French justice : dictatorship of judges or body integrated into the Republic to influence public opinion ? Augmented version

Abstract: The French justice system, supposedly independent, is nothing but a docile cog in the wheel of the Republic, a machine for crushing or absolving according to the needs of the powerful. The Constitution proclaims the separation of powers, but the President and his government pull the strings: appointments of magistrates, general instructions to the prosecutor's office, and privileges for political cronies.

The case of Marine Le Pen, sentenced on March 31, 2025 to five years in prison (two of which will be suspended) and ineligible, is just one more farce. A self-proclaimed victim, she serves the system she pretends to fight, an RN in collusion with Macron to lock down power. The media amplify the circus, the judges write amphigourous cobblestones to hide the subservience, and the French, mystified for 236 years, swallow this deception. Meanwhile, Bayrou, Dupont-Moretti and co. waltz between dubious acquittals and appeal proceedings, proving that justice is only a theater where the 1% crush the 99%.

The Economist downgraded France to a “failing democracy” in 2024, reflecting a drop in trust in the government after a year of political instability. According to Transparency International, France slipped to 25th place in the world in 2024 in the Corruption Perceptions Index, with a score down to 67, a sign of a worrying democratic erosion. This situation is confirmed by the recent France-Soir/BonSens.org poll: 72% of French people think that politicians do not act in their interest.

A dictatorship of judges? No, a dictatorship in general, disguised as a democracy. France's ranking among discriminatory countries, pointed out by the Covid-19 policy discrimination index, is therefore no longer a surprise, but a scathing confirmation.

What is really the situation regarding the independence of judges and the constitutional principle of the separation of powers?

Officially, France is a democracy. More precisely, according to Article 1 of the Constitution, it is “an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic”, which ensures “the equality before the law of all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion”. And, in theory, Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights obliges, the separation of powers must be effective: namely each of the three French constitutional powers; the executive power (President of the Republic and Government), the legislative power (National Assembly and Senate) and the judicial power (magistrates and prosecutors). In addition, article 64 of the Constitution stipulates that "judges shall not be removed from office“, and article 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the Minister of Justice from issuing "instructions in individual cases“. However, the reality seems more nuanced.

First, the case of Éric Dupond-Moretti, who was found guilty of violating this rule when he was Minister of Justice, revealed a gap between the principles and their application – a gap that some do not hesitate to cross. Secondly, the same Article 30 authorises the Minister to give “general instructions” to prosecutors to ”conduct the criminal policy determined by the Government“. It can thus guide repressive priorities, for example, by asking for a tougher or more flexible response to certain offences, or even for priorities to be reversed, depending on the period. Finally, the careers of judges, whether they are judges or prosecutors, depend largely on the executive power. Indeed, although this development takes place on the proposal of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, on the one hand, judges are appointed and promoted by decree of the President of the Republic co-signed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Article 19 of the Constitution), and, on the other hand, it is only concerning “judges of the court” other than those of the Court of Cassation (supreme court) and that the First Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and the Presidents of the High Courts, that such appointments and promotions be made with the assent of the High Council of the Judiciary.

However, for key positions such as the First Presidents of the Courts of Appeal or the Presidents of the High Courts, the President decides alone, without the assent of the CSM. In addition, these officials can replace a magistrate in a case if they “deem” it " useful for the proper administration of justice “.

Finally, the part of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary competent to make proposals for the appointment and promotion of judges is chaired by the First President of the Court of Cassation, a judge appointed by decree of the President of the Republic, and is composed of five other judges and a prosecutor appointed by the President of the Republic. the President of the Senate and the President of the National Assembly, two each.

Under these conditions, it is impossible to consider that in France, the judiciary is independent. “Impossible not being French” is a formula attributed to Napoleon, so I am going to reformulate this statement in question: under these conditions, can we really speak of an independent justice system in France?

What role does the justice system play in the functioning of the Republic?

What is its role in the mystification through which “the Republic” maintains the total stranglehold (political, economic, media, police and justice) that it has had on the country for 236 years? On what forms the social contract.

Is it a “dictatorship of judges”; as some convicted politicians claim, or is it a cog fully integrated into the Republic, participating in a form of control of public opinion? An organ, a tool of mass manipulation used by the Republic to establish its control in collaboration with the media and the politicians themselves, all sides combined, including those it declares guilty. That is to say, at the center of the confusion and general collusion that there is, at the state level, between politicians, journalists, industrialists, bankers and magistrates, through which it operates and persists, the total control over the country that the pundits of the Republic have: these ultra-rich who pull the strings behind the scenes. This cabal or collusive agreement that allows the 1% of French people who are members of this cabal to impose their will on the remaining 99%. To monopolize all power, to the great misfortune of its inhabitants. A people of France perpetually mystified and exploited for 236 years.

