Advantages of being citizen vs resident?

#41
On its face, this refers to threats of force or other unlawful acts, not threat of proper legal action.
Are you saying you cannot legally threaten sanctions and/or prosecution against a public employee who refuses to do their job?
Ben, as usual, you are guessing.
I had 17 criminal prosecutions against me, and I m a lawyer, for using a legal institute called pronto despacho that is an ultimatum to the judge before starting legal actions.
I was found non guilty in 5 seconds but, however, the Prosecutor accused me of aggravated coercion that has automatic preventive prison. So, I faced the risk of jail for doing what you happily advice in your ignorance.
However, my lawyers were two heavy weights of the Federal Courts. One of them is the lawyer of the Presidents, the other is who prosecutes Federal Judges.
So, in my esperience, you cannot do that. You have to make the criminal complaint and the dismissal case first and later just to notify them in a very polite way.
 
#43
The case of "that person in Mendoza with argentine spounce" is the one we're talking about here and Ben is not the one who would be facing prosecution (as you indicated) for telling the clerk. "(Y)ou understand that if I need to hire a lawyer to make sure you follow the law, I will open a causa against you for abuso de autoridad."

He advised "that person in Mendoza" to do so.

PS: Fortunately, "that person in Mendoza" is unlikely to read it as it wasn't posted in the original (and relevant) thread. if he reads it in this one, hopefully, he'll know better than to follow Ben's advice, assuming that you (BC2) are correct..
As usual, Ben’s advices sucks as I explained before.

I had a similar situation at that Court before and I acchieved a leading case that now is quoted all around the country.

This is the difference between people who imaging that they litigate on line and professionals.
 
Last edited:

ben

Active Member
#44
Ben, as usual, you are guessing.
I had 17 criminal prosecutions against me, and I m a lawyer, for using a legal institute called pronto despacho that is an ultimatum to the judge before starting legal actions.
I was found non guilty in 5 seconds but, however, the Prosecutor accused me of aggravated coercion that has automatic preventive prison. So, I faced the risk of jail for doing what you happily advice in your ignorance.
You were not very clear.
You say that you were found not guilty in 5 seconds - does that not indicate that the case against you was frivolous?

As I see it there are 2 options:

1) The case was without merit, and was brought in an effort to cow you.
2) The case had merit, and but then how did you get off in 5 seconds?

If (1) is correct, and people can bring a patently frivolous lawsuit against you and still you have to hire legal heavyweights to defend yourself, that sucks. I’ll go further - it’s basically an indictment of this country’s legal system. If seeking relief via the courts is lawful, to threaten to do so must be as well. If the activities in question are lawful, then there is no threat. As they say in English - “You bring your lawyers, I’ll bring mine”.

If, as is implied by what you are righting, the prosecutor brought an obviously inane charge against you in an attempt to get you in jail preventively, 17 times to boot, that would have consequences in any normal legal system. If here that is not the case, then that is one more example of how this is a lawless place masquerading as a developed one.

This is the difference between people who imaging that they litigate on line and professionals.
Not sure you noticed, but nobody here is trying to litigate anything. Nobody - except, apparently, you - seems to think we are in court.

In any normal place, threatening litigation - especially on excellent grounds - is not only legal, but normal. The reason we have laws at all, is for the option to exist to make recourse to them. And that should apply to public servants as much or more as to anybody else. They work for the people.

If you have experience to share regarding Argentina being an insane place where threatening to sue for abuse of power can get you in jail, we are grateful for you noting that. But childish insults are not necessary. They do not make you look any smarter.

Some explanation, on the other hand, would make your commentary far more valuable. And again, you did not address the underlying question.

As I said before: “On its face, [the intimidation clause you reference] refers to threats of force or other unlawful acts, not threat of proper legal action.”
  • Is that incorrect, and were the charges brought against you therefore proper? (But then how did you get off “in 5 seconds”?)
  • Or is that in fact correct, and the prosecutors you talk about were pulling a dirty trick?
    • And in that case, why are those prosecutors not subject to serious sanction? In the US, pulling shit like that could get you disbarred. Or at the very least, censured and/or sanctioned.
It is not an unimportant distinction, but you do not address it at all.
 
#45
You were not very clear.
You say that you were found not guilty in 5 seconds - does that not indicate that the case against you was frivolous?
As I see it there are 2 options:
1) The case was without merit, and was brought in an effort to cow you.
2) The case had merit, and but then how did you get off in 5 seconds?
Of course there was no merit but in those crimes with over 8 years of jail [if you are condemned], the preventive prison is automatic so, nobody cares if you win an appeal later if you spent 6 month at jail
However, I was very aggresive to: 1) I recusal the prosecutor for being the husband of the lawyer of the chinese mafia who was interested in censore me (I was dennouncing that my clients were victims of trafficking) and I made 5 dismissal cases to the judge for extort me looking for brives. 3 times she was accused and judged.

If (1) is correct, and people can bring a patently frivolous lawsuit against you and still you have to hire legal heavyweights to defend yourself, that sucks.
Well the CFK prosecution by Bonadio is a good example of it.

I’ll go further - it’s basically an indictment of this country’s legal system. If seeking relief via the courts is lawful, to threaten to do so must be as well. If the activities in question are lawful, then there is no threat. As they say in English - “You bring your lawyers, I’ll bring mine”.
You are guessing. I explained you how nazis behave when they have power as judges or prosecutors.

If, as is implied by what you are righting, the prosecutor brought an obviously inane charge against you in an attempt to get you in jail preventively, 17 times to boot, that would have consequences in any normal legal system. If here that is not the case, then that is one more example of how this is a lawless place masquerading as a developed one.
The problem is that at the legal system survive many nazi laws like article 237 of the Criminal Code.[/QUOTE]
 
#46
You Not sure you noticed, but nobody here is trying to litigate anything. Nobody - except, apparently, you - seems to think we are in court.
There was an idiot who used the word litigation some time ago. I banned him immediately.

In any normal place, threatening litigation - especially on excellent grounds - is not only legal, but normal. The reason we have laws at all, is for the option to exist to make recourse to them. And that should apply to public servants as much or more as to anybody else. They work for the people.
In totalitarian States they are there to oppress you.

If you have experience to share regarding Argentina being an insane place where threatening to sue for abuse of power can get you in jail, we are grateful for you noting that. But childish insults are not necessary. They do not make you look any smarter.
Start at home.

Some explanation, on the other hand, would make your commentary far more valuable. And again, you did not address the underlying question.

As I said before: “On its face, [the intimidation clause you reference] refers to threats of force or other unlawful acts, not threat of proper legal action.”
No. You are missundertanding it. You cannot threat in any way. Only a lawyer can do it and he is never going to use assertive sentences.

Is that incorrect, and were the charges brought against you therefore proper? (But then how did you get off “in 5 seconds”?)
I made the pronto despacho under the sanction of prosecuting the judge and I went to the hearing represented by the best lawyer in the country specialized in prosecuting judges.
As far as we arrive to the parking I got the notification at my cellphone of the non guilty sentence.

Or is that in fact correct, and the prosecutors you talk about were pulling a dirty trick?
    • And in that case, why are those prosecutors not subject to serious sanction? In the US, pulling shit like that could get you disbarred. Or at the very least, censured and/or
It is not an unimportant distinction, but you do not address it at all.
For the same reason Bonadio is still a judge, political protection. The wife of this prosecutor is in change now of the anti money laundry office.
 

ben

Active Member
#47
1. I am not familiar with this country’s legal system, I have no reason to doubt what you say.
But if it is in fact so, this place is nuts.
Disregarding the political part - all I know about Bonadio is that he is in charge of the CFK case, and as such is persona non grata in K land - structurally the system is insane.
That threatening to bring legal action can result in a jail term without trial, is lawlessness masquerading as law.

Miscellania:
There was an idiot who used the word litigation some time ago. I banned him immediately.
If you look above, I wrote what I wrote because you commented - as you have many times in the past - on the difference, and I am quoting you, “between people who imaging that they litigate on line and professionals”.
To which I responded, that nobody here imagines themselves to be litigating online, whatever that even means.

I will be happy if you point out any place on this thread where I insulted you. On the contrary, I’ve said on more than occasion that when you talk shop, you sound extremely professional and knowledgeable.

(Sure, there are exceptions, when you argue stuff you clearly know is BS. Like the ceremonial traspaso de mando being obligated by the Constitution to take place in the Congreso, The CN does not even mention this ceremony - it discusses the oath of office and nothing more - but that didn’t stop you from asserting it did. All because CFK wanted a rally in her honor in the Congress on the day of Macri’s inauguration.)

But generally our arguments are limited to politics, your politics are inane which does not make you a bad lawyer. Just a pain to argue with.
 
Last edited:
#48
1. I am not familiar with this country’s legal system, I have no reason to doubt what you say.
But if it is in fact so, this place is nuts.
Disregarding the political part - all I know about Bonadio is that he is in charge of the CFK case, and as such is persona non grata in K land - structurally the system is insane.
That threatening to bring legal action can result in a jail term without trial, is lawlessness masquerading as law.
I have cases with him.
My client made a complaint regarding his DNI because at DNM they said it was fake. RENAPER informed that the DNI was not fake but it was cancelled. Bonadio´s decision was that my client was criminally responsible for falsification of the DNI. I appealed and the chamber treated him as an idiot.

Later I had to appealed again and the chamber of appeals humiliated him because they realized I ambushed him. He accused my client for falsification when to use a cancelled DNI was the real crime but he let it expire because he bit the bite of the falsification :).

So, I know he does not care about evidence, he has serious issues to understand any medium difficulty case. So, it is all about the show.

Another of my colleges is the defendant of De Vido and he complains about the same: it is all about the tv show.

If you look above, I wrote what I wrote because you commented - as you have many times in the past - on the difference, and I am quoting you, “between people who imaging that they litigate on line and professionals”.
To which I responded, that nobody here imagines themselves to be litigating online, whatever that even means.
Someone I don´t remember who asserted that he was litigating here and I still laughing about it.

(Sure, there are exceptions, when you argue stuff you clearly know is BS. Like the ceremonial traspaso de mando being obligated by the Constitution to take place in the Congreso, The CN does not even mention this ceremony - it discusses the oath of office and nothing more - but that didn’t stop you from asserting it did. All because CFK wanted a rally in her honor in the Congress on the day of Macri’s inauguration.)
The problem with you, as usual, is your lack of proper background and arrogance.
The ceremony of the oath used to be before the Lords, later before the Kings but after the French and May Revolution is under the people that is represented by the Congress. This is why dictators do the ceremony at the Pink house while democratic Presidents do it at the Congress. all the other arguments I already explained them. However, It is interested that unconstitutionalities declared regarding the DNU 70/2017 are focus on hims behaving as a king and the hardest asserted that the citizenship law was changed in history during democracy by the Congress and by the President during dictatorships. Ups. They just cantle copy my appeal.

But generally our arguments are limited to politics, your politics are inane which does not make you a bad lawyer. Just a pain to argue with.
And in politics and history is precisely where you are clueless.

Again, you gave an advice that was bs. I just remember you. If this person follows your advice is going to have serious issues.
 
Last edited:
Top