he founded the second morganatic branch called the Dukes of Teak and Marquis of Cambridge. This branch died out in 1980. »

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_de_Wurtemberg_(1804-1885)

For a titulature to have value, it must be legalized by a higher authority. It is generally a king who validates it. The titles Duke of Teak and Marquis of Cambridge are therefore only pseudonyms, common names. Those who wear them do not belong to the Nobility and even less to the Royalty. In fact, the Wikipedia record gives a good account of this deception by using the verb "called". This verbal use makes it clear that they are not but are known as.

There is a branch of the Dukes Alexander of Württemberg with no connection to Mary Von Teck but belonging to a lineage that can claim the throne of England since it is affiliated to the Saxe-Coburg Saafeld and Orleans in France. The Württemberg people are also related to the Romanov, who can also claim the throne of England, but not to Mary Von Teck.

« In Coburg on 17 November 1798, she married Alexander of Württemberg. The couple settled in Russia, where Alexander, as a maternal uncle of both Emperors Alexander I and Nicholas I made a military and diplomatic career. »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Antoinette_of_Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

About Wurtemberg and Württemberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Alexander_of_Württemberg_(1804–1881)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Alexander_of_Württemberg_(1771–1833)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Antoinette_of_Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Alexander_of_Württemberg_(1804–1881)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Württemberg_(1801–1844)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_William_Frederick_Philip_of_Württemberg

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_de_Wurtemberg_(1804-1881)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_de_Wurtemberg

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frédéric-Eugène_de_Wurtemberg

https://geneee.org/alexander+friedrich+wilhelm/von+wurttemberg?lang=fr

https://www.geni.com/people/Alexander-Paul-Ludwig-Herzog-von-Württemberg/6000000001543450275

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_de_Wurtemberg_(1804-1881)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Federico_de_Wurtemberg

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Cristián_Federico_de_Wurtemberg

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_II_Eugenio_de_Wurtemberg

Once again, none of the children of Alexander Württemberg known as duk of Von Teck bear the birth name of their father, worse, none of the children seem to have a birth name.

Therefore, we kindly request the judicial authorities of sovereign countries to open an investigation to determine the birth name of Mary Von Teck.

Therefore, we request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to kindly open an investigation to determine if Mary Von Teck did not participate in the sequestration of family members who were heirs to the English crown or other crowns in order to maintain themselves and their successors on the throne of England.

It would seem that since George 1er, the secret sequestration of the authentic heirs to the crown of England has allowed the schemers of the Windsor brotherhood to reign illegally over the British Empire and, in a way, over a Germanic empire devoid of legal and geo-political structure but functioning, too, according to the rules of the Navigation Act of 1660.

We request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to open an inquiry to determine the exact limits of the British Empire and the German Empire and their international legal status.

We recall that the British Crown has no legal legitimacy since George Ier confiscated power from his wife, who was apparently the only one who had it.

The consequence of this usurpation of office is serious because all the international treaties signed since the advent of George Ier have no legality. The English, Irish and Scottish political powers therefore have no legal structure.

We kindly request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to open an inquiry to determine which branch of Wurttember or Württemberg is one of the heir branches of the British Empire.

There are not two different spellings for the patronymic of a lineage, especially of a lineage identified for several generations as belonging to the nobility.

Alexander of Cambridge, who would also be the father of Mary Von Teck, would also be the father of her other father, Francis of Wurttemberg.

According to the storytelling of the Windsor Brotherhood, Mary Von Teck is the daughter of both her father and grandfather. His presumed father would also have been his brother. Her father, brother, grandfather would have had the same children, bearing the same first names as Mary Von Teck's parents. Even in the television series The Young and the Restless, where filiations are sometimes absurd, no screenwriter dared to venture into such deliriums. Mair Von Teck is not named after either of them, and neither Cambridge nor Von Teck are birth names.

The presumed mother of Mary Von Teck or sister-in-law, or..., Alice of Albany is the daughter of Leopold Saxe-Coburg Gotha but she does not bear her father's birth name, which is surprising as it is this lineage name that links her to the families that inherited the crown of England. She usurps the title of Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany, unless she is the daughter born of a union with Archbishop Ferdinand-Maximilian-Mériadec of Rohan.

