Ex versus « X »

Published on by Winnie


From the blog of François Koch, journalist at “L’Express”, January 30th, 19h44 LINK


I have received a copy of the complaint against “X” LINK made by François Stifani, on behalf of himself and as President of the GLNF, no doubt sent to the Ministry of Justice at the beginning of December 2010. This complaint had been attached to the GLNF’s reply to the UGLE and to that sent to the United Grand Lodges of Belgium, Switzerlaznd and Luxembourg. Maître Olivier Pardo (lawyer for Stifani and the GLNF) had not accepted to send me a copy of the complaint. I received a copy some weeks later : did it transit by London, Brussels, Luxembourg or zurich before arriving at “L’Express” ?


It is a complaint against “X” for “forgery and use of forgery” in reply to the publishing of the letter signed François Stifani of January 19th 2009 addressed to Nicolas Sarkozy. I have already explained why, in my opinion, it is a false, false letter. Reading the complaint (neither dated nor signed) I raise four points.


  1. “Its President (GLNF Association) is Mr François Stifani, also denominated “Grand Master” of the GLNF”. Reading this sentence one understands that the President and the grand Master are one and the same function. Therefore it is impossible for the President to resign without that entailing the grand master’s resignation. It is even clearer than I supposed in my last blog posting.



  1. The letter sent to Nicolas Sarkozy is a forgery since it was neither signed nor addressed by François Stifani. Firstly, I never wrote that it was François Stifani himself who signed the letter. I wrote that the letter had his signature on it. In my blog of November 30th 2010 in an e-mail sent to François Stifani I had clearly evoked the hypothesis that one of his collaborators had been able (with or without instruction to do so) to use his electronic signature. I am still waiting for a reply.



  1. The complaint affirms that it is an imitation of François Stifani’s signature. This is a new argument. With what proof ? Those in the know at Pisan have confirmed to me that it is the electronic signature of François Stifani.



  1. Where the letter sent to the Elysée palace is recognised as being “unconditional support for the President of the Republic”, the complaint is silent concerning the reply coming from Nicolas Sarkozy which is not qualified as a forgery. “The confidence that you express and your resolute support that you give me comfort me in my firm will to pursue the reform movement that I have undertaken.” Sarkozy’s reply is finally the most embarrassing element. François Stifani defends himself in a strange manner (remarks made to a fellow journalist, published in this week’s Nouvel Observateur): “I was not informed of the Elysée’s reply” !! I cannot believe that a letter addressed to François Stifani and signed by Nicolas Sarkozy was not brought to the attention of the person it was addressed to.


In the light of these supplementary elements (added to previous reflections) I am most curious to know what the Procurer of the Republic in Paris will do with this complaint against “X”. And if François Stifani will constitute a civil party (with consignation) to the complaint if it is classed as a closed file.




Comment on this post

joaben 02/01/2011 12:51

The shame is to pay an expensive lawyer as Me Pardo for a so crazy game just dedicated to propaganda.

It is obvious that such a request, being so badly presented, will be quickly classified. Probably Me Pardo knows that but the only purpose is "to appear" in control.
I don't think he expects that he can abuse UGLE with so ridiculous arguments.

The decisive point is :

Me Pardo argue that he and M. Stifani know that the letter from Stifani was a forgery, this before publication on express.

At this stage, knowing that someone very close to Mr Stifani has done such a forgery, did they complain on court or take internal decisions ? No ! So they accepted very welle this forgery(if so...)

Il fact they complained when the magazine published it ! Strange, isn't-it ?

If we enter into Stifani-Pardo argumentation, it should demonstrate that they know a forgery involving President of the Republique and they let it on !!! No letter to President telling him he has
been abused by a forgery ???