Part 2: Swiss authorities hot potato pushing in child sexual violence
Allow me to quote the Optimus Study:
Having signed and acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Switzerland is obliged to do everything in its power to protect children ... The UN has notified and criticized Switzerland several times about its shortcomings in this regard.
In this part we're going through why and how Swiss authorities violate international law, and refuse to act in light of Child Sexual Integrity Violations (CSIV).
This post builds on the previously posted (sexual) violence against children: who should act and Part 1: Who must act in CSIV according to international law ?
Cantons rules first
There are three phenomenons:
- The Swiss believe their cantonal borders are lines one can not cross. Very much in the manner of “if you cross the cantonal line you will burn in hell”.
- The Cantons believe they are not subject to international law. Their ways are right and better then anything else in the rest of the world.
- The Federal authorities are, in the name of national cohesion and collegiality, not inclined to point the finger to cantonal authorities who knowingly violate international law. Federal judges have been known to publicly admit they have to acknowledge this unwritten rule through their judgements. Since they are by Swiss law politically nominated, federal judges are accountable to their cantons and parties who put them forward.
The Swiss are first subject to International Law. Only subsidiary subject to their federal civil and criminal code, as well as their federal constitution. See the post [Switzerland and its cantons international obligations] (https://childrenforstatus.eu/switzerland-and-its-cantons-international-obligations) and related posts on the subject.
Cantonal authorities are like spoiled little princesses from the day of vassal-like systems. They are housed under a federal umbrella devoiding them of accountability on grounds of national cohesion and collegiality. Cantons can do as they pretty please. The system under the system allows for Human Rights and international law to be violated by Swiss authorities at will. Given Switzerland's well nurtured international aura of superiority and the constraints of cost and time involved, no one is mad enough to denounce the Swiss openly and publicly.
There are as such two totally incompatible and competing systems: – the real system of international law and human rights, and – the Swiss judicial truth system, a mirage where cantonal authorities can do as they pretty please without accountability or harm to themselves.
Cantonal child protection services being supremacists with no accountability, each canton differs in the approach to CSIV. Testament to their alleged “independence”.
Due to cantonal disparity and disagreements on CSIV, Swiss information on the subject is sparse. There is no other info then by the federal police statistics, which are solely based on actual criminal charges being filed. Only about 350 incest criminal charges are filed per year in Switzerland. There is no figure about how many actually are brought to court, but of those only between 2 to 10 cases per year lead to condemnations.
Switzerland is all to happy to hide behind any rule in order to smother the possibility to report sexual violence against children. It keeps their less then 350 cases per year to a minimum.
I invite you to go through the cantonal documents posted previously, so you can see for yourself it is nothing short of an eat-all-you-can buffet-like zoo.
Let's take a look at for example the latest iteration of the Neuchatel child protection services booklet:
En cas de maltraitance, toute personne est titulaire d’un droit d’aviser (art. 314c CC); pour certaines, il s’agit d’une obligation (art. 314d CC). Pour les personnes ayant une obligation d’aviser : Selon l’art. 314d CC, les personnes tenues d’aviser l’APEA, lorsque des indices concrets existent que l’intégrité de l’enfant est menacée, sont : les professionnel-le-s de la médecine, de la psychologie, des soins, de la prise en charge et du service social, ainsi que les éducateurs- trices, les enseignant-e-s, les intervenant-e-s du domaine des religions et du sport. Ces personnes ne doivent pas être soumises au secret professionnel (art. 321 CP) et doivent être en contact régulier avec des enfants dans le cadre de leur activité professionnelle. Enfin, sont également concernées les personnes ayant connaissance de la menace dans le cadre de l’exercice d’une fonction officielle.
Despite the clear obligation for all involved to report child maltreatment, of which CSIV are part, Swiss law in its criminal code article 321 allegedly does not allow people who have professional secrecy to report.
Let's look at this criminal code article 321:
- Les ecclésiastiques, avocats, défenseurs en justice, notaires, conseils en brevet, contrôleurs astreints au secret professionnel en vertu du code des obligations 373 , médecins, dentistes, chiropraticiens, pharmaciens, sages-femmes, psychologues, infirmiers, physiothérapeutes, ergothérapeutes, diététiciens, optométristes, ostéopathes, ainsi que leurs auxiliaires, qui auront révélé un secret à eux confié en vertu de leur profession ou dont ils avaient eu connaissance dans l’exercice de celle-ci, seront, sur plainte, punis d’une peine privative de liberté de trois ans au plus ou d’une peine pécuniaire. Seront punis de la même peine les étudiants qui auront révélé un secret dont ils avaient eu connaissance à l’occasion de leurs études. La révélation demeure punissable alors même que le détenteur du secret n’exerce plus sa profession ou qu’il a achevé ses études.
