Bordeaux, the 7th-2-2000, Registered letter (Ack. of receipt)

to

Dear Sir

  Thank you for having given sign of life, and also because you asked me to send you "relevant documents of damage" that I consider to have suffered, what is an implicit recognition of the reality of a damage.
However, it strikes me that you are inverting roles because you committed yourself to let me know about your inquiry.
You still do not pay "all the necessary attention" to my letter of the 1-2-2000 in which I ask you to honor your written assurance - of the 13-10-99 - "to keep in touch with me". Now, you don't inform me when you tell me in your last letter of the 3-2-2000 that you "conducted an inquiry", because you had already told me so and also because I answered to the questionnaire. To give me information lies in giving me the results of this investigation, and in drawing some conclusions from it :

O If from - even partial - confirmations (cf. limits of an internal inquiry without detailed statements from the declared victims) of the reality of these violences and depredations of property, you did not yet recognize explicitly that it is about facts and not assumptions or personal opinions, this involves your liability (towards Justice as well as towards the board of DILLON S.A.).
Hence, the conditional used in your 1st letter of October 13 ("incidents which would have occurred"), must be amended.

O As for the direct authors of these facts, they should at least send a letter of apology to their victims and commit theirselves not to do it again, or they would take the risk to be forced to it through trial, and maybe sentenced to pay a compensation themselves.

O On the other hand, when you write that the point is to put "an end to my concern", you seem to count for nothing the worries of the other victims (old ones and\or to come) and to hush up your Director's duty not to ignore them, as well as the common concern everyone is supposed to have in order to avoid violence ("the last resort of incompetence").

O Therefore, I expect from you that you clearly state that the question is to restore and to strengthen mutual respect, essential for a civilized society, while you limit the scope of these 'incidents' solely to my case, mentioning only a financial compensation. Do you acknowledge or not that the dignity of the persons has been undermined, and not only mine ?
Without this preliminary recognition, general moral compensation, there can be no question of tackling the personal financial compensation : then I could be blamed for failing to live up to my standards and for pursuing a personal goal.

O Finally, you make no proposal and offer no guarantee so that this doesn't happen again. Do you really think you are credible ? Do you wish a Court settlement ?

I consent to prolong till the end of February so that you can keep your word ; beyond, I don't intend to pay any more attention to insubstantial writings, nor to repeat myself much longer.