These threads by Koldo Pereda highlight the fact that the Spanish Supreme Court, and Judge Pablo Llarena, now face a daunting dilemma: a lose-lose choice. Translation by M. Strubell. Authorisation requested.
, if need be, to read the text1
Thread by @KoldoPereda:
1)📌📌📌https://t.co/7MR9L7rbFv
— Koldo Pereda (@KoldoPereda) January 7, 2021
Primero de todo dar la enhorabuena a Puig, familia, abogados, etc… 👏👏👏👏👏
1) First of all, congratulations to Puig, family, lawyers, etc.
See: https://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/sentencia-belgica-lluis-puig-euroordre-catala/
2) The Belgian COURT judgment revolves around two concepts.
A- Presumption of innocence
B- Judge predetermined by law
3)
The two concepts have been breached by the Spanish Justice, according to the Belgian Justice.
We once again have two visions at the same level, diametrically different and opposed to the idea of justice.
4)
The Belgian resolution closes the circle started by the Schleswig-Holstein sentence (rebellion, sedition, disorder and embezzlement).
5)
-Presumption of innocence:
Sone time ago I said that only a "GENIUS" could have thought of starting a civil procedure (slow route) against Llarena, to affect a criminal procedure (slow route), in this case that of the exiles.
Is it understood now?🤪
6)-Judge predetermined by law.
At this point Llarena (yes, the civil lawsuit) can do two things.
A - He carry on as judge of the case.
In this case we already know that the exiles will never be delivered to Spain, and this affects the request. 🤪
A - He carry on as judge of the case.
In this case we already know that the exiles will never be delivered to Spain, and this affects the request. 🤪
7)
The JURI (EP Committee) now has two different resolutions in its very PRELIMINARY PHASE (to be resolved very soon) of a procedure that will not be effective (Belgian justice).
If the JURI continues to accept the vision of Llarena... a direct appeal to the CJEU !!!
8)
B- He can declare he has no jurisdiction, and transfer the case to an ordinary court in Barcelona (and the Audiencia Nacional ]in Madrid] is not valid either).
9)
At this point, a whole range of possibilities would open, among which is a new assessment of the facts more in accordance with European regulations and of the assessment, a personal situation different from the current one and more in accordance with European regulations.
At this point, a whole range of possibilities would open, among which is a new assessment of the facts more in accordance with European regulations and of the assessment, a personal situation different from the current one and more in accordance with European regulations.
10)
Starting from the beginning.
Starting from the beginning.
- Unless a statement is taken, there is no indictment.
- If there is no prosecution, there is no court order and the privileges of an MEP are TOTAL.
- If they are total, there is freedom of movement..
11)
-Without an order, freedom is throughout the territory of the EU, without exceptions. 📌📌📌 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
-Without an order, freedom is throughout the territory of the EU, without exceptions. 📌📌📌 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
You think option B is impossible? Read point 7 option A) again !!! 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
What if that is impossible again? Black folder !!! 😏😏😏😏😏
...ooo000ooo...
2
1) 📌📌Análisis personal de la “Sentencia Puig”.
— Koldo Pereda (@KoldoPereda) January 14, 2021
Al Incluir corrupción, el tribunal tuvo la escusa/obligación de entrar en el fondo de la forma.
Tres definiciones españolas para dos delitos (❓).
La mala definición española ha posibilitado la sentencia.
1) Personal analysis of the “Puig judgment”. By including corruption, the court had the excuse / obligation to enter the merits of the form. Three Spanish definitions for two crimes (?). The poor Spanish definition made the sentence possible.
2) Offences on the OEDE list, misnamed "automatic". -Disobedience [or Contempt of court"]: According to “EUROPEAN LAW”, criminal reproach (punishment) is not severe ENOUGH to issue an OEDE (OEDE detention = limitation of freedom).
3) (My own note: that's what the EU judicial cooperation system is for).
4) - Corruption: Belgium indicates that the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the crime according to Spanish legislation (SIC). Voting is not corruption. As it was not corruption, it was necessary to enter into double criminality.