The sentencing of Marine Le Pen, on March 31, 2025, to five years in prison (including two years) and five years of ineligibility with immediate execution, offers a revealing case study, amplified by massive media coverage. This is an ideal opportunity to try to answer the questions I have just asked. So let's get started.

To understand this case, it is necessary to look back at the past of the National Rally (RN) and its leader. Since she succeeded her father at the head of the party originally called the “National Front”, Marine Le Pen has often seemed to play a more than ambiguous role: her reversals on key issues for supporters (exit from the euro, the European Union, Islam) during presidential campaigns, and her performances, “manifest scuttling”, during the presidential debates of 2017 and 2022 have helped to ensure Emmanuel Macron's victory.

Thanks to this strategy of failure (initiated by her father with her deliberately and openly anti-Semitic outings), the National Rally appears as the main agent of the Republic that Marine Le Pen venerates (“Long live the Republic!”); in terms of preventing a genuinely patriotic political party from coming to power (then come the other parties declared to be right-wing or far-right by the media).

More recently, after the legislative elections of July 2024, the RN, self-proclaimed " first opposition party “, is working closely with Macronia. This applies both to domestic policy (vote on the budget, vote on the national security budget, vote on the finance law), and for foreign policy (total alignment with support for Israel and support for Ukraine decided by Emmanuel Macron 100% arbitrarily). As a result, it was starting to be seen a little too much, that in reality the RN is riding for Macron (like the other political parties). So it was necessary to save the Marine.

Her conviction for fictitious jobs in the European Parliament could then be seen as an orchestrated victimization operation to reposition her as a credible opponent of the government. By making her look like the political opponent to be killed, with irrefutable proof of her ineligibility for five years immediately enforceable by magistrates not independent of Emmanuel Macron acting in violation of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, which de facto prevents her from running in the 2027 presidential election. An election that she would have won this time, she says to accentuate her victimization.

A justice system under influence, or a political theatre?

And it works! Thanks to the immense media uproar undertaken to this effect by all the actors, politicians and journalists, who participate without exception in conscience in this political masquerade, in addition to bringing back to the fold the RN voters that the recent past had made leave, many French people are offended by what is thus mystically presented to them as being “a denial of democracy “, and says that, for this reason alone, they will vote RN in the next elections, whether Marine Le Pen is a candidate or not.

Note in this regard, this specificity enjoyed by renowned politicians within the mainstream media: when one of them is the subject of a criminal conviction, he invites himself on the television news (TF1 or France 2) to cry scandal. To cry out for infamy, to make remarks against the magistrates who handed down the judgment and against the judgment itself, which unquestionably characterize in all respects (material and intellectual element of the offence) the criminal offence of publicly discrediting a court decision (Article 434-25, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code):

“The act of seeking to discredit, publicly by acts, words, writings or images of any kind, a judicial act or decision, in conditions likely to undermine the authority of the judiciary or its independence is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a fine of 7,500 euros.”

Because these are not “acts, words, writings or images of any kind tending to the reversal, quashing or revision of a decision” of the court, which, under the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 434-25 of the Criminal Code, cannot characterize this offense. No. Both Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella today, Nicolas Sarkozy yesterday, and before that François Fillon and Jérôme Cahuzac to name but a few, all expressly accuse the magistrates concerned of improbity, of violating their oath of impartiality, of leading a personal political crusade against them and murder of democracy.

Can you imagine an ordinary citizen, similarly convicted of a financial offence (embezzlement of public funds, fraud or concealment), heavily sentenced to prison, inviting himself to the 8 p.m. news and insulting the magistrates who sentenced him? No way!

First of all, because, unlike Marine Le Pen, Jérôme Cahuzac or Nicolas Sarkozy, when an ordinary citizen is sentenced to a prison sentence of one or two years, he does not come out of court free. No. He was taken to prison, via a detention or arrest warrant immediately executed, notwithstanding the 10-day appeal period. The same applies to the benefit of the execution of this prison sentence in placement under an electronic bracelet. While, for the average citizen, the benefit of this sentence adjustment systematically occurs only after his incarceration, and at the end of an average time of operation of the justice system (latest statistics from the Chancellery) of six to seven months according to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, politicians who are sentenced to one or two years in prison, all benefit from this sentence adjustment without being incarcerated. They avoid prison. Like in Monopoly. In a way, it makes sense: like in Monopoly, they are the ones who run the bank. Or, at least, given that they all ride for her, the masters of the game give them this lucky card.

