Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Giudice federale respinge la causa diffamazione Daniels contro Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-18.

Trump Press 004

Un giudice federale ha respinto la causa per diffamazione della star del cinema per adulti Stormy Daniels contro il presidente Donald Trump.

Daniels ha citato in giudizio Trump dopo aver detto in un tweet che la sua storia di un uomo che la minaccia di non procedere con la sua versione della sua presunta relazione con Trump era “una contraffazione totale“.

*

«A federal judge has dismissed adult film star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump»

*

«Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she had a sexual relationship Mr Trump in 2006.

She filed the case after the president tweeted that she had invented a story about being threatened for speaking out about the alleged affair»

*

«Daniels sued Trump after he said in a tweet that her story of a man threatening her not to come forward with her story of her alleged affair with Trump was “a total con job.”»

*

«But the judge ruled that the tweet was protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech»

*

«Stormy Daniels was also ordered to pay Mr Trump’s legal fees, although the amount is yet to be determined. Her lawyer said she would appeal against the decision»

*

«Daniels argued Trump’s tweet, posted April 18, “attacks the veracity of her account” of the incident and that Trump’s statement was “false and defamatory, and that the tweet was defamation … because it charged her with committing a serious crime,” District Judge S. James Otero wrote in his opinion Monday»

*

«”The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement,” Otero wrote»

* * * * * * * *

Negli ultimi decenni gli Stati Uniti di America hanno tracollato sotto un vero e proprio delirio schizofrenico sessuale.

Il caso più eclatante è stato quello dell’esame svolto dal Senato per votare la conferma della nomina presidenziale di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh. Autore di 2,300 sentenze emesse in Corti Federali, ci si sarebbe aspettati un approfondito vaglio delle sue capacità di sintesi giuridica. Al contrario, l’intero dibattito ha trattato esclusivamente su di un’accusa fatta dopo trenta anni ai media di aver guardato troppo intensamente la scollatura di una ragazza quando Kavanaugh aveva 17 anni.

– Le accuse si fanno alle autorità competenti a riceverle, Magistratura in primis;

– Le accuse non comprovate da prove sono semplici calunnie;

– Che guardar dentro una scollatura sia reato, e di tale gravità da non disporre di prescrizione, è una visione del tutto molto particolare dei problemi giuridici.

– Il tempo di prescrizione nella maggior parte dei sistemi giuridici eguaglia quello della pena massima comminabile.

*

Mrs Stephanie Clifford è balzata agli onori della cronaca per aver accusato ai media di essere stata molestata da Mr Trump molti anni addietro. A quanto dice la signora, Mr Trump le avrebbe fatto avere una cospicua somma di denaro, resta incerto se a compenso di aver congiaciuto con lui o per altri motivi. Anche per questa circostanza deciderà alla fine un giudice togato.

L’aspetto nuovo di questa sentenza del Giudice Distrettuale S. James Otero è che il Magistrato è andato immediatamente a sentenza, emettendo anche un provvedimento tranchant.

«If this Court were to prevent Mr. Trump from engaging in this type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ against a political adversary, it would significantly hamper the office of the President. Any strongly-worded response by a president to another politician or public figure could constitute an action for defamation. This would deprive this country of the ‘discourse’ common to the political process».

“Se questa Corte impedisse al signor Trump di impegnarsi in questo tipo di ‘iperbole retorica’ contro un avversario politico, ostacolerebbe in modo significativo la carica di Presidente. Qualsiasi risposta con parole forti da parte di un presidente ad un altro politico o personaggio pubblico potrebbe costituire il substrato per un’azione per diffamazione. Questo priverebbe questo paese del ” linguaggio” comune al processo politico”.

*

«Otero was a judge on the Los Angeles Municipal Court from 1988 to 1990 and then a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court from 1990 to 2003.

On January 7, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Otero to a seat on the Central District vacated by Richard Paez. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 10, 2003, and received his commission two days later.»

*

Siamo franchi, serve davvero un grande coraggio emettere una simile sentenza in un Tribunale del 9th Circuit, ove la grande maggioranza dei giudici sono liberal democratici.


Bbc. 2018-10-16. Judge dismisses Stormy Daniels’ defamation case against Trump

A US judge has dismissed adult film star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump.

Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she had a sexual relationship Mr Trump in 2006.

She filed the case after the president tweeted that she had invented a story about being threatened for speaking out about the alleged affair.

But the judge ruled that the tweet was protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech.

Stormy Daniels was also ordered to pay Mr Trump’s legal fees, although the amount is yet to be determined. Her lawyer said she would appeal against the decision.

Mr Trump has denied any relationship with the actress.

In an interview with CBS News earlier this year, Stormy Daniels said a stranger approached her while she was with her young daughter and threatened her.

She later issued an image of the man.

