New Immigration Decree, Long Life To King Macri!

[ben]

So I went ahead and read the laws that regard the RENAPER, viz. 13.482 and 17.671.

I think I have a handle on why Bajo_cero thinks he has the upper hand on this argument.

I do think he's wrong, and that a good opposing lawyer could dispose of his arguments fairly easily.

However, I withdraw the accusation of jackass.

I would even apologize, but for the obnoxious style of communication that bajo seems to find acceptable.

 

[julian63]

There is an element of language difficulty here. I'll try to make my point succinctly, but please bear in mind that lawyers have difficulty being succinct. Bajo is a case point.

Professional secret - what does this mean?
There is no dispute that a lawyer (English/US) can not ethically disclose confidential communications made to him by his client in the course of his representation. That appears to be the rule in Argentina, too, although Bajo expresses this concept somewhat inartfully (after all, English is his 2nd language) as "you cannot share what you know about your client." Presumably, Bajo means that a lawyer is prohibited by the rules of professional conduct from disclosing confidential client communications. A lawyer may share other stuff "he knows" about his client, i.e. his size, his public address, even his statements made to the lawyer which are not confidential (made in the presence of others for example). However, Bajo doesn't limit the definition of professional secret to confidential communications between client and lawyer aka what the lawyer knows about the client.

Apparently, Bajo also uses the term "professional secret" to mean 2 other things. One is the intelligence and knowledge of the lawyer (here himself). About this we have no dispute. A smart lawyer is not obliged to share his expertise with others, layman or lawyers, much less try to educate others in an online chat forum.

Bajo's second other definition of professional secret is the status of current law based upon a very recent decision (his own successful work) as a good, but "secretive" precedent for winning future cases. This would not be considered a secret in English law. First, because all appellate decisions of every court are published immediately for all conscientious lawyers to read and use. Accordingly, decisions do not remain secret. (Trial level decisions are not binding precedent on any other judge/court in English/US law). Secondly, an obscure or recent case law decision is not a secret because all lawyers are ethically obligated by professional rules of conduct to report to the judge during any proceeding all known precedents that would be pertinent to the case EVEN IF it is not in support of that lawyer's position. That may not be the law in Argentina - I don't know, but in the context of this discussion this kind of "secret" ( a good precedent that other lawyers don't know about) is moot. Bajo knows about it . He caused it and he will presumably always bring it to the court's attention in any proceeding. That he chooses not to share it with us (or competing lawyers) is, again, his prerogative, however he should not expect others here to fathom his arguments unless he does so.

Moreover, because he chooses not to share his recent case success and because he should realize his refusal to do so undermines his position in this debate, he should have made that very clear from the beginning and not engaged in vitriolic public exchanges with those presumably less informed. It's not very professional. The last word is not always the correct word.

Now wtf were we talking about?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

A) Julian, the rules here are different.

The limit of the judge for deciding are your arguments. You miss to quote a precedent and you loose even the judge knows this precedent.

Before Supreme Court, if you do not just mention all the precedents related to the subject, they dismiss the appeals without reading further.

The precedents are published in a paper book at Court and some companies organize the mess and charge a fee for consulting them on line. The service they provide is, in my opinion, for amateurs. They are about 4 years behind me plus they publish only the precedents of this Chamber and I have cases all around the country.

My knowledge is based in old style work: the research at the precedent library of all the federal chambers along the country.

The same happends with the SC precedents. They are all published on line with no order. Good luck.

I have them all very well organized at my computer.

There are no book that explain them properly neither organize them.


B )The new deportation decree.

I was told yesyerday that there is an internal memo of the Prosecutor's office ordering the prosecutors to dictate against the DNU.

All the first hierarchy judges are ignoring the DNU.

 

[Ceviche]

The new deportation decree.

I was told yesyerday that there is an internal memo of the Prosecutor's office ordering the prosecutors to dictate against the DNU.

All the first hierarchy judges are ignoring the DNU.

Please explain better - this one.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Julian, I explained why it was wrong but it was not understood by Ben.

Now he realize that it is a Federal Crime to use the passport of another country being citizen.

But there is another issue, to use a foreign passport in the country where you have a citizenship is a reason to cancel your citizenship.

Ben, i told you the decrees are orders to the employed of the State while people is ruled by the law you read now.

Next time accept the opinion of a professional.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The work of the prosecutors in civil cases is to defend the National Constitution. So, they are all going to attack the DNU.

Last time this happened was in 1985.

 

[ben]

Now he realize that it is a Federal Crime to use the passport of another country being citizen.

But there is another issue, to use a foreign passport in the country where you have a citizenship is a reason to cancel your citizenship.

Having read both laws, I have realized no such thing. Feel free to indicate your basis for such an assertion.

I imagine I understand why you believe so, but as I said I think you're wrong and that a good opposing lawyer would have little difficulty convincing a judge of the same.

I am not aware of any relevant precedents - I am not a lawyer - but I doubt that DNM would continue to maintain their guidance in the face of a court order to the contrary. Not to mention that it would probably be a media item.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I do not believe so, judges do. I was with them this morning at the Federal Court of Lomas de Zamora with jurisdiction over the Ezeiza airport.

The simple explanation you imaging takes no less than 3 months while you are under arrest in a Federal jail with mules.

As I stated many times before, you do not understand how the legal system works and you do not understand law when you read it. And it is normal because you are a layman.

 

[ben]

I do not believe so, judges do. I was with them this morning at the Federal Court of Lomas de Zamora with jurisdiction over the Ezeiza airport.

The simple explanation you imaging takes no less than 3 months while you are under arrest in a Federal jail with mules.

As I stated many times before, you do not understand how the legal system works and you do not understand law when you read it. And it is normal because you are a layman.

Again, this is a stupid discussion unless you provide details of the case so others can assess its relevance. Not showing a DNI is not at all similar to an Argentine who does show a DNI and but travels on a foreign passport.

If professional secrecy allows you to divulge that there is a case but not what it's about (with no personally identifying information, obviously), then this discussion is silly and I would hate to waste any more of your time.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

There is no discussion, I just inform you.

It makes no sense to provide you anything because you cannot understand it and you are not judging it, judges do.

Subject finished.