- La révélation ne sera pas punissable si elle a été faite avec le consentement de l’intéressé ou si, sur la proposition du détenteur du secret, l’autorité supérieure ou l’autorité de surveillance l’a autorisée par écrit.
- Demeurent réservées les dispositions de la législation fédérale et cantonale statuant un droit d’aviser une autorité et de collaborer, une obligation de renseigner une autorité ou une obligation de témoigner en justice.
- If people subject to professional secrecy dare to report CSIV, they risk 3 years of prison. “WTF??”
- They shall not be prosecuted if the victim consents to reporting CSIV.
- They have regardless the right, not the obligation, to inform the authorities (police, public prosecutor, etc.) or their hierarchical superiors.
BUT ... We also know from previous posts Switzerland's laws, jurisprudence and praxis is subordinate to international law, and that international law firmly rejects for secrecy in CSIV and provides for protection of those who speak out.
Personal interests and Swiss superiority above all, the Swiss authorities do not give a rat's arse about international law. It is the risk of criminal proceedings against them set in local law which prevails in their opinion, and dictates their non acting. Secrecy, by local law imposed omerta, is respected. Especially since, should they dare to violate this International Law violating Swiss law, they expose themselves to further prosecutions and imprisonment, such as but not limited to calumny. And calumny being easier to define, it is examined in priority.
If you wondered why there are less then 350 incest cases per year reported and less then 10 condemnations per year, now you know. The Swiss national sport: violating Human Rights.
It is also the reason why I am being persecuted on a ridiculous amount of criminal thumb-sucking nonsense charges by Swiss authorities. For this they carefully craft judicial truths contrary to reality, destroy evidence, falsify reports and plethora of other criminal actions. I dare to speak up against this state organised criminality, and point to a derelict state. And I have the recordings to prove it.
territorialism: “I can not act, the other must” (commission by omission)
The who is a matter of yet another Swiss national sport: hot potato pushing. In more polite terms it is called diffusion of responsibility. It happens particularly when other Swiss commit criminally reprehensible acts. It runs through Swiss DNA under the pretext of “neutrality” and “collegiality”.
The “commission by omission” is its softest form. Some take an active role in the “commission”, rendering the “omission” void.
To try to make sense of the all-you-can-eat zoo-like buffet, I wrote to the Federal Councillor responsible at the time, asking: Who must act? Her office responded on May 25th 2021, clearly, on the basis of the Swiss Civil Code article 315 alinea 2:
The child protection authorities (APEA) of the canton where victim children are physically present are competent for protective measures in light of CSIV.
Are you ready for the Swiss zoo?
The Swiss judicial child kidnapping dictator, who among other things is judge of the CMPEA in Neuchatel (CMPEA-N) (child protection measures court), Marie-Pierre de Montmollin, decided CSIV protective measures were in order for my kids. CMPEA-N being the superior court to the APEA in Neuchatel (APEA-N), they can do so when requested.
Those protective measures were violated repeatedly and structurally. The CMPEA-N was made aware of those violations repeatedly.
Recordings, documents and pictures are testament to the repeated and structural violations. This includes pictures of a rash of the inside leg of my daughter following a protective measures violating visit to the perpetrating grandparents. This also included a warning well ahead of possible act, to which the judge claimed it was too late to protect.
Some good two months later, the CMPEA-N finally warns the Neuchatel Public Prosecutor (NPP), Fabrice Haag, Nicolas Aubert, Manon Simeoni, Pierre Aubert (and others), for criminal proceedings, and closes the case without repeating protective measures.
The NPP should have immediately warned the APEA-N for new protective measures. In addition, it is their responsibility under the law to investigate and requisition evidence. The NPP did nothing for two years, and then closed the case on the merits of having done nothing.
The CMPEA-N upon closing the case should also have immediately warned the APEA-N for new protective measures, but did not. Instead, the CMPEA-N transfers to the Neuchatel Family Court (NFC).
The NFC judge, Nathalie Guillaume-Gentil Gross, before opening the hearing, blackmailed: “I have read the documents and I am fully aware you asked CSIV protection measures for your children. Let me be very clear that I will not treat this aspect in court today. If you dare to bring it up during the hearing, not only I will dismiss it, I will condemn you and you will not see your children for a very long time. Is that clear Sir?”