5) Double criminality - Embezzlement: In principle there is a double incrimination and this allows the Belgian court to go into the substance of the form. When entering into the analysis of the “substance of the form”, the Belgian states down that:
6) The UN Working Group is trustworthy by definition. And the WG states that there has been arbitrary imprisonment based on:
7) A - Public demonstrations by politicians, BEFORE CONVICTION, do not respect the presumption of innocence and contaminate the cause, and that is contrary to European law.
8) B - The Natural Judge has not been respected based on two arguments:
a - According to European law, a person not enjoying immunity and a a person enjoying immunity cannot be tried in the same case. They have different rights of defence. Precisely the court recalls that Belgium was convicted of a similar case
9) b - The Supreme Court argues that it can prosecute the exiles by the “Statute of Catalonia” (explicit law).
10) The Belgian court recalls that in Spain there is no explicit (legislative) law that allows an extension of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to crimes committed outside Catalonia, to persons not enjoying immunity, and it is not valid for an interpretation of the law in general to replace a non-existent law.
11) We would be facing the usurpation by the judiciary of the legislative power. An explicit law marks the difference between an ordinary jurisdiction and an exceptional one (not to be confused with a special one). Exceptional jurisdiction is prohibited under European law.
12) Summary: -The TS is not competent for a person not enjoying immunity. - The Supreme Court's "own" jurisprudence does not conform to European law and points to the Supreme Court being a Court of Exception.
13) And in this context, we enter the immunity waiver. If the Supreme Court is not competent for someone with no parliamentary privileges (Puig was never an MP), it is not competent for someone who ceased being a deputy (the exiles stopped being deputies).
14) The new EUROPEAN parliamentary privilege does not come from an explicit Spanish law either. Let's remember the words of [President Puigdemont's lawyer Gonzalo Boye] @boye_g, "The Supreme Court has acknowledged to us, in WRITING, that there is no EXPLICIT LAW that determines that it has jurisdiction to issue the immunity waiver request." CHECKMATE.
9) b - The Supreme Court argues that it can prosecute the exiles by the “Statute of Catalonia” (explicit law).
10) The Belgian court recalls that in Spain there is no explicit (legislative) law that allows an extension of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to crimes committed outside Catalonia, to persons not enjoying immunity, and it is not valid for an interpretation of the law in general to replace a non-existent law.
11) We would be facing the usurpation by the judiciary of the legislative power. An explicit law marks the difference between an ordinary jurisdiction and an exceptional one (not to be confused with a special one). Exceptional jurisdiction is prohibited under European law.
12) Summary: -The TS is not competent for a person not enjoying immunity. - The Supreme Court's "own" jurisprudence does not conform to European law and points to the Supreme Court being a Court of Exception.
13) And in this context, we enter the immunity waiver. If the Supreme Court is not competent for someone with no parliamentary privileges (Puig was never an MP), it is not competent for someone who ceased being a deputy (the exiles stopped being deputies).
14) The new EUROPEAN parliamentary privilege does not come from an explicit Spanish law either. Let's remember the words of [President Puigdemont's lawyer Gonzalo Boye] @boye_g, "The Supreme Court has acknowledged to us, in WRITING, that there is no EXPLICIT LAW that determines that it has jurisdiction to issue the immunity waiver request." CHECKMATE.
...ooo000ooo...
...ooo000ooo...
See also: "This article is on the dire dilemma Spain faces given the Belgium Court
of Appeal ruling on Lluís Puig, which affects not only all exiles, but -
unless the Court is stone deaf - all those convicted in the
Independence process trial". https://estudiscatalans.blogspot.com/2021/01/casulleres-puig.html
..ooo000ooo...
Vegeu també: La traducció al català de la sentència humiliant de Bèlgica denegant l’extradició de Lluís Puig. Us oferim el text íntegre i traduït al català de la sentència del
Tribunal d'Apel·lació de Brussel·les contra l'euroordre emesa pel Suprem
espanyol: https://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/sentencia-belgica-lluis-puig-euroordre-catala/
..ooo000ooo...
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada