DecathlonESports.com
This website and accompanying domain name are not affiliated with Association Familiale Mulliez, Decathlon Group et al, Decathlon Sporting Goods, Decathlon.com etc., Auchan, Auchan Retail, Groupe Auchan nor any individual in the Mulliez or Leclercq families in any manner whatsoever, and is merely as an investigative evidentiary discovery mechanism to determine which, if any, and how many crimes and civil torts may have been perpetrated against this website owner.
The express purpose of this website is to investigate all of the facts and to make a determination as to who is responsible for any felony criminal acts and/or civil wrongs perpetrated against this website owner, and to establish which, if any, and how many crimes may have actually been committed, and also to bring to justice the individual and/or individuals within the above referenced who may have allowed, authorized, committed, condoned, permitted and/or ordered any crimes and civil torts to take place.
All crime related information contained within this website has not yet been established by having been proven in a court of law and all parties are presumed innocent until judged guilty by a jury of their peers, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence, depending on the particular situation, and thus proven in a proper court of jurisdiction.
Decathlon Group et al, managed and/or owned in any capacity whatsoever by individuals such as Michel Leclercq, Gérard Paul Louis Marie-Joseph Mulliez, Michel Aballea, Fabien Derville et al, represented by Alexandre Nappey of Scan Law, chose to intimidate me with fear tactics, so I would voluntarily relinquish property obtained and owned by me legally, for the sole purpose of them acquiring extremely valuable assets so they won’t have to pay for them legally. This sort of underhanded activity is frowned upon in society and the world needs to be made aware of the consequences of conducting business with an organization that thrives on such despicable and abhorrent behavior and this website will be a conduit to inform everyone to hopefully prevent future damage to others as has occurred to this individual.
This is an ongoing and evolving investigation and additional facts and revelations will be included as time goes on so the public is invited to visit often. This is also intended to inform the general public and customers of the Decathlon Group Sports empire et al to help prevent situations such as these to occur in the future and to act as a deterrent to any guilty parties from future threats and/or intimidation to reoccur.
We will scour the Internet for any wrong-doing conducted by this company as this will be a lengthy undertaking and we will leave no stone unturned seeking and reporting to the world audience all distasteful activity and we will not condone anything that would appear to be unsavory and make this a destination of importance for the unsuspecting public to be forewarned so they will not fall victim to this unscrupulous company, Decathlon Group et al.
Alexandre Nappey, as the legal representative for and acting on behalf of the above referenced entities and individuals, has falsely accused this website owner of a criminal act and trademark infringement against Decathlon Group, owner and operator of the Decathlon.com sports equipment and sports clothing business, and this website will be an ongoing dissemination of pertinent facts relating to any and all improprieties committed by Decathlon Group et al throughout the world and as an informative vehicle to make aware to current and potential customers who, knowing the truth, may wish to either discontinue future engagement with or refrain from purchasing from said organization that participated in inappropriate behavior towards the general public at large or attempts by subterfuge take from honest people property rightfully acquired and legally owned by another that which they have chosen to threaten to obtain illegally rather than purchase from the true legal owner.
Attempted Extortion, Conversion, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Deceit, Elder Financial Abuse, Attempted Fraud, Fraudulent and Intentional Misrepresentation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intent to Commit Grand Theft, Attempted Theft by False Pretenses and Theft by Trick, Undue Influence and both state of California and Federal Wire Fraud (since the alleged crime/s were perpetrated via email) are some of the specific crimes and civil torts under investigation.
California Civil Codes and California Penal Codes
California Civil Code §1572 - Fraudulent Misrepresentation - Intentional Misrepresentation
Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
California Civil Code section §1709 §1710 - Deceit
Civil Code section §1709 defines “deceit" generally: “One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.”
Civil Code section §1710 specifies, A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true [intentional misrepresentation of fact];
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true [negligent misrepresentation of fact];
3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact [concealment or suppression of fact]; or,
4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it [promissory fraud].
5. Any other act fitted to deceive.
Civil Code section §1712 states One who obtains a thing without the consent of its owner, or by a consent afterwards rescinded, or by an unlawful exaction which the owner could not at the time prudently refuse, must restore it to the person from whom it was thus obtained, unless he has acquired a title thereto superior to that of such other person, or unless the transaction was corrupt and unlawful on both sides.
Civil Code section §1713 states The restoration required by the last section must be made without demand, except where a thing is obtained by mutual mistake, in which case the party obtaining the thing is not bound to return it until he has notice of the mistake.
Points and Authority
“Fraud” and “deceit” are defined in Civil Code sections §§ 1572, 1709, and 1710. Courts appear to refer to the terms interchangeably, though technically “fraud” applies to only contract actions.
Points and Authorities
Civil Code section §1572, dealing specifically with fraud in the making of contracts, restates these definitions in slightly differing language, with the addition of a fifth kind of deceit, described generally as “[a]ny other act fitted to deceive.” Fraud in the context of contract formation is covered by other instructions.
The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “ ‘(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ ” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903], internal quotation marks omitted; see also Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1108 (252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P
Sometimes this tort is stated with four elements instead of five: “(1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.” (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816 (52 Cal.Rptr.2d 650).)
The representation must ordinarily be an affirmation of fact, as opposed to an opinion. Under the Restatement Second of Torts section 538A, a representation is an opinion “if it expresses only (a) the belief of the maker, without certainty, as to the existence of a fact; or (b) his judgment as to quality, value, authenticity, or other matters of judgment.” Opinions are addressed in CACI No. 1904, Opinions as Statements of Fact.
