|
MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE IN CATALONIA |
|
|
The subject of procedural law is a bit dry, but it is important to explain the importance of procedural law in order to understand the actions of those mentioned in this web site. In general, there are two types of law, material law and procedural law. Most people think of material law when they think about the law. Material law are the laws which say that you can't rob banks, that you have to pay taxes, etc. Procedural law are the laws which control the process of justice, for example, how many days do you have to prepare an appeal, to whom you send the appeal, etc. Also procedural law controls how the courts work, for example, to whom they have to notify their resolutions, how the judge has to answer various types of petitions, how the appeals courts vote, how to handle evidence, rules for admitting documents, when a judge has to abstain, how to recuse a judge, which judge is competent for which cases, etc. In this web site, there are many examples of apparent nonobservances of procedural law, because it is the easiest way for a judge to force the result of a case to whatever they want. It is also possible for them to prepare false documents or find false witnesses, but that is more difficult and more dangerous for the judge, therefore the appear to prefer breaking procedural law instead. According to Wikipedia: A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, also known as drumhead court-martial or Drumhead trial, is a sham legal proceeding or court. Kangaroo courts are judicial proceedings that deny proper procedure in the name of expediency. The outcome of such a trial is essentially made in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. According to Wikipedia: Mock justice is the term is often applied to courts subjectively judged as such, while others consider the court to be legitimate and legal. A kangaroo court may be a court that has had its integrity compromised; for example, if the judge is not impartial and refuses to be recused. It may also be an elaborately scripted event intended to appear fair while having the outcome predetermined from the start. For example, if a judge is interested in punishing someone with minimum effort, open a case and close it with a non-appealable sentence, and impose a 1000€ fine. Don't notify the parties until after the final resolution, not even to say which court has the case. Or, for example, if a judge is interested in validating a contract, accept the word of one party that the contract has been completed, and reject the evidence presented by the other party that it WASN'T completed. Or, for example, if there is a key document in a criminal case and a judge wants to exonerate a party, the easiest way is to reject questions posed by the other party concerning this document during the trial, and later dismiss the case due to lack of proof. Or, for example, a judge doesn't want to receive an appeal to a sentence, let one of the court's employees sign the notification intended for party who probably would appeal, then later finalize the case due to desertion. Or, for example, if a judge is interested in finishing a case as soon as possible, send back the appeal without processing it. Or, for example, if a judge is interested in finishing a case as soon as possible in the Appeals Court, don't convene the voting and review. Or, for example, if a judge is interested in prolonging a case as much as possible, wait months before asking for the lawyer's credentials then don't respond to any petitions. THE LAWS MOST ABUSED IN THIS WEB BY THE KANGAROO COURTS: Obligation to obey definitive resolutions - Everybody, even judges, have to obey definitive judicial resolutions. This obligation is found in: Arto 18 de la ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, Arto 118 de la Constitución, Arto. 9.3 de la Carta Magna. Obligation respond to petitions from the parties – Judges are obliged to respond to and to explain, for both the positive and the negative, to the petitions from the parties. This obligation is found in: Arto. 11.3 de la Ley orgánica del Poder Judicial, arto. 24 de la Constitución, Arto. 312 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, Arto. 120.3 de la Constitución y jurisprudencia del tribunal Constitucional. Obligation to explain the non-admission of evidence – Judges are obliged to explain why evidence proposed by the parties is rejected. This obligation is found in: Arto. 312 de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, Arto. 11.3 de la L.O.P.J Obligation to report crimes discovered during a judicial process – Judges are obligated to investigate and /or report crimes found during the course of a judicial process, and explain why or why not. This obligation is found in: Arto. 777 de la ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, Arto. 240. 2 de la Ley orgánica del Poder Judicial, arto 40 Enj Civil, arto. 24.2 de la CE Obligation for a judge to be independent and impartial – Judges must be independent and impartial, or they must abstain from the case. This is implied in Article 24 of the C.E., concretely the right to a process with all legal rights guaranteed, and also the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, STC 60/95 of 17 March. Obligation to leave a case when recused – Judges have the obligation to stop working on a case when they are recused by the parties. This obligation is found in: Artos. 223 a 225 de la Ley orgánica del Poder Judicial. Obligation to notify affected parties – Judges must notify parties which could be affected by the resolutions of a case. This obligation is found in Article 24 of the Constitution. Obligation to work only in case where they are competent – Judges must be competent for each case they work on. This obligation is found in Article 117 of the Constitution.
|
home | newsletter@injusticiacatalunya.info | info@injusticiacatalunya.info | flyer