The Federal Tribunal a few weeks later confirmed protective measures were due. Again several violations of those protective measures, documented. Then transferred to ... NFC instead of APEA-N.
According to the NFC judge Yannick Jubin, if protective measures are in order, the public prosecutor in Bern (BPP) Raphael Arn will say so.
But the BPP is not only not competent for protection measures as he is in another canton and not an APEA, he is simply not aware of the day-to-day reality. For example, it is not his duty to act on Neuchatel protective measures being violated. He could, and should, however ask the Bern APEA for protective measures against the perpetrator in his canton Bern. Since another canton asks him and the victims are in another canton, why would he?
The NFC then said it could maybe decide on protective measures later, once the perpetrator has been condemned, de facto confirming it is not habilitated for CSIV protective measures.
In the meantime, the perpetrator continues happily, committing several documented CSIV.
Are you still following the Swiss madness? Do you start to understand why Switzerland is a safe haven for sexual child abusers?
The worst part is, each and everyone of these authorities regularly requires for a copy of the case files. So they are all, including the APEA-N, aware of the mickey-mouse going on.
Now, the APEA-N, who according to the Federal Councelor's office response should decide on protective measures on the basis of children being physically in the canton, should receive information.
While not having always received all the information in an immediate way by their colleague authorities, the APEA-N have received more then enough information from the CMPEA-N, from the Federal Tribunal, from Belgian authorities, from Belgian child protection services, from the BPP, from the NPP, and last but not least from yours truly. They should have received CSIV information also from the social assistants on the case. And they had CSIV information also from Swiss psychologists. (more on those and other beggars in later posts)
One should hope the APEA-N has enough information to act and protect children from potential further CSIV? In fact one singular piece of alleged information should have sufficed for stringent measures under international law ...
The APEA-N did nothing. Insult over injury, while it is their alleged responsibility to take protective measures, they sent a letter to the NFC with alarming information, saying it is the NFC who has to take ... protective measures ...
For comic book lovers: Asterix in the madhouse ...
The whole judicial system failed, because everyone claims it is not up to them to take responsibility or act to protect children from CSIV. And it goes right up the food chain to the cantonal councillors.
Sexually abuse those kids people!
Have failed to fulfil their duty to protect children from CSIV under international law: – CMPEA-N Marie-Pierre de Montmollin – APEA-N Fabio Morici, Isabelle Bieri – FCN Nathalie Guillaume-Gentil Gross, Yannick Jubin – NPP Fabrice Haag, Nicolas Aubert, Manon Simeoni, Pierre Aubert (and others) – BPP Raphael Arn
and the child protection office ?
Office, not authority. The Swiss sure like lots of bodies and tribunals so no one takes responsibility.
The Child Protections Office of Neuchatel (OPE) has Child Protection Office social assistants (OPESA).
Some, at least to me, common sense ... they are the child protections office and social assistants. They have a duty to protect and act to protect the child, right? International law taking precedence: act!
Think again ... Swiss law is contradicting on what offices and/or people can, should or can not do.
OPE and/or its individual OPESA receive mandates from individuals, from the APEA-N, and from other courts mandating them.
OPE has a by law defined mandate and duty to report violations of CSIV to the APEA-N. It has an obligation to protect children and should hold the interests of the child to the highest regard.
OPESA are two things in the Swiss zoo system:
- state personnel. As state personnel they MUST act. Swiss law is clear.
- professional secrecy people. As Professional secrecy people they can if they so wish act, but if they do act, they allegedly expose themselves to prosecution under local laws.
They have a choice to protect children and should hold the interests of the child to the highest regard.
Simply put: the OPE ≠ OPESA, the office ≠ its social assistants.
While the OPESA, the people, are by Swiss law in self chosen limbo as to the alleged obligation or option or risk to themselves to act or not to act, the same Swiss law demands of the OPE, the office, to report violations of CSIV to the authorities such as APEA-N and/or NPP.
I know, I know, I've lost any intelligent being by now. But you read this right. It's only one of the many reasons I am saying it is a zoo.
The animal cage has to report. The monkeys in the animal cage can sit on their lazy arses eating the banana's of the republic while scratching their head on the issue of “to be or not to be”, and grooming for lice. Comparatively speaking of course, I wouldn't want to insult the poor monkeys by comparing them to OPESA. (have to keep it light, otherwise we're all off crying our eyes out, and bold from pulling our hair, all from pure misery)
International Law is so simple: report, act and protected from any harm for doing so.
Examples of OPESA commission by omission
I'll here not list all examples of OPE commission by omission. There are simply too many of them on recording, virtually every other week.
I'll share 4 as examples. All 4 are on recording.
16 December 2020 My son suddenly takes my hand, puts it on my crutch, takes the thumb holding my hand to my crutch, and starts licking my thumb. I jump backwards in awe. My daughter explains in an annoyed fashion my son does this regularly with men. My son says he likes to do this to people. Mr. Schallenberger, an OPESA, is witness to the scene. When discussed with Mr. Schallenberger later, he dismisses it as normal behaviour for children, because the mother (who brings the children to the perpetrator) says so.
17 March 2021 My son had to be brought to the hospital emergency room due to a wound to his penis following a visit with the perpetrator. My son explained at 3 years old in 3 year old language what had happened. Mr. Schallenberger fully aware heard what my son spontaneously said. Later Mr. Schallenberger decided against any investigation, because the mother, who put the children in the care of the perpetrator, said it was nothing and young 3 year olds invent stories like this. Other then finding the wound strange and inexplicable, the hospital report doesn't mention anything.
22 September 2021 Mr. Ehrard, an OPESA, confirmed he would file a report about the ongoing CSIV violation risk. He would keep me informed. He never contacted again. I tried to reach out, left messages at the secretary, to no avail. Allegedly, he never filed a report.
16 February 2022 Mr. Schallenberger said:
“There are (judicial) truths and (real) realities. They are not necessarily the same thing. The authorities may well come to regret not having CSIV protective measures for the children in place.”
For this last one I am not sure if he was in his usual fashion deflecting his responsibility by pointing to the other schmucks being responsible, or whether he was talking about himself.
CSIV has been ongoing since September 2018 ...
The OPESA “omission” and “commission” violates children and victim human rights out of the superior interest in their “belief and collegial self interest”. Testament to that by Mrs. De Montmollin, an OPESA, who repeatedly claimed on May 12th 2021 that she “refuses to believe”, while having acknowledged 28 April 2021 the Neuchatel canton, its OPE, including herself, is devoid of any specialists in CSIV. (Technically, that's a fifth and sixth example)
Have failed to fulfil their duty to protect children from CSIV under international law: – Crystal Graf, Cantonal councillor of child protection, Neuchatel – Christian Fellrath, director of child and adult protection (SPAJ) – Yannick Bussy, Director of Child Protection Office (OPE) – Nicolas Jornod, OPE sub-office manager – Jerome Erard, OPESA – Manuela de Montmollin, OPESA – Frederic Schallenberger, OPESA
Now I come back to International law. Remember from post 1?
Criminal law procedures, which must be strictly applied in order to abolish the widespread practice of de jure or de facto impunity, in particular of State actors; Disciplinary or administrative proceedings against professionals for neglectful or inappropriate behaviour in dealing with suspected cases of child maltreatment (either internal proceedings in the context of professional bodies for breaches of codes of ethics or standards of care, or external proceedings)
How do you want disciplinary or administrative proceedings against professionals for neglectful or inappropriate behaviour, in particular of State actors, when the Swiss principles of omerta and collegiality are anchored firmly in society?
Authorities fuck-up in matters of CSIV, and are looking to provide for a way out of something that seems overly complex and complicated, but is not.
Anno 2021, clever Swiss are still debating inadequacies of Swiss incest law. And anno 2023 the authorities still don't think it is useful to document the phenomenon on account of no increase in victims or witnesses stepping forward.
All these people of alleged authority should stand trial under international law, breaking the non accountability circle in full public view. They should have to justify themselves in front of the public about the contents of recordings and documents. They sadly never will. Gaslighting syndrome.
And even if they would attempt, look at Belgium quarter of a century ago and France more recently... Drops in the ocean providing sand-in-the-eyes solutions to shush everyone all is now different, whilst it is not really.
I do not believe in revolutions. I believe in evolutions. As only the Italians know how to say: “Chi va piano va sano e va lontano” Only if people will stand up, and keep standing up, for a very long time, something might have evolved in 3 to 4 generations time.
Really, when I say this country is rotten when it comes to CSIV it is because I lack the proper vocabulary. No words are strong enough to describe Switzerland's child sexual abuse DNA.
Hopefully this blog, a first hand account experience showing how things are structurally wrong, helps you understand why in Switzerland no one steps forward and why Switzerland is a haven for pedophiles.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!
information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested
for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog
the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog