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

[Bajo_cero2]

I wouldn't let someone accused of being a pedophile continue to work at a kindergarten until he was found guilty/innocent. I apply the same theory to this case, a person accused of corruption on such a large scale in a Government department that has been proven to steal massive sums should lose his right to freedom until he is proven innocent/guilty. We are not talking about stealing lollies - we are talking multi-million dollar sums that takes money away from those who need it most and erodes societies trust in the system. fuck him and his cronies they can all rot in jail - Cristina can be next. What a despicable leader to promote social activism and then allow such open theft of public monies under her watchful eye. She should be next. In my job I am responsible for the actions of those in lower positions - the same should apply here. It will create an incentive to know what the fuck is happening rather than this 'I had no idea its his fault' bullshit kindergarten excuse. The fish rots at the head.

1) that is no comparision between a pedophile and him;
2) did you read what is the criminal case about? It is a about contracts between 2 State deppartments. There is no phisical money, no bags of money, in fact, the actual government ratified those contracts...
3) what about Mr. President who has a long carrear of contraband, evading tax and over 200 criminal cases against him. Do you have the same standard with the oficialism where almost everybody is at the Panama papers?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I think its hard for him to leave his bubble - he doesn't have the ability to step back and look in. Unfortunately in his own head Macri's policy on immigration is making his job harder and so Macri is now the enemy - Cristinas open door immigration policy gave him more business. Now he is fighting judges all day trying to get wins for his clients. Ignore the fact that millions and millions of dollars have been stolen from the public - Cristina had the countries best interests at heart - just listen to her screech on TV. The sad thing is so many still drink her koolaid even after her minions go down like dominos for theft and corruption of public funds.. She should take herself to jail for gross mismanagement - ignoring the fact shes likely just as bad as those below her in stealing money. The last thing I would ever try do is get back in Government if multiple members of my team were caught stealing and misappropriating public funds - the audacity to try and gain immunity through government office is absolutely disgusting. She is a pig.

Right! And I m the one who lives in a bubble. Macri is making me rich whiles I was going into bunckrupsy with CFK.

Now is more difficult? Yes, better, amateurs are out of busisness.

But my family is half argentine half Korean so I have something personal with Macri because I know he is racist. Remember I got a stay against the Tango Contest because he created the category of pure porteño and he had to change the rules after this scandal.

By the way, if the former President stole so much how did Macri send 11 tons of gold to London that were bought by CFK? How was he able to take debt for over 100 billions USD? Well, because she paid the debt, simple. And where are those over 100 billions Macri took in loans? Where?????

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Duplicated post

 

[Bajo_cero2]

What the heck means " the whole legal basis you defense is here wrong." What are you talking about? What was the "legal basis I defense?" Evidence obtained in what way is coercion? Dd I say there was a way to obtain evidence that you think constitutes coercion? Be specific. I can't follow your points.

Again. Read.
In this country the accused can a) remain silent; B ) lie; c) colaborate.
To arrest him to force him to colaborate is coertion and the evidence nullid. His lawyer is Rusconi, one of my mentors, a disciple of Dr. Maier as me. The whole case is nullid and is an expert on that.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

What advice did I offer you (other than to infer you should stop drinking). Be specific.
So it is your position that the congressional vote to remove immunity and the subsequent arrest (even with denial of bail by a 3 judge panel) indicates Arg is now acting like a totalitarian state. Don't you think you exaggerate just a bit?
So a simple answer to my question about arrest without a court order is - yes. That you think it should not have been effected in this case is your opinion. A 3 judge panel found that there was a valid legal basis to arrest De Vido and to apparently deny bail. If De Vido thinks this arrest prior to conviction or the bail denial is improper, don't you think he will appeal immediately to a higher court? (This assumes you don't opine that an appeal to the appellate court would be useless because it, too, is a puppet controlled by Macri.)
Do you really think that the arrest of one Congressman (allowed by more than a 2/3 majority of his peers) constitutes "institutional damage?" Why do you think it is? Be specific. I think you exaggerate.

Are you serious?

Let's see the obvious:
A) the President threat Federal judges on national TV;
B ) he suspended one judge who rebeled with a tricky maneuver and asserted that he was going to make an example of him [for other independent judges];
C) Federal judges created a new Judges Association to protect themselves from the Executive Power because the old one's authorities were M; from the 220 Federal Judges 211 passed to the new Associations, the other 9 were M authorities.
D) Federal Judges says no to whatever I ask but with the content of the sentence where they grand me what I ask (translation: if you read the end of the decision they say no, but if you read the whole decision they said yes).
E) the officialism made campaign about arresting him...
F) now Carrio asserts that sentences about genocidal must be reverse...for one moment I thought it cannot be done because criminal sentences when the appeals are over cannot be reverse. And for sure this is not the Call of a Congresswoman.
G) the President enacted a decree that 80% is all about to interference in my defence strategies and it is a long list of "judges cannot reverse my decisions"...
H) 12 Supreme Court appeals were granted in one year (this is the way the chambers shows its disagrement with the pressure of the President).
I) prosecutors who were my enemies now appeal on my behalf and they made me feel on their right...
J) I recusal massively judges for lack of independence of the executive power, and they accept it without having to go to the Chamber of Appeals (which is hilarious because they confess they are simple agents of the President).