Mr Trump responded to her account on Twitter, saying: “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”

The ruling does not affect a separate lawsuit the actress has filed against the president over money she says she was paid by Mr Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, to keep quiet about the alleged affair.

In August, Mr Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws during the 2016 presidential election over payments to two women who said they had sexual relationships with Mr Trump. He said he made the payments at Mr Trump’s request.


Cnn. 2018-10-16. Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against Trump

A federal judge has dismissed adult film star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump.

Daniels sued Trump after he said in a tweet that her story of a man threatening her not to come forward with her story of her alleged affair with Trump was “a total con job.”

Daniels argued Trump’s tweet, posted April 18, “attacks the veracity of her account” of the incident and that Trump’s statement was “false and defamatory, and that the tweet was defamation … because it charged her with committing a serious crime,” District Judge S. James Otero wrote in his opinion Monday.

Trump had asked Otero to dismiss the lawsuit.

“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement,” Otero wrote.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she and Trump had an affair in 2006, after he married first lady Melania Trump and she gave birth to their son, Barron. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

Daniels is also suing Trump and his former personal attorney Michael Cohen over the $130,000 payment made to her to keep silent about the alleged affair in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The ruling on Monday plays no role in that case, which continues to work its way through the court system.

In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Otero ruled Trump is entitled to attorney’s fees.

Trump’s attorney Charles J. Harder said in a statement to CNN, “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.”

“The amount of the award for President Trump’s attorneys’ fees will be determined at a later date,” Harder added.

Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, responded to the ruling on Twitter and said: “Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.”

Avenatti filed a notice of appeal Monday evening in Daniels’ defamation case against Trump.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Corte Federale ordina di procedere nel caso di Mrs Hillary Clinton.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-17.

2018-10-14__Clinton__001

‘Time to Set a plan for further proceedings in the case’


Riportiamo la notizia senza fare altro commento che adesso la Corte Suprema è a ranghi completi.

Document Archive.

«UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Civil Case No. 14-1242.

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendant..

ORDER

Civil Case No. 14-1242

Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while serving as Secretary of State continues to keep this Cour busy. Two and a half years ago, the Court granted plaintiffs request for limited discovery, mindful of parallel proceedings before Judge Sullivan and the ongoing inquiries by the State Department’s Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of investigation, and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Since those proceedings have concluded, it is time to set a plan for further proceedings in this case.

The Court ORDERS the parties to appear for a status conference on October 12, 2018 at 10:00 AM.

It is SO ORDERED.

Royce C. Lamberth

United States District Judge»

*

La Giustizia farà il suo corso.


Judicial Watch. 2018-10-11. Federal Court Orders Hearing in Judicial Watch Case Seeking Testimony of Hillary Clinton

‘Time to Set a plan for further proceedings in the case’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court ordered a hearing for Friday, October 12, regarding a request for testimony under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and several other State Department officials about Clinton email searches in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the Benghazi terrorist attack. The hearing was set by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

Hearing Date:      Friday, October 12, 2018

Time:                   10:00 a.m.

Location:             Courtroom 15

                                U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

                                333 Constitution Ave. N.W.

                                Washington, D.C. 20001

In his October 4, 2018, order setting the hearing date, Judge Lamberth said:

Two and a half years ago, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for limited discovery, mindful of parallel proceeding before Judge Sullivan and the ongoing inquiries by the State Department’s Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Since those proceeding have concluded, it is time to set a plan for further proceedings in this case.

The development comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

– Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

– Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

This is the lawsuit that forced the Clinton email system issue into the public eye in early 2015.

In 2014, a related Judicial Watch case brought to light the fact that the “Internet video” talking points regarding the Benghazi attack were orchestrated in the Obama White House.

In March 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch, ruling that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.” In May 2016, Judicial Watch filed an initial Proposed Order for Discovery seeking additional information. The State Department opposed Judicial Watch’s proposal, and in December 2016 Judge Lamberth requested both parties to file new proposed orders in light of information discovered in various venues since the previous May.

In its filing Judicial Watch informed the court that despite repeated conferences with the State Department they had been “unable to reach agreement on a discovery proposal” and that “[the State Department] is unwilling to agree to any discovery at all in this action.” Judicial Watch’s discovery proposal focuses on two main areas:

– Evidence of wrongdoing or bad faith with respect to State Department’s response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request for records related to the talking points provided to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice following the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack; and

– Potential remedies that may ensure a sufficient search for responsive records is undertaken.

Judicial Watch seeks both documents and depositions. The documents requested include:

– All documents that concern or relate to the processing of any and all searches of the Office of the Secretary for emails relating to the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath …

– 2. All communications that concern or relate to the processing of all searches referenced in Document Request No. 1 above, including directions or guidance about how and where to conduct the searches …

– All records that concern or relate to the State Department’s policies, practices, procedures and/or actions (or lack thereof) to secure, inventory, and/or account for all records…

– Plaintiff requests copies of the attached records [previously obtained by Judicial Watch] with the Exemption 5 redactions removed …

In addition to documents, Judicial Watch seeks depositions, including a deposition of Hillary Clinton that would include Mrs. Clinton’s testimony on:

[the] identification of individuals (whether State Department officials, other government officials, or third-parties, including but not limited to Sidney Blumenthal) with whom Secretary Clinton may have communicated by email.