“Fraud is an intentional tort; it is the element of fraudulent intent, or intent to deceive, that distinguishes it from actionable negligent misrepresentation and from nonactionable innocent misrepresentation. It is the element of intent which makes fraud actionable, irrespective of any contractual or fiduciary duty one party might owe to the other.” (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 482 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 329], internal citations omitted.)
“A misrepresentation need not be oral; it may be implied by conduct.” (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1567 (54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468), internal citations omitted.)
“ ‘[F]alse representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 974, quoting Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 (30 Cal.Rptr. 629).)
“Actual reliance occurs when a misrepresentation is “ ‘an immediate cause of [a plaintiff’s] conduct, which alters his legal relations,’ ” and when, absent such representation, “ ‘he would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.’ ” ‘It is not . . . necessary that [a plaintiff’s] reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct… It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision.’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 976—977, internal citations omitted.)
“Justifiable reliance is an essential element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact.” (Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 837, 843 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 437] internal citations omitted.)
“A ‘complete causal relationship’ between the fraud or deceit and the plaintiff’s damages is required… Causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a “ ‘substantial factor’ ” in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff.” (Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 132 (39 Cal.Rptr.2d 658), internal citations omitted.)
“This is not merely a case where the defendants made false representations of matters within their personal knowledge which they had no reasonable grounds for believing to be true. Such acts clearly would constitute actual fraud under California law. In such situations the defendant believes the representations to be true but is without reasonable grounds for such belief. His liability is based on negligent misrepresentation which has been made a form of actionable deceit. On the contrary, in the instant case, the court found that the defendants did not believe in the truth of the statements. Where a person makes statements which he does not believe to be true, in a reckless manner without knowing whether they are true or false, the element of scienter is satisfied and he is liable for intentional misrepresentation.” (Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 57 [30 Cal.Rptr. 629], original italics, internal citations omitted.)
“ ‘To be actionable deceit, the representation need not be made with knowledge of actual falsity, but need only be an “assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true” and made “with intent to induce [the recipient] to alter his position to his injury or his risk…’ ” The elements of negligent misrepresentation also include justifiable reliance on the representation, and resulting damage.” (B.L.M. v. Sabo & Deitsch (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 823, 834 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 335], internal citations omitted.)
“As is true of negligence, responsibility for negligent misrepresentation rests upon the existence of a legal duty, imposed by contract, statute or otherwise, owed by a defendant to the injured person. The determination of whether a duty exists is primarily a question of law.” (Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 864 [245 Cal.Rptr. 211], internal citations omitted.)
“A misrepresentation of fact is material if it induced the plaintiff to alter his position to his detriment. Stated in terms of reliance, materiality means that without the misrepresentation, the plaintiff would not have acted as he did. ‘It must be shown that the plaintiff actually relied upon the misrepresentation; i.e., that the representation was “an immediate cause of his conduct which alters his legal relations,” and that without such representation, “he would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.” ’ ” (Okun v. Morton (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 805, 828 [250 Cal.Rptr. 220], internal citations omitted.)
California Penal Code Section §532 PC - Theft by False Pretenses
California Penal Code Section §532 PC - False pretenses; obtaining money, labor or property; punishment; evidence necessary to support conviction. ("(a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.")
A false pretense is any act, word, symbol, or token the purpose of which is to deceive.
Theft by false pretenses can be either petty theft or grand theft, depending on the value of the property that is taken.
If the property stolen is worth more than nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), or is a firearm or a car, then it is grand theft. The maximum penalty for grand theft is either up to one (1) year in county jail, OR sixteen (16) months, two (2) years, or three (3) years in prison, depending on how the prosecutor chooses to charge the crime.
Points and Authorities
To have the requisite intent for theft, the thief must either intend to deprive the owner permanently or to deprive the owner of a major portion of the property's value or enjoyment. (See People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1].)
Intent to Deprive Owner of Main Value. People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-59 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1], disapproving, to extent it is inconsistent, People v. Marquez (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 115, 123 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 365].
Reliance on the false pretense need not be proved for a person to be guilty of attempted theft by false pretense. (People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 467 [117 Cal.Rptr. 757].)
Although fraud is used to obtain the property in both theft by trick and theft by false pretense, in theft by false pretense, the thief obtains both possession and title to the property. For theft by trick, the thief gains only possession of the property. (People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d 246, 258 [267 P.2d 271]; People v. Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164, 172 [108 Cal.Rptr. 326].) False pretenses does not require that the title pass perfectly and the victim may even retain a security interest in the property transferred to the defendant. (People v. Counts (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 785, 789-792 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
The misrepresentation does not have to be made in an express statement; it may be implied from behavior or other circumstances. (People v. Mace (1925) 71 Cal.App. 10, 21 [234 P. 841]; People v. Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164, 174-175 [108 Cal.Rptr. 326] [analogizing to the law of implied contracts].)
California Civil Code §1575 - Undue Influence
Undue Influence consists:
1. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him;
2. In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or,
3. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress.
Points and Authorities
The Civil Code provides that consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, or mistake, and is deemed to have been so obtained when it would not have been given but for such fraud or mistake. (Civ. Code, §§ 1567, 1568.)
Civil Code section 1575 provides three circumstances that support a finding of undue influence.
The question of undue influence is decided as a question of fact: “[D]irect evidence of undue influence is rarely obtainable and, thus the court is normally relegated to determination by inference from the totality of facts and circumstances. Indeed, there are no fixed definitions or inflexible formulas. Rather, we are concerned with whether from the entire context it appears that one’s will was overborne and he was induced to do or forbear to do an act which he would not do, or would do, if left to act freely.” (Keithley v. Civil Service Bd. of the City of Oakland (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 443, 451 [89 Cal.Rptr. 809], internal citations omitted.)
“In essence, undue influence consists of the use of excessive pressure by a dominant person over a servient person resulting in the apparent will of the servient person being in fact the will of the dominant person. The undue susceptibility to such overpersuasive influence may be the product of physical or emotional exhaustion or anguish which results in one’s inability to act with unencumbered volition.” (Keithley, supra, 11 Cal.App.3d at p. 451.)
Whether or not the parties have a confidential relationship is a question of fact: “It is, of course, well settled that while the mere fact that a relationship is friendly and intimate does not necessarily amount to a confidential relationship, such relationship may be said to exist whenever trust and confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another. It is likewise frequently emphasized that the existence of a confidential relationship presents a question of fact which, of necessity, may be determined only on a case by case basis.” (O’Neil v. Spillane (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 147, 153 [119 Cal.Rptr. 245], internal citations omitted.)
California Penal Code §368 - Elder Financial Abuse
Under California Penal Code Section §368 PC, the crime of elder abuse can involve a variety of criminal behavior that is targeted at people who are 65 years old or older. ... The defendant willfully or with criminal negligence subjected an elderly person to unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.
Under Penal Code §368, elder abuse can be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor...it's the prosecutor's choice, depending on the defendant's criminal history and the facts of the case.
When elder abuse is prosecuted as a misdemeanor, potential penalties include up to one (1) year in county jail and a fine of thousands of dollars. If it is prosecuted as a felony, the defendant may be sentenced to state prison for two (2) to four (4) years.
California Penal Code 484 - Conversion
Any person who uses fraud or deceit to obtain possession to money, labor, or real personal property is guilt of theft by trick.
California Penal Code §518 - Extortion (also known as Blackmail)
Extortion is the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, “consideration” means anything of value, including sexual conduct as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 311.3, or an image of an intimate body part as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (j) of Section 647.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who has obtained consideration consisting of sexual conduct or an image of an intimate body part.
(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 518, Sec. 1. (SB 500) Effective January 1, 2018.)
Extortion occurs when a person does any of the following:
1. uses force or threats to compel another person to give you money or other property,
2. uses force or threats to compel a public officer to perform an official act, or
3. if it is a public official, acts under color of official right to compel another person to give up money or other property.
Extortion in most cases is a California felony. The penalties are two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in county jail, and/or a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine.
Victims who pay the money or property extorted can also bring a lawsuit to recover damages for "civil extortion" in California.
In California, attempted extortion is codified under Penal Code §524 making it a crime when someone attempts, by means of any threat, to extort money or property from another.
Fear can include fear of physical harm to an individual, their family, or even a family pet. Fear can also include threatening to do some action that would be harmful or damaging to a person's job or reputation, such as exposing explicit photos or an affair.
Under California Penal Code PC §519, “fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat of any of the following:
To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person.
To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his or her, or a member of his or her family, of a crime.
To expose, or to impute to him, her, or them a deformity, disgrace, or crime.
To expose a secret affecting him, her, or them.
To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status.”
Making Threats in Writing
Making threats to extort money does not require face-to-face threats or use of force. Under California Penal Code PC §523, “every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section §519 is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.”
Extortion in California is a felony offense. Under California Penal Code PC §520, a conviction for extortion can result in imprisonment for 2, 3, or 4 years, and a substantial fine.
18 U.S. Code 1343, Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television (email also included)
Whoever having devised, or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining any money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, transmits or causes to be transmited by means of wire, radio or television communications in interstate or foreign commerce any writings, signs, pictures or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Criminal sentencing involves the court reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors. Mitigating factors weigh in favor of the defendant and can lead to reduced sentencing. Aggravating factors weigh against the defendant and can increase the criminal sentence or add additional penalties.
Under California Penal Code PC §525, it is an aggravating factor if the victim of extortion was an elder or dependent person. An elder is any person who is 65 years of age or older.
California Penal Code 21a PC and 664 PC - Attempted Crimes
Under 21a PC an individual can be convicted of an attempted crime in the California Criminal Court process if both of the following are true:
1. You specifically intended to commit a certain crime; and
2. You performed a direct (but ineffective) act toward committing that crime.
A direct step must:
1. Indicate a definite and unambiguous intent to commit the target offense; and
2. Be an immediate step that puts the plan to commit the offense into motion, so that the plan would have been completed if some outside circumstance had not interrupted it.
Under California Penal Code PC §525, it is an aggravating factor if the victim of extortion was an elder or dependent person. An elder is any person who is 65 years of age or older.
The United States Constitution is the single greatest document in existence, and along with the 1st Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights ergo Freedom of Speech, affords every American the legal ability to speak the truth regardless of any threats to the contrary, or retaliation for exposing the individual/s who perpetrated crimes, and this investigation will continue until the wrongs have been righted and all parties involved with the criminal actions including any conspiracy if that is the case, have received their just punishment notwithstanding whether they operate in a foreign country, namely France.