Remember that a titulature belongs to a single lineage and is extinguished when this lineage is extinguished. The title of Albany belongs to the peerage of Scotland and more particularly to the Stuarts. They can only be worn by those who own them. The title was created for Robert Stuart by his brother Robert III of Scotland. Either Alice of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, aka Alice of Albany, appropriates a title from the Stuarts, or there is a kinship between her and the Stuart lineage.

As for Victoria, she is said to be a descendant of George II through her grandfather, Frederick, whose birth name is unknown and whose title is also fanciful, and her father George III, without a birth name and whose title is also fanciful. Victoria is said to be the daughter of Marie-Louise-Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, born of a remarriage after widowhood.

Marie-Louise-Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was married in the first marriage to Charles-Frédéric-Guillaume of Leiningen and had two children named after their father. She is said to have married Edward Augustus of Great Britain, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, whose birth name has yet to be determined.

In fact, Victoria does not bear her father's name, nor her mother's name. As a result, Victoria does not bear the birth name of any royal dynasty, as her legitimacy on the throne can only come from her mother Marie-Louise-Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. As a result, Victoria does not bear the birth name of any royal dynasty. Her legitimacy on the throne can only come from her mother Marie-Louise-Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Her father has no birth name. She therefore has no legitimacy on the English throne.

We request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to open an inquiry to determine Victoria's birth name in order to determine her legitimacy on the throne of the British Empire.

We call on the judicial institutions of sovereign countries to investigate the birth names of Queen Victoria's alleged children.

We call upon the judicial authorities of sovereign countries to investigate whether under the reign of Victoria citizens were subjected to incommunicado detention and slavery.

About Victoria (No Birth Name)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(reine)

Victoria freemason lodge

http://www.irishmasonichistory.com/victoria-lodge-no-iv-past-masters-jewel-1939.htm

About George Kent (No Birth Name)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Ken

thttps://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a29362421/prince-george-bisexual/

https://rebeccastarrbrown.com/2017/08/25/the-death-of-george-duke-of-kent/comment-page-1/

https://therake.com/stories/icons/the-forgotten-prince/

https://www.biography.com/news/edward-viii-george-v-edward-viii-difficult-relationship

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1059876/Prince-Harry-Prince-George-royal-news-spt

https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/6896205654808829/

https://mailtribune.com/archive/auchincloss-sentenced-to-additional-time-in-jail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362442/Revealed-The-secret-illegitimate-brother-Queens-cousin-got-pain-knowing-real-parents.html

https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/prince-george-duke-of-kent-life/d8e85e0a-4cea-4777-958f-496c51aa3227

About Edward of Kent (No Birth Name) presumed son of George Kent (No Birth name)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Kent

https://histoiresroyales.fr/message-duc-de-kent-franc-macons-glua-arret-coronavirus/

https://histoiresroyales.fr/tag/edward-de-kent/

https://www.freemasonrytoday.com/more-news/the-masonic-family-rose-croix

https://breaksealodge.org.uk/2017/04/09/freemasonry-300-years/

https://www.alamyimages.fr/photos-images/grand-master-duke-kent.html

Edward of Kent... president of a brotherhood of the German and British states

https://www.britishgermanassociation.org/leadership-and-executive/partners/

About Michael of Kent (No Birth Name) presumed son of George Kent (No Birth Name)

https://www.salonprivemag.com/prince-michael-of-kent-the-queens-cousin/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Michael_of_Kent

About Alice Gwynne, aka Kiki Preston

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiki_Preston

https://steemit.com/history/@article61/kiki-preston-the-lady-with-the-silver-syringe

https://www.theboulevardiers.com/2018/03/27/silver-spoons-needles/

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gwynne-67

About Michael Temple Canfield, aka Antoine Karslake, presumed son of George of Kent and Alice Gwynne

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362442/Revealed-The-secret-illegitimate-brother-Queens-cousin-got-pain-knowing-real-parents.html

https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/295337688065225625/?amp_client_id=CLIENT_ID(_)&mweb_unauth_id=%7B%7Bdefault.session%7D%7D&amp_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.ph%2Famp%2Fpin%2F295337688065225625%2F&open_share=t

About James Lee Auchincloss

https://www.gala.fr/l_actu/news_de_stars/james_auchincloss_admet_des_penchants_pedophiles_208340

https://www.elle.fr/Societe/News/Le-demi-frere-de-Jackie-Kennedy-condamne-pour-pedophilie-1316095

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2010/08/james_auchincloss_--_jackie_kennedys_half-brother_--_to_plead_guilty_in_child_porn_case_da_says.html http://

About Windsor Bortherhood and Freemason

https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/british-law/in-profile-why-british-freemasonry-changed-allowing-the-mafia-monarchy-to-reign-over-us/

https://masonicfind.com/freemasonry-the-british-monarchy

https://www.freemasonrytoday.com/freemasonry-cares/masonic-charitable-foundation/nurse-royal-masonic-hospital-belt-buckle-the-queen

https://freemasonrymatters.co.uk/tag/grand-connaught-rooms/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-secret-group-freemasons-kept-6886802

https://www.pglglasgow.org.uk/index.php/about-the-province/97-king-edward-vii-a-monarch-and-a-freemason

https://www.markmasonshall.org/glmmm-history

https://steemit.com/freemasonry/@sound-and-light/freemasonry-from-the-perspective-of-king-george-vi

https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-us/whos-who/12-governance/156-pro-grand-master

https://freemasonry.network/more_news/the-royal-familys-links-to-freemasonry/

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a22341260/prince-michael-of-kent-facts/

https://stjohnslodgedc.org/famous-masons

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/freemasonry-operation-tiberius-uk-972/

https://www.therealjenty.com/2016/03/a-night-with-the-freemasons/

https://www.masonrytoday.com/index.php?new_month=8&new_day=12&new_year=2015

https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/hm-king-george-vi-18951952-192172

http://www.lodgestpatrick.co.nz/king_and_craft.phph

ttps://masonicperiodicals.org/periodicals/fmm/issues/fmm_01071797/page/7/articles/ar00700/

https://foundationlodge82.com/british%20free%20masons.html

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/royal_family_and_freemasonry.html

It would appear that the Windsor Brotherhood is a very peculiar view of the notion of family, as almost no child bears the birth name of its supposed biological parents. This is very similar to Anne Hamilton Byrn's Family Cult in which the children changed their names and had several identities.

We recall that 5 of the alleged cousins of the citizen known as Elisabeth Bowes Lyon have been interned in psychiatric hospitals close to properties belonging to the guru of the Family Cult, Anne Hamilton Byrne.

We recall that the hospitals were used by the Family Cult for experimentation of the MK Ultra type.

We recall that the psychiatrist William Sargant is one of the initiators of the MKultra programme and that he carried out experiments on the United Kingdom territory (See complaint 1)

We recall that the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange was raised in the Family Cult.

We recall that it is the Brotherhood of Windsor that holds the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange in solitary confinement since at least 10 years.

We recall that the hospital that the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange was apparently placed in isolation in a psychiatric unit on several occasions, and that at certain hearings they showed signs of a man undergoing psychiatric-type medical treatment. Why? How can the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange embarrass or harm the Windsor brotherhood, aka…?

We urge the courts of sovereign countries to investigate whether there is a connection between the Family Cult and the Windsor Brotherhood.

Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was not held against her will in Kessington Palace, since she was confined to a remote flat where she was not even visited by her presumed daughter.

We therefore request the legal authorities of sovereign countries to open an enquiry to determine Victoria's birth name and the birth name of her alleged father known as Edward Augustus of Great Britain, Duke of Kent and Strathearn.

We therefore call upon the judicial authorities of sovereign countries to initiate an investigation to determine the birth name of the man known as Edward Augustus of Great Britain, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, whom Victoire de Saxe Coburg Saalfeld married and to determine whether she legally married him.

We therefore call on the judicial authorities of sovereign countries to investigate whether Victoire de Saxe Coburg Saalfeld has not been placed in solitary confinement against her will in Kessington Palace. After all, George Ier consigned his wife to a castle in order to usurp her position as head of the English crown.