“It is frankly unbelievable that the State Department is still protecting Hillary Clinton and her aides from being asked basic questions about her illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The courts were misled and obstructed by Hillary Clinton’s email scheme and we hope to get some more answers about this scandal.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Unione Europea

La piccola Polonia pone il veto in Commissione Giustizia EU.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-15.

Polonia 001

«Poland has vetoed an EU human rights statement on the grounds that it covered gay people but not Christians and Jews.»

*

«”We proposed that recognising the need to protect Christians and Jews against religious discrimination be put on an equal footing with protecting the rights of people with a different sexual orientation, migrant children, or women,” the Polish justice ministry said on Thursday (11 October)»

*

«”Our .. proposal was not accepted by other delegations, so Poland decided to vote against the [EU] conclusions,” it said. »

*

«The Polish veto, at a meeting of justice ministers in Luxembourg, meant the EU did not adopt conclusions on “the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2017” – a yearly statement.»

* * * * * * * *

Nell’Unione Europea si stanno scontrando due Weltanschauung opposte: quella liberal socialista e quella che si rifà al retaggio religioso, culturale, sociale e storico delle nazioni.

Lo scontro finale si verificherà con le elezioni del prossimo maggio.

Ma l’epoca in cui i liberal socialisti erano egemoni e potevano fare tutto ciò che a loro piaceva sta finendo.

Il fatto che sistematicamente l’attuale eurodirigenza abbia discriminato, discrimini e  conculchi Cristiani ed Ebrei è uno dei più abbietti eventi della storia dell’Unione.

«Poland could not allow the EU to “lie about the reality of the situation”»

*

Una nota.

L’articolista, liberal socialista di provatissima fede, parlando del Ministro polacco, scrive:

«it said»

invece di

«he said».

Ogni altro commento dovrebbe essere superfluo.


EU Observer. 2018-10-12. Polish veto blocks EU on rights of gays and Christians

Poland has vetoed an EU human rights statement on the grounds that it covered gay people but not Christians and Jews.

“We proposed that recognising the need to protect Christians and Jews against religious discrimination be put on an equal footing with protecting the rights of people with a different sexual orie “Our .. proposal was not accepted by other delegations, so Poland decided to vote against the [EU] conclusions,” it said.

The Polish veto, at a meeting of justice ministers in Luxembourg, meant the EU did not adopt conclusions on “the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2017” – a yearly statement.

The Austrian EU presidency instead published its own draft of the text “to take stock of the current debate”.

The draft mentioned gay rights, migrant children, and women.

It also denounced “discrimination against … religious groups”, but it did not include the proposed Polish amendment: “especially Christians and Jews”.

“LGBTI-equality should not be swept under the rug. The EU must stand for fundamental rights, today as well as any other day,” Ferd Grapperhaus, the Dutch justice minister, told media.

Lukasz Piebiak, Poland’s deputy justice minister, said Christians and Jews had been killed because of their religion in Europe.

To have left them out would have made the text “nonsense” and Poland could not allow the EU to “lie about the reality of the situation”, he said.

The Polish justice ministry also said: “Poland, as a member of the European ‘union of values’ considers itself a guardian of the rights and freedoms included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights”.

The Polish claims of moral high ground came amid EU complaints on the behaviour of its ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, however.

The European Commission has launched a sanctions procedure against Poland over PiS meddling in judicial independence.

It has also cited Poland in the EU court for its boycott of migrant-sharing quotas.

And PiS, which is known for its homophobic, racist, and sexist rhetoric, has paid a price in terms of EU co-operation.

EU price

Ireland and the Netherlands have declined to honour Polish European Arrest Warrants.

Belgium, France, Germany, and the UK have also disregarded a Polish EU visa ban on a PiS critic from Ukraine.

The Polish minister for humanitarian aid, Beata Kempa, said its EU migrant-sharing boycott would stay in place, despite the backlash, however.

“Our position from 2015 is the same,” she told Polish media on Friday morning, amid EU talks on asylum law reform.

“Mass intake of migrants by EU states brings negative consequences … you can see it in the example of Germany, France, Italy, and Greece,” she said.

“Multiculturalism” was “bankrupt”, she said.

Poland and Hungary boycotted the outcome of a vote on migrant quotas in the EU Council two years ago.

But they have also pledged to veto the EU commission’s sanctions process against each other, posing questions on how to enforce the rules of the EU club on members who violated them.

“We [Poland] and Hungary are forerunners [in the EU] on many issues,” Kempa said.

Gay rights

The Polish EU charter veto came one day before the Polish Supreme Court, on Friday, made history in Poland by giving the lesbian parents of a boy, who was born in London, the right to register him as their child in Poland, where same-sex unions are not recognised in law.

“This ruling will open up new legal possibilities for gay parents,” Pawel Knut, a lawyer at Campaign Against Homophobia, a Polish NGO, told the Reuters news agency.

Rulings like that could be a thing of the past if PiS-loyalist Supreme Court judges were take a more conservative line in future.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Suprema Corte US. Gli Executive Order sulla detenzione degli illegali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-15.

Supreme Court

Chi si fosse illuso che ai liberal democratici fossero stati a cuore i problemi etici oppure quelli dei diritti umani sarebbe bene che andasse in psicoterapia.

Tutto il bataclan fatto dai liberal contro Sud Giustizia Kavanaugh verte ben altro. Questo che segue è solo uno dei tanti casi che sono arrivati alla Corte Suprema.

*

«Under federal immigration law, immigrants who are convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their criminal sentences. »

*

«The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with another immigration dispute involving the Trump administration that focused on the U.S. government’s ability to detain people awaiting deportation after they complete prison sentences for criminal convictions»

*

«The nine justices, including the court’s newest member Brett Kavanaugh, heard an hour of arguments in the administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling in favor of immigrants that the government has said undermines its ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes»

*

«The case’s outcome could hinge on the two justices President Donald Trump has appointed to the court: conservatives Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh asked questions of lawyers from both sides, at one point appearing skeptical toward arguments made by immigration advocates who are opposing the Trump administration»

*

«the justices in February curbed the ability of immigrants held in long-term detention during deportation proceedings to argue for their release, overturning another 9th Circuit ruling»

*

«The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences cannot later be placed into indefinite detention awaiting possible deportation.»

*

«The 9th Circuit decided that immigrants who were later detained after completing their prison time – sometimes years later – could seek bond hearings to argue for their release.»

*

Riassumiamo.

La quasi totalità degli Executive Order emanati dal Presidente Trump fin dal suo insediamento sono stati impugnati nanti la United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, i cui giudici sono per la quasi totalità liberal democratici, che ne hanno sentenziato il blocco, paralizzando in questo modo ogni possibile azione governativa.

L’Amministrazione Trump ha ovviamente fatto ricorso alla Suprema Corte, che adesso inizia ad esaminare questo cumulo di ricorsi.

L’esito delle sentenze finali sarebbe stato scontato se i liberal democratici avessero potuto piazzare alla Suprema Corte uomini propri, ossia prima liberal democratici e poi, ma proprio poi, anche giudici.

Procuratore Generale NY, Schneiderman, dimissionario per abusi sessuali.

Adesso abbiamo la ragionevole certezza che la Suprema Corte sentenzierà secondo giustizia e legalità.


Reuters. 2018-10-10. U.S. Supreme Court tackles immigration detention case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with another immigration dispute involving the Trump administration that focused on the U.S. government’s ability to detain people awaiting deportation after they complete prison sentences for criminal convictions.

The nine justices, including the court’s newest member Brett Kavanaugh, heard an hour of arguments in the administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling in favor of immigrants that the government has said undermines its ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes.

The case’s outcome could hinge on the two justices President Donald Trump has appointed to the court: conservatives Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh asked questions of lawyers from both sides, at one point appearing skeptical toward arguments made by immigration advocates who are opposing the Trump administration. There is the possibility of a compromise ruling.

The plaintiffs include two legal U.S. residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance.

Trump’s administration has taken a hard line toward immigration. While some of the court’s five conservatives seemed sympathetic to the administration, the court’s liberal justices appeared to lean toward the plaintiffs.

The case came before the court on Kavanaugh’s second day on the bench following his Senate confirmation on Saturday after a fierce political fight.

Under federal immigration law, immigrants who are convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their criminal sentences.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that convicted immigrants who are not immediately detained by immigration authorities after finishing their sentences cannot later be placed into indefinite detention awaiting possible deportation.

The 9th Circuit decided that immigrants who were later detained after completing their prison time – sometimes years later – could seek bond hearings to argue for their release.

In another case, the justices in February curbed the ability of immigrants held in long-term detention during deportation proceedings to argue for their release, overturning another 9th Circuit ruling.

STICKING POINT

A majority of justices, including Gorsuch, appeared concerned about immigrants being detained without a hearing years after they committed criminal offenses. But the sticking point appeared to be how to define what would be a reasonable period of time for immigration agents to detain a person whose criminal sentence is completed.

In April, Gorsuch joined with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling in another immigration case that could hinder the Trump administration’s ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records.

The law at issue in Wednesday’s case states that the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers for two groups of plaintiffs argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants at any time.

