Jean-Philippe Grange

A summary of what happened?

Jean-Philippe Grange has garnered attention and raised eyebrows due to his involvement in a series of complex, often opaque activities that stretch across international borders and involve titles, claims, and organizations of uncertain legitimacy. From high-level financial dealings to roles in obscure diplomatic titles, Grange presents a profile that is difficult to pin down and even harder to verify.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Grange’s public activities is his affiliation with the “Te Taou Sovereignty and Kingdom of Maori,” an organization that claims to represent the interests of indigenous Maori groups. Grange has styled himself as a “Treasury Minister Plenipotentiary & Ambassador” within this group, a title that suggests significant diplomatic power. Yet, despite these high-sounding titles, there has been minimal substantiation of this role beyond his own claims. Critics argue that these titles serve more as tools for self-promotion or for positioning himself in high-stakes financial dealings.

In 2015, Grange notably took aim at OffshoreAlert, a financial investigations platform, alleging that it had engaged in defamation by investigating an alleged investment scam tied to an entity known as the CWM Group. The exchange left a trail of skepticism about Grange’s true motivations. OffshoreAlert’s initial inquiries hinted at potential irregularities within CWM’s financial activities, but Grange’s forceful response, which included demands for an apology on behalf of “U.S. interests,” raised questions about his connections to entities accused of fraud. Critics contend that Grange’s actions were less about protecting reputational interests and more about diverting attention from potentially dubious financial ventures.

Further intrigue surrounds Grange’s involvement in Capitis Fora LLP, a UK-based company where he served as a key member. Capitis Fora was registered and eventually dissolved, with little information on its operations. Skeptics have speculated that the company’s short-lived nature and the lack of a clear business profile suggest it may have been more of a shell entity than a legitimate enterprise. Such an arrangement would not be unheard of in international financial circles, where shell companies are often used to obscure transactions or establish a veneer of respectability.

In 2021, Grange was elected as a Councillor representing French expatriates living in Australia, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea, a move that seemed to legitimize his profile within the French community abroad. While this role gave him some credibility, it did little to shed light on his past financial dealings or the unresolved questions about his diplomatic claims.

However, despite these questionable activities, no credible sources suggest that Jean-Philippe Grange has ever attempted to censor the internet or wield influence over online content. Any mention of censorship appears to be more rumor than reality, likely fueled by his legal maneuvers to quash investigative reporting into his activities.

In essence, Grange’s life story reads like a complex web of international roles, financial dealings, and self-appointed titles, blending elements of diplomacy and business in a manner that raises more questions than answers. While he has publicly fought to protect his reputation and deflect scrutiny, critics argue that his opaque affiliations and business ventures paint a picture of someone skilled at sidestepping accountability while cultivating an air of mystery. Whether Grange’s activities will face further investigation or fade into obscurity remains to be seen, but for now, he is a figure whose story remains shrouded in intrigue and unanswered questions.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Jean-Philippe Grange trying to hide?

Jean-Philippe Grange‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Jean-Philippe Grange in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Jean-Philippe Grange may be trying to remove from the internet –

The Shadowy Profile of Jean-Philippe Grange: A Deep Dive into Allegations, Complaints, and Legal Disputes

Jean-Philippe Grange, an enigmatic figure in international finance and diplomacy circles, has over the years amassed a mix of impressive titles, claims of sovereign authority, and complex business entanglements. Beneath this curated image, however, lies a trail of legal disputes, suspicious dealings, and allegations of misconduct that paint a far murkier picture of his activities. As an individual who has navigated the thin line between diplomacy and corporate strategy, Grange’s name has surfaced in several controversies that raise serious questions about his true intentions and the legitimacy of his claims.

Diplomatic Titles and Questionable Sovereignty Claims

At the heart of Grange’s persona is his self-styled role within the “Te Taou Sovereignty and Kingdom of Maori,” an organization that purports to represent the sovereign interests of Maori communities. Grange has assumed titles like “Treasury Minister Plenipotentiary & Ambassador” in relation to this group. The organization itself remains largely opaque, with no visible acknowledgment from recognized Maori authorities or the New Zealand government. Critics have questioned the organization’s origins and its genuine ties—if any—to indigenous Maori communities. The lack of official documentation or endorsement casts doubt on whether the Te Taou Sovereignty is a legitimate representative of any constituency or simply a front for other interests. Grange’s titles, which imply significant governmental authority, have not been substantiated through any international records, suggesting a self-bestowed nature aimed at enhancing his personal brand.

Financial Disputes and Offshore Investigations

Grange’s financial dealings have sparked significant controversy, most notably his connection to the CWM Group, an entity implicated in alleged investment scams. OffshoreAlert, a respected investigative platform, uncovered irregularities in CWM’s financial operations and sought to probe further. Grange responded by sending a forceful letter to OffshoreAlert, claiming defamation and demanding an apology. His insistence on defending “U.S. interests” raised eyebrows, as it seemed both an unusual reaction and an indication of stakes far higher than those of a mere investor or stakeholder. The intensity of his response led some to speculate that Grange’s involvement with CWM may have been more intimate than he let on. CWM’s activities, investigated in various jurisdictions, have reportedly led to significant financial losses for investors, although Grange himself has denied any connection to misconduct within the company.

Capitis Fora LLP and Shell Company Suspicions

Grange’s involvement in Capitis Fora LLP, a UK-registered entity that was dissolved shortly after its formation, adds another layer of intrigue to his story. As a designated member of Capitis Fora, Grange’s responsibilities and actions within the firm remain unclear, and the absence of any public financial records or business operations has fueled speculation that the entity may have been a shell company. Shell companies are often established to enable certain financial maneuvers—such as tax evasion, asset shielding, or the masking of financial trails—raising questions about Capitis Fora’s real purpose. While not illegal in itself, the creation of shell companies can indicate attempts to obscure financial activities, and some suggest that Capitis Fora may have played a similar role within Grange’s network of enterprises.

Legal Tactics and Censorship Claims

One of the defining characteristics of Grange’s approach to public scrutiny has been his aggressive use of legal threats to stymie investigations. His confrontation with OffshoreAlert is just one example in a series of attempts to silence critics or, as some say, censor unfavorable reporting on his activities. His legal threats often hinge on accusations of defamation and appeals to the interests of foreign governments, further muddying the waters around his true affiliations. While there is no hard evidence that Grange has attempted to censor the internet at large, his documented history of legal intimidation has nonetheless created a chilling effect, deterring journalists and investigators from delving too deeply into his business dealings.

Community Representation and Public Backlash

In 2021, Grange was elected as a Councillor for French expatriates residing in Australia, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea. This role afforded him a modicum of legitimacy, ostensibly positioning him as a representative of the French community abroad. However, critics argue that this title has done little to clarify his intentions or validate his previous claims. The election win came at a time when his name was already associated with financial controversies, leading some to question whether his bid for this role was a calculated move to bolster his standing and shield himself from criticism. Members of the expatriate community have since voiced concerns, with some questioning his commitment to genuine community issues versus personal agenda-driven goals.

A Trail of Questionable Affiliations and Potential Conflicts of Interest

Grange’s associations extend beyond Capitis Fora and CWM, including ties to other low-profile companies and groups with questionable legitimacy. His network spans multiple countries, and the sheer breadth of his affiliations raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. For instance, his diplomatic claims through the Te Taou Sovereignty seemingly overlap with his business dealings, creating scenarios where Grange could exploit his self-appointed authority to benefit financially. Such overlaps are particularly troubling given his apparent readiness to invoke sovereign claims as a shield against regulatory scrutiny or legal accountability.

Concluding Observations: A Legacy of Mystery and Unanswered Questions

Jean-Philippe Grange’s career is riddled with red flags and unanswered questions, which collectively suggest a pattern of obfuscation, self-promotion, and legal maneuvering. His reliance on grandiose titles and ambiguous entities has allowed him to cultivate an aura of authority, but without clear evidence of accountability or transparency. While he has not been directly tied to internet censorship, his tactics to silence detractors paint a picture of a man who will go to great lengths to control his narrative and evade scrutiny. Whether his story will ever be fully revealed remains uncertain, but the public—and his critics—will undoubtedly continue to watch closely, hoping to piece together the real story behind this mysterious figure.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Jean-Philippe Grange (or actors working on behalf of Jean-Philippe Grange), we will inform Jean-Philippe Grange of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Jean-Philippe Grange may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Jean-Philippe Grange, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Jean-Philippe Grange to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Jean-Philippe Grange made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Jean-Philippe Grange is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Jean-Philippe Grange

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Jean-Philippe Grange Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Jean-Philippe Grange used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Jean-Philippe Grange could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Jean-Philippe Grange have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Jean-Philippe Grange is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Jean-Philippe Grange creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Jean-Philippe Grange either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Jean-Philippe Grange, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Jean-Philippe Grange is in great company ….

What else is Jean-Philippe Grange hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Jean-Philippe Grange] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Jean-Philippe Grange that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.