Other heirs to the crown seem to have contracted misalliances from which offspring without a birth name have emerged. Among these potential heirs contracting counter-natural marriages and that no family of royal lineage would have validated, we find Marina Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, granddaughter of William of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, known as George Ier of Greece and Olga Constinovna Romanov, daughter of Nicolas Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg, aka Markos Maris (pseudonym under which he writes plays), Nicolas Leprince (his name as a painter), and of Hélène Vladimirovna Romanov. She married George of Kent, son of Mary Von Teck, without birth name and not belonging to a royal line. George of Kent, heroin addict, has a dissolute life. He used to cross-dress as a woman and was allegedly blackmailed by a prostitute.

These turpitudes could be that of a degenerate scion at odds with his family, but the events are too systematically repeated within the Windsor brotherhood to be ignored. First, because George of Kent died in a plane crash as citizen known as Prince William, aka William of Gloucester.

Then, because one of his mistresses, Alice Gwynne, known as Kiki Preston, committed suicide by defenestration.

From his union with Alice was born an illegitimate child named Michael Temple Canfield, aka Antoine Carslake, who married in first marriage Caroline Lee Bouvier, sister of Jaqueline Kennedy.

These links bring us back to Gore Vidal, who was a friend of Margaret Bowes Lyon, younger sister of Elisabeth Bowes Lyon and, through remarriage, belonged to the same family as Jacqueline and Caroline Lee Bouvier (See Palimpsest of Gore Vidal).

These facts bring us back to the Assange case and to pedocriminality since, as we showed in complaint 1, Gore Vidal and James Lee Auchincloss, both belonging to the same lineage as Caroline and Jacqueline Lee Bouvier, are suspected of pedocriminality.

We recall that the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange was holding a book by Gore Vidal in his hand when he was taken out of the building of 3 Hans Crescent Street asking the UK to resist.

Against what did he call the English to resist: a pedocriminal network, the Windsor Brotherhood, an international sect in the hands of a distorted Masonic lodge?! We remind you that the vast majority of the members of the Windsor brotherhood are, it seems, members of Freemasonry (See pics below). Edward of Kent is a grandmaster.

Kent is not a birth name. It is a title. Windsor is not a royal surname, it is at most a registered trademark. Who are Edward and Michael of Kent?
In Complaint 1, we demonstrated that some of the states belonging to the conglomerate of the United States of America, the dominions and some other entities, some of which have yet to be identified and determined, are under the governance of the Windsor Brotherhood via the Navigation Act of 1660 and the City of London.

George III has, himself, no identifiable birth name and does not belong to any heir line to the English crown.

We therefore request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to open an investigation to determine the birth names of the ascendants and descendants of the citizen known as Federika of Greece, the birth names of the ascendants and descendants of Kings George I, George II, George III, of all their ascendants and descendants.

Federika is married to the citizen known as Paul Ier of Greece who, like the citizen known as Prince Philip, presumed husband of Elisabeth Bowes Lyon, would have Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksburg as his birth name.

We request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to open an investigation to determine the birth names of Paul Ier of Greece, Christian IX of Denmark, Sophie of Greece. We remind you that it is the birth name that legitimizes the membership to a lineage and the access to functions and properties related to this lineage.

The Victoria System and Nazism

The Windsor Mountbatten brotherhood developed many links with the Nazis. However, after the war, in order to escape justice, many Nazis illegally changed their identity. It is therefore essential to determine the birth identities of the members of the Windsor-Mountbatten brotherhood because, in view of their links with Nazi dignitaries, it is legitimate to think that some Nazi criminals may have escaped justice by using fanciful titles and by hiding within the illegitimate English royalty. We recall that none of the members of the Mountbatten Windsor Brotherhood belong to a line of succession to the English crown. We remind you that none of the members of the Montbatten Windsor brotherhood has an official birth name.

Ernst August of Hannover, the last prince of Hannover, married in 1913 the daughter of Wilhelm II, Marie Louise, who was the granddaughter of Victoria, the daughter of Victoria Hohenzollern.

By marrying he thought he would get his throne back, but Wilhelm II did not allow it, but after the Revolution of 1918 and the agreement of 1924 with the Weimar Republic, he received compensation in the form of numerous properties, castles and companies. Ernst August of Hanover is a direct descendant of George III of the United Kingdom who does not belong to a line of succession to the English crown and has no official birth name (See above) but should be called Brunswick Lunenburg or Oldenborg, or Oldenbourg.

