The groundlessness of the claims regarding Ebru Simsek

Several court rulings definitively established that Ebru Simsek’s allegations against Mr. Adnan Oktar and the SRF circle were all slanders. But New Humanist magazine never mentioned the rulings in question, presenting all of Ebru Simsek’s claims as if they were true fact. This is an example of a most familiar psychological warfare method conducted by masons, atheists and Darwinists. 
Judicial rulings showing that all of Ebru Simsek’s claims are slanders:

1. The Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s considered acquittal opinion showing that Ebru Simsek’s allegations in Case No. 2006/26, an extension of the SRF case, were slanders and the VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL No. 2007/7 dated 22.01.2007 by the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court.
2. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION of Ebru Simsek's fantastical claims (in 1999) under ruling No. 96/9848 Hz – 99/8409 K. dated 12.08.1999. 
3. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION No. 05/27549 Hz. - 05/12003 K. dated 18.10.2005.
4. The Istanbul Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/60013 Hz. - 02/18838 K. dated 31.12.2002 and the Beyoglu 3rd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/458 Mut. dated 28.04.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
5. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/39606 Hz. - 03/8860 K. dated 30.06.2003 and the Beyoglu 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/333 Mut. dated 03.10.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
6. The Bagcilar Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/21669 Hz. - 03/6120 K. dated 15.10.2003 and the Eyup 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/894 D.Is. dated 02.01.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
7. The Uskudar Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s verdict of non-prosecution No. 04/7693 Hz. - 04/4749 K. dated 01.07.2004 and the Kadikoy 2nd High Criminal Court’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 04/437 Mut. dated 09.09.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
8. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51724 Hz. – 06/2432 K. dated 27.03.2006.
9. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office’s VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51725 Hz.
10. Following the known images of Ebru Simsek in the press, an Istanbul University Medical School Department of Forensic Medicine expert carried out an inquiry in which IT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER REPORT No. 2005/127765 dated 21.10.2005 that Ebru Simsek’s claims were merely slanders.
11. Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court had the home in the allegations of Ebru Simsek and the home in the images examined by an official expert, accompanied by the court judges. This expert report revealed that THE HOME IN THE IMAGES DEFINITELY DID NOT BELONG TO THE SRF MEMBER.
12. Filiz Karatas, who shared a house with Ebru Simsek at the time she began issuing slanders against the SRF members, gave a witness statement to the court in Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court file No. 04/337 E. on 09.12.2004 and said that the SRF members were uninvolved in the matter and THAT THEY HAD ISSUED THIS IMAGINARY ALLEGATION TOGETHER TO SLANDER THE SRF.
13. Ten separate criminal complaints brought by those slandered by Ebru Simsek were examined by 10 different Public Prosecutors from different offices; these prosecutors concluded, as a result of their investigations, that Ebru Simsek’s claims were slanderous.

Baselessness of libels having sexual content against Mr. Adnan Oktar and his friends

New Humanist, an atheist and Darwinist magazine, amazingly cites some disproved claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar and thus becomes a part of an anti-propaganda. The line of the magazine in question, which is an atheist and Darwinist publication, clearly reveals its biased attitudes in its claims against Mr. Adnan Oktar. Like all atheist, Darwinist publications, this magazine also appears to be severely annoyed by the strong anti-Darwinist activities.
Libels with sexual content against Adnan Oktar and Science Research Foundation (SRF) have always been an important indicator of the unease felt by Darwinists. Whenever atheist and Darwinist parties sense their defeat, they lose no time resorting to libels having sexual content, which is the most delicate subject of the society. Consequently it is not surprising that such claims were revealed in New Humanist magazine. For the claim in question to be accepted, there should primarily be a complainant, an aggrieved party and a witness. Yet, for the claim in question to be accepted as true, there exists not a single witness, complainant or an aggrieved party. Furthermore, it is legally proven that the claim of hidden cameras referred to in New Humanist has no validity whatsoever. The verdicts of acquittal and dismissal of proceedings given by the Courts and public prosecutors totally disprove this claim. Indeed there exists not a single video camera or a recording that would verify this claim.
Tugce Doras and Seckin Piriler, two people New Humanist tries to show as witnesses, are the people who had to sign the testimonies put in front of them under duress in the police station. These people then stated that they were subjected to pressure in the police station and thus refused to accept their testimonies in police station. Furthermore, they declared before the judge that they do not accept their testimonies since they were subjected to pressure in the police station. They further added that they had not been oppressed or harmed either by Adnan Oktar or anyone from this community, and that there exists not an interest with sexual-content as claimed in question. The statements in question are available in court minutes. You can reach related detailed information and documents from here.
The claims stated here are based on the testimonies signed under duress and torture by all SRF members tried and taken under custody as a result of the plots hatched by the alleged Ergenekon terror organization in 1999. According to the law, police testimonies signed under torture and in the absence of advocates are utterly invalid. However, based on the invalid testimonies taken by police, the Court imposed a penalty on the SRF case. These testimonies illegally considered by the Court as a basis for the verdict, the very same explanations, are repeated in the New Humanist and presented to the readers as if they have any actuality.