A Sad Day For All Cristina Supporters...de Vido Detained

[wineguy999]

How does bajo propose to deal with allegation of wrongdoing by a lawmaker? Just do nothing?

Naturally...but only if they're Kirchneristas.

 

[Irelander]

Regarding Julian63's response to my post:

Julian, you say: "The "cases?" Isn't this thread about the one case of De Vido?"

As I understand it, there are currently four cases pending against De Vido: firstly there is "administración fraudulenta agravada por haber sido cometida en perjuicio de una administración pública" - the one regarding the purchase of second hand "junk trains" from Spain and Portugal. The second case is one of "asociación ilícita", mainly regarding public contracts in Santa Cruz. Thirdly, there's a charge of "incumplimiento de los deberes de funcionario público" arising from the non-renewal of railway contracts in the period 2003-2010. Fourthly, there's a charge regarding diesel fuel subsidies to bus companies in capital federal.

So the trials will proceed, and maybe he's guilty of some or all of the charges, or maybe he's innocent of some or all. It all depends on that most boring of items that nobody seems to be bothered about: the evidence. It's this lack of interest in the substantive issues that smells to me like a Stalinist show trial, or trial by the mob. Frankly I'm surprised that so few in the expat community share my unease.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

As pointed out above, the Congress voted (176 -0) to remove immunity from De Vido

This is a biased assert because there were no votes against it because the K party didn't show up at Court.

so he became subject to arrest. He was then arrested on charges of corruption. When there is a risk of flight, bail may be denied as it apparently has been in this case. The case will now proceed as any other criminal case. Am I missing something? Please give me the facts upon which you base your claim that support for De Vido's arrest is a case of a mob gone wild.

You are missing everything.

As I pointed before, the President was giving orders to the judges to arrest the political opposition. Judges who refused were prosecuted, I quoted a particular judge why was suspended in a tricky maneuver and after that the President asserted that he was going to be an example.

The officialism made his campaign based on sending him to jail. The memes of the oficial troll center are related to "you vote us to jail them" with pictures of the former President and Lilita Carrio asserted that Cristina K is going to be arrested. So, is she the judges? Seems that she and the President are taking the decisions like it happens in Salta with Morales.

At Federal Courts they do not arrest you easily like with him. There is no reason for arresting him. There is no risk of treaten witnesses, to destroy evidence, to escape.

 

[julian63]

<p>

Regarding Julian63's response to my post:

Julian, you say: "The "cases?" Isn't this thread about the one case of De Vido?"

As I understand it, there are currently four cases pending against De Vido: firstly there is "administración fraudulenta agravada por haber sido cometida en perjuicio de una administración pública" - the one regarding the purchase of second hand "junk trains" from Spain and Portugal. The second case is one of "asociación ilícita", mainly regarding public contracts in Santa Cruz. Thirdly, there's a charge of "incumplimiento de los deberes de funcionario público" arising from the non-renewal of railway contracts in the period 2003-2010. Fourthly, there's a charge regarding diesel fuel subsidies to bus companies in capital federal.

So the trials will proceed, and maybe he's guilty of some or all of the charges, or maybe he's innocent of some or all. It all depends on that most boring of items that nobody seems to be bothered about: the evidence. It's this lack of interest in the substantive issues that smells to me like a Stalinist show trial, or trial by the mob. Frankly I'm surprised that so few in the expat community share my unease.

In your comment #18 above, you criticized expats here for acting unjustly - of ignoring the evidence in a

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You asked me if I were from Cuba. I don't see where you asked that of Ben. I am not from Cuba. Why would think that relevant ? Is there some point about justice in Cuba you think obvious? What is it?

Well, at totalitarian States judges are the executive arm of the President. This President has totalitarian ideas about the State.

For How is the difference between "already having immunity and not meeting the requirements to obtain it" relevant to the De Vido case?

You have immunity as a tool to protect the institution of the Congress from the interference of the Executive Power. There was no reason for taking away the immunity because he can be criminal prosecuted wth it, he can be sentenced with immunity. The proper timing for taking away the immunity is after sentenced.

Before having immunity, you cannot get it if you are processed in a criminal case like Macri was. It was needed that the Prosecutor who accused him died to allow him to become President because the 2nd Prosecutor withdraw the accusation without no legal reason after that.

This comment came because someone made the comparison between the 2 cases.

The Congress did not vote to send De Vido to jail. It voted to remove his immunity. A three judge panel ordered his arrest after he was stripped of immunity. What is it about that process that you find anti-democratic or unjust?

Here you are confused.
While the Executive Power and the Congress must be democratic, the Justice not. The Justice is an anti democratic Power because its work is to put limit to the will of the majority.
The issues here are related to the rule of law: This man must be judged but he cannot be used for political dark purposes like to make and example of him to threat the opposition like it is happening or proscription.
It is very obvious that some politicians wants to proscribe Cristina K too.
The whole debate is very hypocrite because the whole Executive Power are in the Panama Paper and many of them has also criminal cases for corruption.

The technical explanation is here made by my Mentor, Julio J. B. Maier:
el Dr. Julio J.B Maier en la expresión de motivos del CPCC Chubut define de la siguiente manera:

“Los jueces —quizás, mejor dicho, la labor de juzgar—, independientes e imparciales por definición, atienden, por lo contrario, al caso particular, al conflicto concreto entre particulares o entre los particulares y el Estado, según sucede por regla en el sistema penal, y su misión en él consiste en garantizar a las personas la vigencia práctica de sus derechos individuales o, si se quiere, con lenguaje político, proteger a las minorías del avasallamiento ilegítimo por parte de las mayorías en la búsqueda del "bien común", autodefinido por el último sector nombrado. Es por ello que los jueces o la tarea de juzgar sólo pueden proporcionar "seguridad individual", en el sentido de los llamados derechos individuales, políticos o sociales, y no son responsables por la "seguridad común" en la vida de relación, tarea que le corresponde al Ejecutivo y al Legislativo (he allí un sostén de la antigua pertenencia de la policía y del ministerio público penal al Ejecutivo, precisamente "ejecutor de la ley")”.​

The defendant of De Vigo and me are disciples of Maier and we complain about the lack of respect of due process and the rule of law.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Wrong. You do not know the meaning of the word "arrest." To arrest is to take someone into custody, i.e., to limit their freedom. Persons suspected of a crime are first arrested and then appear before a judge to ascertain if bail is required or not. In certain cases bail is denied. The risk of flight is a circumstance for which bail may be denied. The suspect is therefor denied freedom pending his case coming to trial. Suspects in such cases have the right to a speedy trial, that is, a trial within a short time.

Perhaps in Cuba it is like that.
Here if you are suspected of a crime, the judges sends you a legal letter appointing when you have to show up at Court and you remain free during the process unless you try to escape, destroy evidence or you threaten witnesses.

I had a situation where a ultra K high profile Federal Judge requested me for brives, as far as I refused, he/she fabricated 12 fake criminal cases for coercion against me.

I was not arrested. I was allowed to travel abroad several times and I was found non guilty. And, of course, the former President didn't get involved in my case. Why, because we used to have a Republic and the rule of law.

So, you are wrong.

The title of the thread explains everything, it is the officialism prosecuting the opposition. Why might have a bad day a K supporter if someone corrupt from the party is found guilty and the party gets cleaner?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Of what moral character must one be to be publicly supporting & defending a known criminal? ...oh I forgot, you're a lawyer.
At what point does one stop standing up for the morally reprehensible acts of a bunch of high profile criminals in suits?

We are talking major theft of public resources funneled out through a well planned & organised criminal enterprise ...what's there to protect Bajo?
Are you well connected enough to the inner circle ? Do you know something we don't?

I do not care about De Vido. it is all about the rule of law.
I see how this government is trying to destroy the Republic on a daily bases appointing new Federal Judges who behaves like his employed. I see how judge Schiffrin was retired because he granted me 3 appeals before Supreme Court. I explain. the Supreme Court changed its recent precedent (Fayt case where they established that the age limit is for future, not for the judges who were already appointed, but with Schiffrin they enforce the age limit...) to retire this Judges who enacted 3 decision the President disliked.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

As julian notes, the congress did not vote to jail De Vido, they couldn't do that even if they wanted to. They voted to strip him of immunity (a step which, say in the US would not even be necessary - in the US, congressional immunity is limited to very nearly nothing). With an ample majority, including members of his own party. He was then exposed to the normal justice process.

Cambiemos made his campaign based on arresting him. So, people voted for arresting him. And the President controls the press who already sentenced him. This is precisely what cannot happens.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

In the US criminal justice system (with which I am passingly familiar) a person may be held in contempt of court for willful nondisclosure of information known to him relevant to the commission of a crime by others. He may be given immunity for certain related crimes if need be to avoid the right against self-incrimination. Incarceration for continued contempt of court is allowable...forever, if need be under the right (egregious) circumstances.

De Vido, whether or not liable for a separate crime himself, should be made to disclose what he knows about the K's and others corruption even if it means he gets immunity or partial immunity for all or some of his own related crimes. It is not unusual for the first partner in crime to be caught to be the first to turn on his other partners in order to get the best shot at leniency. Subsequently arrested partners in crime may not be so lucky. The decisions about immunity and leniency are discretionary with the state's prosecuting attorneys.

Thank you!
The criminal law here is different.
He can remain is silent. He also can lie. So, the whole legal basis you defense is [here] wrong and it considered coertion and the evidence obtained this way are nullid.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

True. Not only presumption of innocence, but the exercise/maintenance of civil and often human rights as well. Everyone likes to make fun of lawyers until they need one. Bajo may do laudable work for his clients and even for society in general (as he earlier alluded to working to limit human trafficking). I don't criticize him because he is a lawyer. I criticize his comments here because they at so often absurd.
p.s. Q: Why are there so few lawyers at the beach? A: Because the cats keeping trying to cover them up with sand.

The problem Julian is that most of the time you do not understand.