Some of the descendants of George III bear the title of Cumberland which is a hereditary peerage. It became extinct with the Stuarts who were bearers of it and died without heirs. We ask the judiciary of the sovereign countries to investigate how a title belonging to the House of Stuart could have been transferred to another house. This is especially serious since the members of the so-called House of Hanover, which has no legitimacy on the English throne (see complaint 1 and above), have no official birth name.

This is a major geopolitical problem. Indeed, we recall that the British Empire is the full and complete possession of the legitimate heir of the British crown. This heir can be a descendant of the Tudor, the Stuart or the Romanov (Direct descendants of Michael Fedorovich Romanov), but or the Bourbon, not of Mountbatten Windsor.

We remind you that any international transaction related to the British Empire has a legal value only if it is made with the authentic sovereign of the British crown.

We recall that all international treaties with the United Kingdom have no legal value if they have been signed by usurpers in the name of a false sovereign state. Indeed, if the United Kingdom is ruled by usurpers, it does not have the status of a sovereign state subject to international law.

Once the heir to the crown has been identified and his or her birth identity has been proven, it will be necessary to determine the extent of the territories and to make an inventory of the property to which he or she is entitled and from which he or she has been robbed.

We therefore request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to open an inquiry to determine which territories belong to the British crown and are under its jurisdiction, what is the legal nature of these territories and to list the property of the Stuart, Tudor, Romanov (Direct descendants of Michael Fedorovich Romanov), Hesse Demstad, Oledenburg or Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg in order to ensure that they have not been fraudulently appropriated, notably by members of the Mountbatten Windsor brotherhood, by members of the Victoria-Von Teck system, by members of secret societies or Freemasonry, by descendants of George I or by any other usurper.

We therefore request the judicial authorities of the sovereign countries to open an inquiry to determine the legal family trees (with birth names) of the families inheriting the English crown.

About George III and his descendants

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II

Ihttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest-Auguste_Ier

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_V_de_Hanovre

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest-Auguste_de_Hanovre_(1845-1923)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest-Auguste_de_Brunswick

Charles Saxe Coburg Gotha, grandson of Victoria and friend of Hitler

https://histoiresroyales.fr/prince-charles-edouard-duc-de-saxe-cobourg-gotha-nazi-ami-hitler/

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/politische-buecher/carl-eduard-von-coburg-victorias-enkel-als-hitlers-herzog-14527565.html

https://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/sendungen/land-und-leute/carl-eduard-herzog-von-sachsen-coburg-und-gotha102.html

https://www.treasurebunker.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3251-hitlers-favourite-royal-carl-eduard-von-sachsen-coburg-gotha/

https://www.jewiki.net/wiki/Carl_Eduard_(Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha)

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Charles_Edward,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha

Diana Spencer presumed wife of Charles of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg presumed Birth Name of citizen known as Charles of Wells, aka Charles Windsor, aka…

The question about this photo is where and how was it taken?

It is of excellent definition, impossible to take by a photographer on a motorbike driving in front of the car. We recall that the car was travelling at high speed. Is this a photo taken by drone?

Such a strong light could be that of a spotlight. It's a close-up that's difficult to get even with an excellent telephoto lens, or you have to be positioned in the right place and have to repeat the gesture several times to be sure you press the shutter release at the right moment. And, above all, the shot is front and centre, just framed. This means that the photographer is facing the car as it rushes towards him. There's little chance of him not being hit by the camera. There's no way he could have taken the risk.

This shot is typical of shots made when a camera is fixed to the front of the car (see film shots below).

If not, did the person(s) who took the photo and the car driver agree to coordinate their speed? Could a camera have been attached to the bonnet of the car? A flash, or front lighting, went off, visibly dazzling driver and passenger.

A flash went off, visibly dazzling driver and passenger. What or who is watching the passenger? To take a photo like this with a telephoto lens, you have to anticipate the shot to be correctly positioned unless you know the exact route of the car and position yourself well before it passes. The frame of the photo has been deliberately narrowed so that the rest of the interior is not visible. Why is this?