Cecilia Wang, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the immigrants, said that the detention should occur within 24 hours. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned such a tight deadline.

“I don’t know what is reasonable here. A month?” Roberts asked.

Kavanaugh generally seemed sympathetic to the government’s argument, saying the court should be wary of “superimposing a time limit” on the law Congress wrote. But he later asked the administration’s lawyer, Zachary Tripp, what the government considered to be a reasonable amount of time. Tripp said that any time limit would be “profoundly problematic.”

With the administration’s intensified immigration enforcement, growing numbers of people likely will be detained awaiting deportation. The administration also is locked in a fight with so-called sanctuary states and cities that limit cooperation with efforts by federal authorities to detain immigrants.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Kavanaugh. È finita l’epoca del brocardo di Ulpiano.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-10.

Gengis Kahn 750x495

Domitius Ulpianus, nato nel 170 d.C. a Tiro e morto a Roma nel 228, fu uno dei massimi giuristi romani.

A lui dobbiamo Ad Sabinum, un commentario dello jus civile, ed Ad Edictum, una esaustiva raccolta di sentenze e scolia, racchiusi in ottantatre libri. È stata la prima e sistematica raccolta del corpo giurisprudenziale romano, cui tanto deve l’attuale civiltà occidentale.

Dobbiamo a Brucardo di Worms (965 – 1025), autore di un completato trattato di diritto canonico, una raccolta di tutte le regole generali del diritto, enunciate dai glossatori della scuola giuridica di Bologna. In suo onore, gli enunciati giuridici prendono nome di brocardi, assiomi giuridici da una parte, definizioni fatte secondo opinioni da dimostrarsi logicamente dall’altra.

Nell’Ad Edictum Ulpiano riporta un brocardo estremamente sintetico ma chiaro in modo lampante:

«Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem».

Tradotto, «Ciò che aggrada all’imperatore, ha vigore di legge».

* * * * * * *

Questa frase racchiude tutti i tormenti della giurisprudenza mondiale.

Il quesito è semplicissimo:

“il diritto, e quindi la relativa giurisprudenza, deve essere oggettivo

oppure è materia soggettiva?”.

*

Se si concepisce il diritto in modo oggettivo, allora esso deve essere soggetto al principio di non contraddizione, sul quale è basata tutta la logica. Nessuno dei suoi enunciati ed assiomi, nessuno dei suoi ragionamenti può contraddire alcunché di quanto già stabilito essere non contraddittorio. La verità è una ed una soltanto, la giustizia è una ed una soltanto. Da ciò discende come conseguenza la unicità dell’etica e della morale.

*

Se si concepisce il diritto in modo soggettivo, cesserebbe di esistere il modo di poter verificare se un enunciato sia o meno vero. La verità semplicemente né esisterebbe né potrebbe esistere. Le conseguenze sono sconcertanti.

Visto che ogni possibile affermazione è ingiudicabile dal punto di vista intellettuale, si ritiene essere in vigore quella enunciata dal più forte, da chi abbia il potere di imporla. Norma che semplifica la vita, ma solo se si sia dalla parte del vincitore.

*

Con il pragmatismo tipico dei romani, Ulpiano abbraccia questa seconda tesi. In altri termini, legalizza il dato di fatto che l’essere umano sperimenta nella storia dalla sua comparsa sulla terra: il più forte ha ragione, se la prende, ed impone i suoi voleri. Chi non obbedisca è semplicemente soppresso.

Le leggi di Gengis Khan, di Lenin, Stalin ed Hitler erano valide in quanto essi avevano la possibilità di imporne il rispetto. Morti loro, la gente tirò un respiro di sollievo. Certo, i loro fedeli seguaci scontarono in modo definitivo gli arbitri pregressi. La gente ha buona memoria ed un simulacro di giustizia alberga nell’animo di ogni essere umano.

* * * * * * *

Nel periodo di tempo in cui i liberal democratici hanno gestito la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, formandone la maggioranza dei nove giudici, hanno seguito il brocardo di Ulpiano, legalizzando con sentenze ad hoc il volere politico della dirigenza liberal.

Adesso la Suprema Corte è passata a maggioranza repubblicana, ed il brocardo è stato abbandonato.

Ecco il razionale del perché la nomina di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh è epocale.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia

Csm, ovvero il rinato partito nazionale fascista.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-28.

Gran Consilio Fascista

Il problema è semplicissimo.

Per entrare nell’organico della Magistratura è necessario superare un concorso i cui commissari sono giudici in organico alla Magistratura stessa.

Il Magistrato fa quindi carriera ed è destinato alla sede di esercizio da un pool di altri magistrati.

I Magistrati si eleggono quindi il Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, che dovrebbe sovraintendere la disciplina in questo corpo dello stato, governarne l’ingresso, le mansione e le destinazioni. Non solo. Nomina anche i Magistrati di Cassazione.

È del tutto evidente come la Magistratura italiana sia un organo autoreferenziale. Il Cittadino Elettore è del tutto escluso sia dalla scelta dei giudici sia dal governo dei medesimi.

Questo tipo di organizzazione era caratteristico del partito nazionale fascista che si perpetua nella Magistratura italiana.

*

Una cosa è il concetto dell’indipendenza dei giudici, ed una totalmente differente è il costituirli come potere autonomo svincolato dal volere popolare.

In un gran numero di nazioni civili i magistrati sono cariche elette direttamente dagli Elettori per lassi di tempo variabile e per accedere alle massime cariche è anche necessario il placet del Senato o di organi politici elettivi equivalenti per formazione e competenze.

*

«Il CSM è organo di autogoverno con lo scopo di garantire l’autonomia e l’indipendenza della magistratura dagli altri poteri dello Stato, in particolare da quello esecutivo, secondo il principio di separazione dei poteri espresso nella Costituzione della Repubblica italiana. In particolare è un Organo di rilievo costituzionale (come ha sancito la Corte costituzionale), e si fa riferimento ad esso nella Costituzione italiana agli articoli 104, 105, 106 e 107.

La dottrina s’è per anni divisa sulla natura di organo costituzionale oppure meramente di rilievo costituzionale del Consiglio; ma, soprattutto, è stata problematica l’individuazione delle specifiche disfunzioni del Consiglio. Infatti, l’esercizio di alcuni poteri e funzioni da parte del Consiglio, non esplicitamente menzionati in Costituzione, ha più volte causato tensioni con settori del mondo politico. È questo il caso di quelle che autorevole dottrina definisce funzioni di rappresentanza del potere giudiziario nei rapporti con gli altri poteri, come, ad esempio, fare proposte al ministro sulle materie di sua competenza, dare pareri sui disegni di legge in qualsiasi modo attinenti all’organizzazione della giustizia (v. l’art. 10 della legge 24 marzo 1958 n. 195) e, più in generale, il potere di pronunciarsi manifestando la propria opinione su qualsiasi vicenda possa interessare il funzionamento della giustizia.

*

All’art. 110, la Costituzione assegna al ministro della giustizia il compito di curare l’organizzazione e il funzionamento dei servizi relativi alla giustizia, ferme restando le competenze del CSM; l’art. 101, comma 2, inoltre, garantisce la piena autonomia e indipendenza dei giudici da ogni altro potere dichiarando che essi sono soggetti soltanto alla legge. L’organo che assicura l’autonomia dell’ordine giudiziario è il Consiglio superiore della magistratura (CSM), cui compete l’autogoverno dei magistrati ordinari, civili e penali.

Ad esso spettano, infatti, le competenze in materia di assunzioni, assegnazioni e trasferimenti, promozioni e provvedimenti disciplinari nei riguardi dei magistrati ordinari (i magistrati amministrativi, contabili e militari hanno propri organi di governo).

Le funzioni di autogoverno del Consiglio superiore della magistratura quindi in materia di stato giuridico dei magistrati, con riguardo a:

    assunzione (sempre tramite concorso pubblico);

    assegnazione ad un incarico;

    promozione;

    trasferimento;

    attribuzione di sussidi ai magistrati e alle loro famiglie;

    procedimento disciplinare;

    nomina dei magistrati di Cassazione

    nomina e revoca dei magistrati onorari.

*

Il Consiglio superiore della magistratura è composto da 27 membri e presieduto dal presidente della Repubblica che vi partecipa di diritto. Altri membri di diritto sono il primo presidente e il procuratore generale della Corte suprema di cassazione. Gli altri 24 componenti sono eletti per i 2/3 da tutti i magistrati ordinari tra gli appartenenti a tutte le componenti della magistratura (membri togati, 16) e per 1/3 dal Parlamento riunito in seduta comune tra i professori universitari in materie giuridiche e avvocati che esercitano la professione da almeno quindici anni (membri laici, 8)» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

La nomina dell’on Davide Ermini alla vice-presidenza del Csm ripropone il problema.

I controllati eleggono i propri controllori. Questo è l’esatto contrario di quanto si ritenga essere la democrazia.

Il fatto poi che sia stato eletto a maggioranza semplice è uno schiaffo alla democrazia.

È invero molto difficile affermare che la figura dell’on Ermini sia apolitica.

Se i magistrati esigono, ed a ragione, che i Cittadini rispettino il ruolo che essi ricoprono, sarebbe altrettanto vero che i Magistrati dovrebbero mettersi nella condizione di consentire che gli Elettori li rispettino.

Se non si adeguassero da soli, ebbene, allora il Governo dovrebbe intervenire, ed anche molto duramente.

È evidente che questo sistema debba essere in un futuro prossimo riformato.

Pubblicato in: Commercio, Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Giustizia, Unione Europea

VW. Iniziato il processo. Chiesti 9 miliardi di danni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-22.

Musterverfahren gegen Volkswagen AG

«A crucial Dieselgate lawsuit against Volkswagen started on Monday morning in Braunschweig, a short drive from the carmaker’s headquarters in Wolfsburg.»

*

«In the vital test case, more than 2,000 shareholders – many of them powerful investment funds – claim that VW concealed risks associated with falsified emissions data, causing them to lose €9 billion ($10.4 billion) when the company’s stock price tanked»

*

«The main plaintiff is Deka Investment, the asset management fund of Germany’s Sparkasse network of savings banks, with other shareholders co-suing as part of the same suit. Deka’s legal team is led by Andreas Tilp, who in the past has taken similar cases against Deutsche Telekom and the property bank Hypo Real Estate. He argues that the rot dates back to 2008, when VW discovered its diesel engines would not pass US environmental regulations, but chose to conceal this fact»

*

«According to Mr. Tilp, that led VW down the path of falsification, namely building illegal “defeat device” software designed to convince testers that emissions were far lower than they really were»

*

«VW says its management team did everything it could to correctly inform stockholders, given its knowledge at the time.»

*

«VW points out that when the Dieselgate scandal broke, US environmental authorities had never fined any company more than $100 million, a relatively insignificant sum for a company with annual revenues of over €200 billion, and an amount considered too small to impact the share price.»

*

«Once the extent of VW’s actions became clear, the US authorities radically changed the scale of their penalties, with the Environmental Protection Agency imposing a fine of $4.3 billion on the German company»

* * * * * * * *

Il processo è in corso e la sentenza dovrebbe poter arrivare per fine dell’anno prossimo venturo. I ricorsi sembrerebbero essere inevitabili.

A nostro sommesso parere, la difesa di VW è scarsamente attendibile.

Una cosa è avvisare gli azionisti dopo che sia scoppiato lo scandalo, quando i titoli erano già crollati, ed una totalmente diversa sarebbe stata l’averli avvisati prima che scoppiasse lo scandalo, prima che comprassero i pacchetti azionari.

Siamo molto interessati a vedere come disporranno i giudici.


Handelsblatt. 2018-09-10. Volkswagen shareholders get their day in court

A key lawsuit begins today as investors claim they were deceived over Dieselgate, giving rise to losses of €9 billion.

The carmaker insists they were fairly informed.

*

A crucial Dieselgate lawsuit against Volkswagen started on Monday morning in Braunschweig, a short drive from the carmaker’s headquarters in Wolfsburg. In the vital test case, more than 2,000 shareholders – many of them powerful investment funds – claim that VW concealed risks associated with falsified emissions data, causing them to lose €9 billion ($10.4 billion) when the company’s stock price tanked.

In 2015, VW’s elaborate cheating on emissions tests for diesels unraveled in the United States. The shareholders argue they bought shares earlier at what amounted to inflated prices, since the company knew about the falsification and the associated risks, but deliberately concealed them. The judgment of the court is binding on all litigants, but will not apply to other Dieselgate victims.

The main plaintiff is Deka Investment, the asset management fund of Germany’s Sparkasse network of savings banks, with other shareholders co-suing as part of the same suit. Deka’s legal team is led by Andreas Tilp, who in the past has taken similar cases against Deutsche Telekom and the property bank Hypo Real Estate. He argues that the rot dates back to 2008, when VW discovered its diesel engines would not pass US environmental regulations, but chose to conceal this fact.

The fatal decision

According to Mr. Tilp, that led VW down the path of falsification, namely building illegal “defeat device” software designed to convince testers that emissions were far lower than they really were. That facade began to crumble in 2014, when the International Council on Clean Transportation, an environmental nonprofit, reported that VW emissions were far higher than the company admitted.

Volkswagen frames the case differently. Its legal team wants to avoid the trial turning into a tribunal on the entire scandal and argues the suit addresses a single issue: whether the automotive giant abided by laws to report all relevant information to shareholders and the capital markets. VW says its management team did everything it could to correctly inform stockholders, given its knowledge at the time.

VW points out that when the Dieselgate scandal broke, US environmental authorities had never fined any company more than $100 million, a relatively insignificant sum for a company with annual revenues of over €200 billion, and an amount considered too small to impact the share price.

Punishments radically increased

Once the extent of VW’s actions became clear, the US authorities radically changed the scale of their penalties, with the Environmental Protection Agency imposing a fine of $4.3 billion on the German company. The company claims that when the new risk became clear, in September 2015, it communicated this appropriately to shareholders.

Even if the plaintiffs manage to show that VW informed shareholders inadequately or too late, they must also clear another hurdle – showing that senior management acted deliberately to conceal relevant information. This will raise the question of who knew what about the emission manipulation scandal, and when. However, it is not expected that senior VW figures will appear at the trial: Most would, in any case, invoke their right to refuse to testify.

