Posted on 03/31/2025 6:50:09 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The court highlighted the 'central role' played by the far-right in the system set up to embezzle money from the European Parliament by using funds allocated for parliamentary assistants to pay for staff working for her party.
It was a decision eagerly awaited for Marine Le Pen's political future. The Paris Correctional Court handed down its decision on Monday, March 31, in the case of her party's fake assistant jobs at the European Parliament.
Convicted of "embezzlement of public funds" and "complicity in the embezzlement of public funds," the leader of the Rassemblement National (RN) four-year prison sentence, including two years suspended and the other two to be served at home with an electronic bracelet, a €100,000 fine, and a five-year ban on being elected to public office. Her chances of standing in the 2027 presidential election are compromised.
In its decision, the court said Le Pen had played a "central role" in a system her party used to siphon off EU parliament money. It said the decision took into account a risk of re-offending.
The prosecution accused the three-time presidential candidate of having hired four fictitious assistants when she was a member of the European Parliament (2004-2017). In reality, they were working for the Front National (FN, now the RN). The assistants, who were paid by the European Parliament, carried out tasks linked to the management of the party rather than work related to European parliamentary activity, as is normally required of such positions.
The assistants concerned include Le Pen's bodyguard and her chief of staff, Thierry Légier and Catherine Griset, who are also defendants in the case. The investigation carried out in 2014 by the European Anti-Fraud Office, an independent investigative body of the European Union, revealed that Griset "spent only 740 minutes, or around...
(Excerpt) Read more at lemonde.fr ...
Since 1789, Congress has passed over 30,000 public laws. I suspect we could convict anybody of something.
2 tier -—> N tier.
Legal Beagles are generally fraudsters, but with case law behind them to be able to continue their griftings.
Sick it is.
DJT needs to make it clear to Romania, Germany, Ireland and France that if they want any protection and relationship from America, these convicted candidates must be allowed to run in a free election. No NATO protection if they refust. And announce that to the world.
If France thinks we’re going to give them our blood or treasure if they’re attacked - they need to think again. We’re not going to give it up for a bunch of corrupt French ‘elites’...
Note that a judge, not a jury, decides guilt in France.
That's how the judge ran Alex Jone's trial. He was not allowed a jury trial. Nor was he allowed to present a defense. Because there was no evidence of any crime in the thousands of pages of discovery he had submitted, the judge declared that he was hiding evidence and found him guilty. They jury didn't get to decide guilt or innocence. The judge told them their only job was to determine how many millions or billions of dollars the judgement should be.
Jones's trial was the proof-of-concept for Trump's trial.
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
Agreed. And, if they don't comply, Trump should tell them we will withdraw from NATO.
This judgement comes from the EU - the organisation that has somehow not managed to balance its books for decades, misplaced and syphoned off countless billions.
(But it’s OK when the Left do it.)
I also note, “In its decision, the court said it ... took into account a risk of re-offending.” So not only has she been penalised for committing a non-crime, she has been penalised in case she might do it again in future - this must be a legal first?
And the frogs just sit still in their slowly heating pot as the refugees out breed them and their youth are marched off to fight the Russians.
“carried out tasks linked to the management of the party rather than work related to European parliamentary activity”
This is so ambiguous it would probably be unconstitutional in the US. How is “activity” which is “parlimentary” supposed to be distinguished from activity which is “management of the party”? Some of the party members are representatives in parliament. That’s how the Left likes to win, just make the populist candidate ineligible. This has happened in Brazil (where the convicted and jailed Lula was allowed to run but Bolsonaro has been banned because his supporters protested, although he himself did nothing to organize the protests), Romania (where the populist won an election but the election was cancelled and now he has been banned, because he was not supportive of having Romania ruled by un-elected officials from the European Parliment), Turkey, and now France. All the persecuted banned candidates are populists.
Sounds like lawfare to me.
we will withdraw from NATO.
Right after we withdraw from the UN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.