This type of behavior can not, and will not, be tolerated and considering that the Decathlon Group et al and associated ownership can well afford to acquire the desired property through the appropriate legal method, they should be admonished to whatever extent is befitting their stature within the global marketplace.
As the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, of which the sport of the Decathlon is of prime interest, are now less than a year away it is extremely important that the public is sufficiently informed to the dastardly behavior conducted by Decathlon Group et al so they will refuse to do any business with an organization ready, willing and able to attempt to steal from an elderly person just to line their respective pockets with more and more money.
This company does a disservice to the sport in general and demeans the global Olympic brand and the International Olympic Organization as a whole by utilizing a corporate name so closely recognized around the globe as an admirable identifier yet under this name they choose to attempt to defraud an individual of his rightfully owned property in the guise of greed extraordinaire!
This website will be a legacy of sorts to the owners of Decathlon Group et al and will remain in full force and effect until all the wrongs have been righted and acknowledged publicly and any of those found guilty have been punished.
It may take awhile but eventually the entire world will come to know what type of despicable individuals own Decathlon Group et al and numerous stores and websites around the world operate under the Decathlon Group umbrella such as Decathlon.com, Decathlon France Decathlon.fr, Decathlon United Kingdom Decathlon.co.uk, Decathlon Ireland Decathlon.ie, Decathlon Greece Decathlon.gr, Decathlon South Africa Decathlon.co.za, Decathlon Australia Decathlon.com.au, Decathlon India Decathlon.in, Decathlon China Decathlon.com.cn, Decathlon Brazil Decathlon.com.br, Decathlon Germany Decathlon.de, and numerous other domains pertaining to respective countries around the world, and the millions of shoppers will want to take their business to a reputable company rather than give their hard earned money to an organization prone to take by force if necessary, property that they know does not rightfully belong to them solely for the almighty dollar regardless of who and how many people have been severely damaged by their inappropriate behavior.
Michel Leclercq and Gérard Mulliez and Michel Aballea, among others, should be totally ashamed of themselves for the disrespect they display and the sheer gall they depict towards another human being, a senior citizen in his seventies, accusing same of an egregious wrongdoing, and this website will, over time, divulge all of their abhorrent behavior towards others in the name of greed and they will rue the day that they unleashed their lawyer, Alexandre Nappey, upon this unsuspecting person who violated no law nor infringed upon any trademark owned by Decathlon Group et al or their respective websites including Decathlon.com, Decathlon.fr etc. and once the Google search algorithms dissect the contents of this website the information contained herein will be part of the World Wide Web ad infinitum.
If Decathlon Group et al, or anyone mentioned within this website, feels that the contents contained herein are untruthful, then by all means they should take their best shot in whatever legal means or manner they deem appropriate, as libel can not occur when the facts detailed are honest and truthful, and I welcome the global publicity this will garner so their existing clientele and/or potential future customers will know completely every wrong they have committed against anyone since the organization was originally formed in 1976.
Decathlon Group et al, Michel Leclercq, Gérard Mulliez, Michel Aballea et al have severe consequences for their deplorable actions against this website owner and I look forward to exposing their dishonesty in great detail for many years to come.
Most of the 'so called men' listed here shall forever live in infamy and be linked to one another as combined they have committed some of the most despicable and heinous crimes known to mankind!
Assassins, Psychopaths, Sociopaths, Paranoid Schizophrenics, Fraud, Mayhem, Sodomy, Robbery, Cannibalism, Rapists, Mass Murderers, Child Molesters, Torture, Pedophiles, Serial Killers, Terrorists, Dictators, Spies, Conspiracy, Attempted Grand Theft, Drug Trafficking, Extortion, Psychotics, Thieves, Assault, Violence, Distributing Child Pornography, Child Abuse, Sexual Deviants, Sexual Predators, Securities Fraud, Elder Financial Abuse, Wire Fraud with a majority of them suffering from every mental disorder known to medical science.
In my opinion each and everyone of them is a criminal in their own right and have inflicted severe pain upon their victims beyond human comprehension. Not all are guilty of every crime listed, however each of them has committed crimes against society in one way or another. Some have paid the ultimate price for their respective crimes and some have yet to receive their due but as time passes justice will prevail. One of the characteristics shared by most of these dregs of society is that they take pleasure in the suffering of others and most refuse to even acknowledge their offenses nor have any remorse and do so with impunity. These are very evil people and deserve whatever punishment society decides to impose.
Names such as Al Capone, Albert DeSalvo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Pablo Escobar, Adolf Hitler, Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Eichmann, Dr. Josef Mengele, John Wayne Gacy, John Dillinger, Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman, Ted Bundy, Ramzi Yousef, Alger Hiss, Timothy McVeigh, Saddam Hussein, Ted Kaczynski, Bashar al-Assad, Idi Amin, James Earl Ray, Angelo Buono, David Berkowitz, Kenneth Bianchi, Julius Rosenberg, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the list goes on! Known also by such infamous names as Assassinators of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Boston Strangler, Night Stalker, Unabomber, Hillside Stranglers, Boston Marathon Bomber, Shoe Bomber, September 11, World Trade Center terrorist, Underwear Bomber etc.
This website and accompanying domain name are not affiliated with Association Familiale Mulliez, Decathlon Group et al, Decathlon Sporting Goods, Decathlon.com etc., Auchan, Auchan Retail, Groupe Auchan nor any individual in the Mulliez or Leclercq families in any manner whatsoever, and is merely as an investigative evidentiary discovery mechanism to determine which, if any, and how many crimes and civil torts may have been perpetrated against this website owner.