Marine Le Pen can thank the presenter of the TF1 news, Gilles Bouleau: he handed her the pole admirably. Because to those who will retort that he was vindictive against her, especially when he reminded her of her 2013 statements on ineligibility (I will come back to this later), I answer that, precisely, this has greatly contributed to the mystification consisting in making Marine Le Pen look like a victim of the system. The good opponent manhandled by the evil presenter at the orders of the Élysée.

The bigger it is, the more it works!

Hence the “atomic” metaphor (seriousness and solemnity outrageously exaggerated to the extreme) used by Marine Le Pen about her ineligibility sentence, in this other official complaint filmed: “the system has brought out the nuclear bomb.”

A ridiculous metaphor that had the desired impact, since, as agreed in the dressing room, backstage, all the participants in this play relayed it.

Jean-Philippe Tanguy in the lead, current tribune-in-chief of the RN, invoked “a vendetta” against his boss live in the National Assembly.

However, as Gilles Bouleau, presenter of the TF1 news, reminded Marine Le Pen on Monday evening, with this sentence of ineligibility, “We apply to you what you pleaded yesterday. »

It was live on Radio Courtoisie, on April 5, 2013. Marine Le Pen vehemently called for “the establishment of a lifetime ineligibility for all those who have been convicted for acts committed thanks to or during their mandate”, in particular the misappropriation of public funds and fictitious employment, criminal offences of which she has just been found guilty.

And, of course, François Bayrou also supported Marine Le Pen.

Of course! It is for the same facts and offences that he is being prosecuted by the courts, our current Prime Minister. Between perpetrators of identical acts (fictitious jobs as assistants in the European Parliament, he in the Modem, a centrist party of which he is the President, with embezzlement of funds for the benefit of the party). Of course, he, unlike Marine Le Pen, acquitted him with the benefit of the doubt. On the grounds that the facts are proven, and therefore the offences materialized, all right, but that François Bayrou's intention to be guilty of them is not 100% proven in this case.

Yes. This is reminiscent of the acquittal pronounced by the Court of Justice of the Republic in favor of Éric Dupont-Moretti, on the grounds that he was well aware that he was guilty of the crime of conflict of interest, but that he did not also have the will to commit it.

However, the fact remains that the prosecutor's office has appealed against this acquittal decision, and we currently have in France, a country whose leaders give lessons in probity to those of other countries of the world, a Prime Minister in office prosecuted in correctional court (court of appeal) for offences punishable by 10 years of imprisonment and ineligibility.

It is also true that François Bayrou, who is so much of a “close friend” of Emmanuel Macron, was not asked for a sentence of ineligibility in this case.

By the way! Two words on the ineligibility that can be pronounced by the criminal justice system as an additional penalty. All the politicians castigate her. But hey! “Cekiki” voted for the law that instituted it? It is Parliament. The additional penalty of ineligibility was introduced into the norm by the Act of 23 July 1992 reforming the general provisions of the Criminal Code. Under the aegis of this law, magistrates were given the possibility of pronouncing this sentence. And it was in application of this law of 23 July 1992 that the Paris Criminal Court sentenced Marine Le Pen to this sentence. Contrary to what we have read everywhere in the press, it is not in application of the so-called “Sapin 2” law of December 9, 2016. This law, which came into force on 1 June 2017, could not apply to the facts alleged against Marine Le Pen, the oldest of which date back to 16 December 2016.

By leaving the possibility to the magistrates to pronounce or not this sentence (1992 law), the legislative power (adopting a bill presented by the executive), has allowed the judiciary to interfere in an area normally reserved only for the legislative power, eligibility, and thus allow the violation of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers complained of by all politicians sentenced to a sentence of ineligibility for ineligibility for acts committed before June 1, 2017.

And it is in order to remedy this that the Sapin 2 law has made automatic, compulsorily pronounced by the courts, the penalty of ineligibility, as an additional penalty, for any decision of guilt of the offences listed in this law, in particular the embezzlement of public funds. Only the quantum of the sentence is left to the discretion of the courts, but locked up within a minimum of one year, with no possible suspension and a maximum of ten years.

As the law allows, the Paris Criminal Court has attached the provisional execution to Marine Le Pen's conviction, i.e. immediately applicable. Notwithstanding the appeal lodged by Marine Le Pen, the consequences of Marine Le Pen's ineligibility must be drawn as soon as the time limit for appeal expires, which is ten days from the delivery of the judgment. Among these consequences is the withdrawal of Marine Le Pen from the mandate of French MP. Yes! Ineligible for five years, she is stripped of the eligibility required to be elected as a French MP, and therefore to exercise her mandate.

But, hey, as Emmanuel Macron and François Bayrou “gravely” need Marine Le Pen on the benches of the National Assembly, so that the political puppet continues in accordance with the “Because it's our project! that they are in the process of completely finalizing, it is not “serious”, this breach of the law which consists of not taking away Marine Le Pen's mandate.

After all, he who admitted to having bought drugs with the money from his mandate as a French MP, Andy Kerbrat, LFI MP, did not see the justice system or the National Assembly take away his mandate.

A comedian, this Andy Kerbrat. Adept as he is of April Fools' Day, he let it be known that, on sick leave that he is currently on to treat his drug addiction, he will do this by delegation of vote. Vote against the “drug trafficking” law, being debated this week in the National Assembly, which aims to accentuate the fight and repression in this area, a law whose solemn vote will take place on April 1, 2025.

And he did it!

 It should also be recalled that in a press release of June 11, 2024, the Magistrates' Union stated in black and white the following: “The Magistrates' Union calls on all magistrates, as well as all those who participate in judicial activity, to mobilize against the accession to power of the far right.”

This is a godsend for Marine Le Pen and the Rassemblement National, to position themselves today opportunely as victims of the system, namely to rehabilitate themselves as opponents of the system in the eyes of public opinion, when in reality they are fully part of it. They officiate there as a guarantee of the election of the official candidate of the public, and validate all decisions that go in the direction of “Because it's our project!” carried by Emmanuel Macron on behalf of the system.

And moreover, it is worth adding this concerning this judgment handed down by the Paris Criminal Court, which is now famous throughout the world. One hundred and seventy-four pages of an amphigourous legal labyrinth, which invokes, via convoluted formulations, arguments thus made highly questionable, thereby knowingly leaving the door open to infinite opportunities for commentators of all kinds to echo them in the media as much as possible. To come and talk about this, and only that, at length in all the television and radio shows: the ideal ad hoc excuse for all these zealous and servile “kapos” of power, to forget to talk about the priority problems of the French.

And these one hundred and seventy-four pages also give the impression that the judges have done a good job. A lot of work, and by this subterfuge, cover possible traces of complacency for this or that cause. Because in fact are these judgments not forgeries of public documents (Article 441-4, last paragraph, of the Criminal Code), if it does appear that they are biased from the outset, by the capture of magistrates by the executive power, in a pseudo-independence of magistrates that I mentioned at the beginning of this editorial? A judicial barrier set up by “the Republic” to prevent a less controllable person (or one outside the scam) from monopolizing the share of the cake.

PS: Jordan Bardella is the subject of a complaint for the same fictitious employment as a parliamentary assistant to an MEP, for which Marine Le Pen's parliamentary assistants were found guilty in the judgment of March 31, 2025 that concerns her in the main proceedings.

Justice was dragging a little too long in the eyes of the victims. According to them, this slowness in making a decision tended to reach the statute of limitations (the facts date from 2014). The filing of this complaint interrupts the limitation period for a further period of 8 years. This leaves the possibility for the system to charge the justice system, or not, with taking care of Marine's spiritual son as it did with her, namely if it happens to serve the famous “Because it's our project!” in 2027, during the upcoming presidential campaign.

PPS: Eric Ciotti announced yesterday in the National Assembly that he will table a bill calling for the abolition of the provisional execution of ineligibility sentences.

What for? Because he himself is heavily implicated in an embezzlement of public funds which, if found guilty, will result in him being automatically sentenced to an immediately enforceable ineligibility sentence. And so goodbye to the pharaonic salaries and benefits in kind of all his electoral mandates.

PPS: Édouard Philippe, a declared candidate for the 2027 presidential election, is the target of a complaint by the financial prosecutor's office for embezzlement of public funds.

Will he then have the same treatment as François Fillon was subjected to in 2017?

To be continued.

PPS: Nicolas Sarkozy is by far - by far - the most outrageously bellicose politician against the judges, especially since the prosecutor requested 7 years of imprisonment against him in the case of the “Libyan” financing of his 2017 presidential campaign.

It is therefore good to inform him of the statements he made in the past, before being prosecuted himself, by which he ardently protested against the “laxity” of the justice system, particularly with regard to “delinquents at the top of the ladder”, delinquents among whom, obviously, it is appropriate to list the President of the Republic that he was for five years.

So here is a small compilation of them.