 

[Somewhereinba]

1) that is no comparision between a pedophile and him;
2) did you read what is the criminal case about? It is a about contracts between 2 State deppartments. There is no phisical money, no bags of money, in fact, the actual government ratified those contracts...
3) what about Mr. President who has a long carrear of contraband, evading tax and over 200 criminal cases against him. Do you have the same standard with the oficialism where almost everybody is at the Panama papers?

Do Universities here teach students to accept zero responsibility for ones actions and those you are managing? Do the professors teach you to point fingers when attention is drawn towards something you don't like? I understand as a lawyer you are used to manipulating the truth for your own gain but some things are more black and white. These cronies are scum - Cristina included. Put them all in jail and throw away the key. Time for them to be made an example of to try and stop this type of behaviour. The fact this bitch is back in Government after completely failing to manage her corrupt party is even more scary. You reap what you sow. People of this country need to look in the mirror.

 

[Gringoboy]

Sorry Ben, but I do not care about your questions because [you do not exist for me and] most of the time I do not even read you because you are on the ignore list. Perhaps for that I do not reply you instead of your conspiracy theories about that.

The whole idea of the ignore list is just that, yet you just can't help yourself can you?

 

[ben]

I cannot count how many times I've heard from bajo that I'm on his ignore list.

Funnily, whenever he imagines that he has something to answer, I'm off that list. The ignoring is left for cases like now.

On the chance that he actually didn't see what I wrote, the mischievous thing to do would be for anyone who was sorry not to see my last post even acknowledged, to simply quote it. Would end the boycott pretty soon.

 

[Gringoboy]

I envy you Ben. It's an illustrious place to be, although I have yet to reach those dizzy heights.

 

[julian63]

Again. Read.
In this country the accused can a) remain silent; B ) lie; c) colaborate.
To arrest him to force him to colaborate is coertion and the evidence nullid. His lawyer is Rusconi, one of my mentors, a disciple of Dr. Maier as me. The whole case is nullid and is an expert on that.

Bajo, I appreciate that English is your second language so this may be a strong contributing factor why you avoid answering questions - questions that arise from your confusing posts. I asked you what it was that I wrote previously that is the basis for your assertion that the legal system in the US coerces testimony. You didn't answer. Let me make it clearer for you to see if we can agree.

In the US system, an arrested person (the accused) may invoke his 5th amendment right not to speak when arrested and also not to testify against himself later in a criminal proceeding. I gather from your remarks that the same is true under Arg law. In the US, immediately after a person is arrested, the authorities are required to advise him of his legal right to remain silent (the so called "Miranda" warning of one's 5th amendment rights against self incrimination). If, after being advised of his 5th amendment rights, he chooses to talk then his statements may be used against him in a court of law either as an outright confession or to contradict his court made testimony.

Moreover, if the authorities obtain statements from the arrested without giving him a proper "Miranda" warning, nothing he says can be used against him in a court of law. Accordingly, an accused is not forced to "collaborate' (testify against himself in a criminal proceeding). He can choose not to talk before the trial as well as not to testify during the trial.
p.s.Any witness who lies in a criminal or even civil proceeding after being sworn to tell the truth commits an independent crime (perjury) which can in and of itself be a serious violation of the law (felony).

To arrest someone in the US system means to take him into custody. Thereafter (usually within 24 hours) the accused will be arraigned which means s/he goes before a judge in court to plead innocent or guilty. Assuming an innocent plea, the question of whether bail will be granted or not is addressed. In many cases, even serious ones, if the accused is not a danger to society and not a flight risk, bail may be granted allowing the accused to go free and to then appear later for the trial on his charges. Is the system substantially different in Arg.?

In the De Vido case a warrant was issued for his arrest (after his Congressional colleagues stripped him of immunity) and thereafter De Vido turned himself in. Apparently (I say apparently because I am assuming it to be the case. Advise if otherwise.) the 3 judge panel that issued the arrest warrant deemed he was not eligible to be freed on bail whether it be for flight or other reason under Arg law. Why does this procedure nullify the case against De Vido as you seem to say? If anything, I could understand that the denial of bail was improper under Arg law. Was it? Is there no right of appeal for De Vido on that issue? But a criminal case is not dismissed simply because bail is improperly denied - is that the case in Arg?