The express purpose of this website is to investigate all of the facts and to make a determination as to who is responsible for any felony criminal acts and/or civil wrongs perpetrated against this website owner, and to establish which, if any, and how many crimes may have actually been committed, and also to bring to justice the individual and/or individuals within the above referenced who may have allowed, authorized, committed, condoned, permitted and/or ordered any crimes and civil torts to take place.
All crime related information contained within this website has not yet been established by having been proven in a court of law and all parties are presumed innocent until judged guilty by a jury of their peers, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence, depending on the particular situation, and thus proven in a proper court of jurisdiction.
Decathlon Group et al, managed and/or owned in any capacity whatsoever by individuals such as Michel Leclercq, Gérard Paul Louis Marie-Joseph Mulliez, Michel Aballea, Fabien Derville et al, represented by Alexandre Nappey of Scan Law, chose to intimidate me with fear tactics, so I would voluntarily relinquish property obtained and owned by me legally, for the sole purpose of them acquiring extremely valuable assets so they won’t have to pay for them legally. This sort of underhanded activity is frowned upon in society and the world needs to be made aware of the consequences of conducting business with an organization that thrives on such despicable and abhorrent behavior and this website will be a conduit to inform everyone to hopefully prevent future damage to others as has occurred to this individual.
This is an ongoing and evolving investigation and additional facts and revelations will be included as time goes on so the public is invited to visit often. This is also intended to inform the general public and customers of the Decathlon Group Sports empire et al to help prevent situations such as these to occur in the future and to act as a deterrent to any guilty parties from future threats and/or intimidation to reoccur.
We will scour the Internet for any wrong-doing conducted by this company as this will be a lengthy undertaking and we will leave no stone unturned seeking and reporting to the world audience all distasteful activity and we will not condone anything that would appear to be unsavory and make this a destination of importance for the unsuspecting public to be forewarned so they will not fall victim to this unscrupulous company, Decathlon Group et al.
Alexandre Nappey, as the legal representative for and acting on behalf of the above referenced entities and individuals, has falsely accused this website owner of a criminal act and trademark infringement against Decathlon Group, owner and operator of the Decathlon.com sports equipment and sports clothing business, and this website will be an ongoing dissemination of pertinent facts relating to any and all improprieties committed by Decathlon Group et al throughout the world and as an informative vehicle to make aware to current and potential customers who, knowing the truth, may wish to either discontinue future engagement with or refrain from purchasing from said organization that participated in inappropriate behavior towards the general public at large or attempts by subterfuge take from honest people property rightfully acquired and legally owned by another that which they have chosen to threaten to obtain illegally rather than purchase from the true legal owner.
Attempted Extortion, Conversion, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Deceit, Elder Financial Abuse, Attempted Fraud, Fraudulent and Intentional Misrepresentation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intent to Commit Grand Theft, Attempted Theft by False Pretenses and Theft by Trick, Undue Influence and both state of California and Federal Wire Fraud (since the alleged crime/s were perpetrated via email) are some of the specific crimes and civil torts under investigation.
California Civil Codes and California Penal Codes
California Civil Code §1572 - Fraudulent Misrepresentation - Intentional Misrepresentation
Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
California Civil Code section §1709 §1710 - Deceit
Civil Code section §1709 defines “deceit" generally: “One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.”
Civil Code section §1710 specifies, A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true [intentional misrepresentation of fact];
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true [negligent misrepresentation of fact];
3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact [concealment or suppression of fact]; or,
4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it [promissory fraud].
5. Any other act fitted to deceive.
Civil Code section §1712 states One who obtains a thing without the consent of its owner, or by a consent afterwards rescinded, or by an unlawful exaction which the owner could not at the time prudently refuse, must restore it to the person from whom it was thus obtained, unless he has acquired a title thereto superior to that of such other person, or unless the transaction was corrupt and unlawful on both sides.
Civil Code section §1713 states The restoration required by the last section must be made without demand, except where a thing is obtained by mutual mistake, in which case the party obtaining the thing is not bound to return it until he has notice of the mistake.
Points and Authority
“Fraud” and “deceit” are defined in Civil Code sections §§ 1572, 1709, and 1710. Courts appear to refer to the terms interchangeably, though technically “fraud” applies to only contract actions.
Points and Authorities
Civil Code section §1572, dealing specifically with fraud in the making of contracts, restates these definitions in slightly differing language, with the addition of a fifth kind of deceit, described generally as “[a]ny other act fitted to deceive.” Fraud in the context of contract formation is covered by other instructions.
The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “ ‘(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ ” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903], internal quotation marks omitted; see also Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1108 (252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P
Sometimes this tort is stated with four elements instead of five: “(1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.” (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816 (52 Cal.Rptr.2d 650).)
The representation must ordinarily be an affirmation of fact, as opposed to an opinion. Under the Restatement Second of Torts section 538A, a representation is an opinion “if it expresses only (a) the belief of the maker, without certainty, as to the existence of a fact; or (b) his judgment as to quality, value, authenticity, or other matters of judgment.” Opinions are addressed in CACI No. 1904, Opinions as Statements of Fact.
“Fraud is an intentional tort; it is the element of fraudulent intent, or intent to deceive, that distinguishes it from actionable negligent misrepresentation and from nonactionable innocent misrepresentation. It is the element of intent which makes fraud actionable, irrespective of any contractual or fiduciary duty one party might owe to the other.” (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 482 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 329], internal citations omitted.)
“A misrepresentation need not be oral; it may be implied by conduct.” (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1567 (54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468), internal citations omitted.)
“ ‘[F]alse representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 974, quoting Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 (30 Cal.Rptr. 629).)
“Actual reliance occurs when a misrepresentation is “ ‘an immediate cause of [a plaintiff’s] conduct, which alters his legal relations,’ ” and when, absent such representation, “ ‘he would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.’ ” ‘It is not . . . necessary that [a plaintiff’s] reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct… It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision.’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 976—977, internal citations omitted.)
“Justifiable reliance is an essential element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact.” (Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 837, 843 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 437] internal citations omitted.)
“A ‘complete causal relationship’ between the fraud or deceit and the plaintiff’s damages is required… Causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a “ ‘substantial factor’ ” in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff.” (Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 132 (39 Cal.Rptr.2d 658), internal citations omitted.)
“This is not merely a case where the defendants made false representations of matters within their personal knowledge which they had no reasonable grounds for believing to be true. Such acts clearly would constitute actual fraud under California law. In such situations the defendant believes the representations to be true but is without reasonable grounds for such belief. His liability is based on negligent misrepresentation which has been made a form of actionable deceit. On the contrary, in the instant case, the court found that the defendants did not believe in the truth of the statements. Where a person makes statements which he does not believe to be true, in a reckless manner without knowing whether they are true or false, the element of scienter is satisfied and he is liable for intentional misrepresentation.” (Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 57 [30 Cal.Rptr. 629], original italics, internal citations omitted.)
“ ‘To be actionable deceit, the representation need not be made with knowledge of actual falsity, but need only be an “assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true” and made “with intent to induce [the recipient] to alter his position to his injury or his risk…’ ” The elements of negligent misrepresentation also include justifiable reliance on the representation, and resulting damage.” (B.L.M. v. Sabo & Deitsch (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 823, 834 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 335], internal citations omitted.)
“As is true of negligence, responsibility for negligent misrepresentation rests upon the existence of a legal duty, imposed by contract, statute or otherwise, owed by a defendant to the injured person. The determination of whether a duty exists is primarily a question of law.” (Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 864 [245 Cal.Rptr. 211], internal citations omitted.)
“A misrepresentation of fact is material if it induced the plaintiff to alter his position to his detriment. Stated in terms of reliance, materiality means that without the misrepresentation, the plaintiff would not have acted as he did. ‘It must be shown that the plaintiff actually relied upon the misrepresentation; i.e., that the representation was “an immediate cause of his conduct which alters his legal relations,” and that without such representation, “he would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.” ’ ” (Okun v. Morton (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 805, 828 [250 Cal.Rptr. 220], internal citations omitted.)
California Penal Code Section §532 PC - Theft by False Pretenses
California Penal Code Section §532 PC - False pretenses; obtaining money, labor or property; punishment; evidence necessary to support conviction. ("(a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.")
A false pretense is any act, word, symbol, or token the purpose of which is to deceive.
Theft by false pretenses can be either petty theft or grand theft, depending on the value of the property that is taken.
If the property stolen is worth more than nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), or is a firearm or a car, then it is grand theft. The maximum penalty for grand theft is either up to one (1) year in county jail, OR sixteen (16) months, two (2) years, or three (3) years in prison, depending on how the prosecutor chooses to charge the crime.
Points and Authorities
To have the requisite intent for theft, the thief must either intend to deprive the owner permanently or to deprive the owner of a major portion of the property's value or enjoyment. (See People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1].)
Intent to Deprive Owner of Main Value. People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-59 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1], disapproving, to extent it is inconsistent, People v. Marquez (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 115, 123 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 365].
Reliance on the false pretense need not be proved for a person to be guilty of attempted theft by false pretense. (People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 467 [117 Cal.Rptr. 757].)
Although fraud is used to obtain the property in both theft by trick and theft by false pretense, in theft by false pretense, the thief obtains both possession and title to the property. For theft by trick, the thief gains only possession of the property. (People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d 246, 258 [267 P.2d 271]; People v. Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164, 172 [108 Cal.Rptr. 326].) False pretenses does not require that the title pass perfectly and the victim may even retain a security interest in the property transferred to the defendant. (People v. Counts (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 785, 789-792 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
The misrepresentation does not have to be made in an express statement; it may be implied from behavior or other circumstances. (People v. Mace (1925) 71 Cal.App. 10, 21 [234 P. 841]; People v. Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164, 174-175 [108 Cal.Rptr. 326] [analogizing to the law of implied contracts].)
California Civil Code §1575 - Undue Influence
Undue Influence consists:
1. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him;
2. In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or,
3. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress.
Points and Authorities
The Civil Code provides that consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, or mistake, and is deemed to have been so obtained when it would not have been given but for such fraud or mistake. (Civ. Code, §§ 1567, 1568.)
Civil Code section 1575 provides three circumstances that support a finding of undue influence.
The question of undue influence is decided as a question of fact: “[D]irect evidence of undue influence is rarely obtainable and, thus the court is normally relegated to determination by inference from the totality of facts and circumstances. Indeed, there are no fixed definitions or inflexible formulas. Rather, we are concerned with whether from the entire context it appears that one’s will was overborne and he was induced to do or forbear to do an act which he would not do, or would do, if left to act freely.” (Keithley v. Civil Service Bd. of the City of Oakland (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 443, 451 [89 Cal.Rptr. 809], internal citations omitted.)
“In essence, undue influence consists of the use of excessive pressure by a dominant person over a servient person resulting in the apparent will of the servient person being in fact the will of the dominant person. The undue susceptibility to such overpersuasive influence may be the product of physical or emotional exhaustion or anguish which results in one’s inability to act with unencumbered volition.” (Keithley, supra, 11 Cal.App.3d at p. 451.)
Whether or not the parties have a confidential relationship is a question of fact: “It is, of course, well settled that while the mere fact that a relationship is friendly and intimate does not necessarily amount to a confidential relationship, such relationship may be said to exist whenever trust and confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another. It is likewise frequently emphasized that the existence of a confidential relationship presents a question of fact which, of necessity, may be determined only on a case by case basis.” (O’Neil v. Spillane (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 147, 153 [119 Cal.Rptr. 245], internal citations omitted.)
California Penal Code §368 - Elder Financial Abuse
Under California Penal Code Section §368 PC, the crime of elder abuse can involve a variety of criminal behavior that is targeted at people who are 65 years old or older. ... The defendant willfully or with criminal negligence subjected an elderly person to unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.
Under Penal Code §368, elder abuse can be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor...it's the prosecutor's choice, depending on the defendant's criminal history and the facts of the case.
When elder abuse is prosecuted as a misdemeanor, potential penalties include up to one (1) year in county jail and a fine of thousands of dollars. If it is prosecuted as a felony, the defendant may be sentenced to state prison for two (2) to four (4) years.
California Penal Code 484 - Conversion
Any person who uses fraud or deceit to obtain possession to money, labor, or real personal property is guilt of theft by trick.
California Penal Code §518 - Extortion (also known as Blackmail)
Extortion is the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, “consideration” means anything of value, including sexual conduct as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 311.3, or an image of an intimate body part as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (j) of Section 647.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who has obtained consideration consisting of sexual conduct or an image of an intimate body part.
(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 518, Sec. 1. (SB 500) Effective January 1, 2018.)
Extortion occurs when a person does any of the following:
1. uses force or threats to compel another person to give you money or other property,
2. uses force or threats to compel a public officer to perform an official act, or
3. if it is a public official, acts under color of official right to compel another person to give up money or other property.
Extortion in most cases is a California felony. The penalties are two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in county jail, and/or a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine.
Victims who pay the money or property extorted can also bring a lawsuit to recover damages for "civil extortion" in California.
In California, attempted extortion is codified under Penal Code §524 making it a crime when someone attempts, by means of any threat, to extort money or property from another.
Fear can include fear of physical harm to an individual, their family, or even a family pet. Fear can also include threatening to do some action that would be harmful or damaging to a person's job or reputation, such as exposing explicit photos or an affair.
Under California Penal Code PC §519, “fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat of any of the following:
To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person.
To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his or her, or a member of his or her family, of a crime.
To expose, or to impute to him, her, or them a deformity, disgrace, or crime.
To expose a secret affecting him, her, or them.
To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status.”
Making Threats in Writing
Making threats to extort money does not require face-to-face threats or use of force. Under California Penal Code PC §523, “every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section §519 is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.”
Extortion in California is a felony offense. Under California Penal Code PC §520, a conviction for extortion can result in imprisonment for 2, 3, or 4 years, and a substantial fine.
18 U.S. Code 1343, Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television (email also included)
Whoever having devised, or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining any money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, transmits or causes to be transmited by means of wire, radio or television communications in interstate or foreign commerce any writings, signs, pictures or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Criminal sentencing involves the court reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors. Mitigating factors weigh in favor of the defendant and can lead to reduced sentencing. Aggravating factors weigh against the defendant and can increase the criminal sentence or add additional penalties.
Under California Penal Code PC §525, it is an aggravating factor if the victim of extortion was an elder or dependent person. An elder is any person who is 65 years of age or older.
California Penal Code 21a PC and 664 PC - Attempted Crimes
Under 21a PC an individual can be convicted of an attempted crime in the California Criminal Court process if both of the following are true:
1. You specifically intended to commit a certain crime; and
2. You performed a direct (but ineffective) act toward committing that crime.
A direct step must:
1. Indicate a definite and unambiguous intent to commit the target offense; and
2. Be an immediate step that puts the plan to commit the offense into motion, so that the plan would have been completed if some outside circumstance had not interrupted it.
Under California Penal Code PC §525, it is an aggravating factor if the victim of extortion was an elder or dependent person. An elder is any person who is 65 years of age or older.
The United States Constitution is the single greatest document in existence, and along with the 1st Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights ergo Freedom of Speech, affords every American the legal ability to speak the truth regardless of any threats to the contrary, or retaliation for exposing the individual/s who perpetrated crimes, and this investigation will continue until the wrongs have been righted and all parties involved with the criminal actions including any conspiracy if that is the case, have received their just punishment notwithstanding whether they operate in a foreign country, namely France.
This type of behavior can not, and will not, be tolerated and considering that the Decathlon Group et al and associated ownership can well afford to acquire the desired property through the appropriate legal method, they should be admonished to whatever extent is befitting their stature within the global marketplace.
As the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, of which the sport of the Decathlon is of prime interest, are now less than a year away it is extremely important that the public is sufficiently informed to the dastardly behavior conducted by Decathlon Group et al so they will refuse to do any business with an organization ready, willing and able to attempt to steal from an elderly person just to line their respective pockets with more and more money.
This company does a disservice to the sport in general and demeans the global Olympic brand and the International Olympic Organization as a whole by utilizing a corporate name so closely recognized around the globe as an admirable identifier yet under this name they choose to attempt to defraud an individual of his rightfully owned property in the guise of greed extraordinaire!
This website will be a legacy of sorts to the owners of Decathlon Group et al and will remain in full force and effect until all the wrongs have been righted and acknowledged publicly and any of those found guilty have been punished.
It may take awhile but eventually the entire world will come to know what type of despicable individuals own Decathlon Group et al and numerous stores and websites around the world operate under the Decathlon Group umbrella such as Decathlon.com, Decathlon France Decathlon.fr, Decathlon United Kingdom Decathlon.co.uk, Decathlon Ireland Decathlon.ie, Decathlon Greece Decathlon.gr, Decathlon South Africa Decathlon.co.za, Decathlon Australia Decathlon.com.au, Decathlon India Decathlon.in, Decathlon China Decathlon.com.cn, Decathlon Brazil Decathlon.com.br, Decathlon Germany Decathlon.de, and numerous other domains pertaining to respective countries around the world, and the millions of shoppers will want to take their business to a reputable company rather than give their hard earned money to an organization prone to take by force if necessary, property that they know does not rightfully belong to them solely for the almighty dollar regardless of who and how many people have been severely damaged by their inappropriate behavior.
Michel Leclercq and Gérard Mulliez and Michel Aballea, among others, should be totally ashamed of themselves for the disrespect they display and the sheer gall they depict towards another human being, a senior citizen in his seventies, accusing same of an egregious wrongdoing, and this website will, over time, divulge all of their abhorrent behavior towards others in the name of greed and they will rue the day that they unleashed their lawyer, Alexandre Nappey, upon this unsuspecting person who violated no law nor infringed upon any trademark owned by Decathlon Group et al or their respective websites including Decathlon.com, Decathlon.fr etc. and once the Google search algorithms dissect the contents of this website the information contained herein will be part of the World Wide Web ad infinitum.
If Decathlon Group et al, or anyone mentioned within this website, feels that the contents contained herein are untruthful, then by all means they should take their best shot in whatever legal means or manner they deem appropriate, as libel can not occur when the facts detailed are honest and truthful, and I welcome the global publicity this will garner so their existing clientele and/or potential future customers will know completely every wrong they have committed against anyone since the organization was originally formed in 1976.
Decathlon Group et al, Michel Leclercq, Gérard Mulliez, Michel Aballea et al have severe consequences for their deplorable actions against this website owner and I look forward to exposing their dishonesty in great detail for many years to come.
Most of the 'so called men' listed here shall forever live in infamy and be linked to one another as combined they have committed some of the most despicable and heinous crimes known to mankind!
Assassins, Psychopaths, Sociopaths, Paranoid Schizophrenics, Fraud, Mayhem, Sodomy, Robbery, Cannibalism, Rapists, Mass Murderers, Child Molesters, Torture, Pedophiles, Serial Killers, Terrorists, Dictators, Spies, Conspiracy, Attempted Grand Theft, Drug Trafficking, Extortion, Psychotics, Thieves, Assault, Violence, Distributing Child Pornography, Child Abuse, Sexual Deviants, Sexual Predators, Securities Fraud, Elder Financial Abuse, Wire Fraud with a majority of them suffering from every mental disorder known to medical science.
In my opinion each and everyone of them is a criminal in their own right and have inflicted severe pain upon their victims beyond human comprehension. Not all are guilty of every crime listed, however each of them has committed crimes against society in one way or another. Some have paid the ultimate price for their respective crimes and some have yet to receive their due but as time passes justice will prevail. One of the characteristics shared by most of these dregs of society is that they take pleasure in the suffering of others and most refuse to even acknowledge their offenses nor have any remorse and do so with impunity. These are very evil people and deserve whatever punishment society decides to impose.
Names such as Al Capone, Albert DeSalvo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Pablo Escobar, Adolf Hitler, Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Eichmann, Dr. Josef Mengele, John Wayne Gacy, John Dillinger, Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman, Ted Bundy, Ramzi Yousef, Alger Hiss, Timothy McVeigh, Saddam Hussein, Ted Kaczynski, Bashar al-Assad, Idi Amin, James Earl Ray, Angelo Buono, David Berkowitz, Kenneth Bianchi, Julius Rosenberg, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the list goes on! Known also by such infamous names as Assassinators of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Boston Strangler, Night Stalker, Unabomber, Hillside Stranglers, Boston Marathon Bomber, Shoe Bomber, September 11, World Trade Center terrorist, Underwear Bomber etc.
Fabien Derville
Gérard Mulliez
Michel Leclercq
Alexandre Nappey
Michel Aballea
Adolf Eichmann
Adolf Hitler
Al Capone
Albert Desalvo
Alger Hiss
Angelo Buono
Bashar al-Assad
Charles Manson
David Berkowitz
Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman
Idi Amin
James Earl Ray
Jeffrey Dahmer
John Dillinger
John Wayne Gacy
Josef Mengele
Julius Rosenberg
Kenneth Bianchi
Lee Harvey Oswald
Osama bin Laden
Ramzi Yousef
Richard Ramirez
Richard Reid
Saddam Hussein
Sirhan Sirhan
Ted Bundy
Ted Kaczynski
Timothy McVeigh
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Zacarias Moussaoui
Pablo Escobar