It falls to Braunschweig’s Higher Regional Court to make sense of the competing claims. One thing all agree on is that a decision will not be quick, with judgment not expected to be handed down until next year.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Unione Europea

Grecia. Scafisti arrestati ed incriminati per tratta ed associazione per delinquere.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-17.

Grecia 012

«Greek Coast Guard boats were on Thursday seeking a smuggling boat believed to be carrying dozens of migrants off the coast of Pylos, in southern Greece»

*

«Around 60 migrants are believed to be in the boat, according to local reports»

*

«Thirty members of the Emergency Response Centre International, or ERCI, in Greece have been charged with trafficking refugees»

*

«She [Sara Mardini] went on to work with the Emergency Response Centre International (ERCI), a nonprofit organisation on Lesbos, before eventually continuing their journey to Germany. In late 2017, she returned to Lesbos to volunteer with ERCI again.»

*

«But now 23-year-old Mardini is behind bars in Korydallos Prison, a high-security facility in the capital, Athens, and three of her ERCI colleagues have been arrested, as well»

*

«In a press release, Greek police said the NGO facilitated “the illegal entry of aliens into Greek territory” and provided “direct assistance to organised illegal immigration networks”.»

*

«The statement added that police are investigating 30 individuals in connection to the case, which includes allegations of human trafficking, money laundering, spying and counterfeiting, among others»

*

«Meanwhile, with the charges pending against four of its members, the ERCI has suspended all its operations indefinitely»

* * * * * * *

«EMERGENCY RESPONSE CENTRE INTERNATIONAL (ERCI)is a Greek nonprofit organization that provides emergency response and humanitarian aid in times of crisis. ERCI’s philosophy is to identify the gaps of humanitarian aid and step in to assist in the most efficient and impactful manner. Currently ERCI has 4 active programs working with refugees in Greece in the areas of Search and Rescue, Medical, Education and Refugee Camp Coordination»

* * * * * * *

Quanto successo in Grecia costituisce una svolta epocale, sia da un punto di vista politico sia giuridico.

Due sono gli elementi di particolare importanza.

«Greek police said the NGO facilitated “the illegal entry of aliens into Greek territory” and provided “direct assistance to organised illegal immigration networks”.»

Le ngo che usano navi di seconda mano per andarsi a prendere “migranti” da sbarcare poi sul suolo europeo altro non sono che organizzazioni criminali volte a promuovere l’immigrazione illegale, complici alacri di tutti coloro che esercitano la tratta a scopo di lucro. Correttamente la sede greca della Erci è stata chiusa ed i suoi affiliati associati ad un carcere di massima sicurezza.

Scafisti e personale di appoggio logistico sono stati incriminati di traffico di esseri umani, tratta, riciclaggio di denaro sporco, spionaggio ed altri capi di accusa.

Ce ne è a sufficienza per l’erogazione di pena di ergastolo.

* * * * * * *

Quanto successo dovrebbe dare da pensare, e molto.

L’europarlamento ha votato una mozione diretta al Consiglio Europeo suggerendo di applicare alla Ungheria l’articolo 7 perché essa si era opposta alla immigrazione illegale ed alla presenza delle ngo sul proprio territorio.

In sede di Commissione europea, un ministro lussemburghese si è permesso di apostrofare un ministro italiano con l’epiteto “merda” perché questo ultimo sosteneva che l’immigrazione illegale dovesse essere trattata come tale: illegale.

In Italia, la Magistratura accetta di rinviare al Tribunale dei Ministri un ministro che ha bloccato una nave di una ngo che praticava la tratta e l’immigrazione illegale: il ministro è accusato, inter alias, di sequestro di persona.

*

In questa Europa si fa tanto parlare di divisione dei poteri e della presunta indipendenza dei Magistrati, fedeli servitori dello stato, ma mai come di questi tempi si è assistito ad una Magistratura corrotta dall’ideologia: applicano quella, non certo la legge.


Ekathimerini. 2018-09-16. Coast Guard, Frontex boats seek boat carrying dozens of migrants

Greek Coast Guard boats were on Thursday seeking a smuggling boat believed to be carrying dozens of migrants off the coast of Pylos, in southern Greece. 

Around 60 migrants are believed to be in the boat, according to local reports. 

The search operation involves three Coast Guard vessels and an aircraft of Frontex, the European Union’s border monitoring agency. 


Al Jazeera. 2018-09-16. Greece arrests migrant rescuers on charges of people trafficking

Members of the group charged, the ERCI, deny wrongdoing, saying that they followed every rule and regulation and kept the Greek coastguard informed of their activities.

*

Thirty members of the Emergency Response Centre International, or ERCI, in Greece have been charged with trafficking refugees.

The accused include a former Olympic swimmer who helped save the lives of 18 people when their boat sank.

Private search-and-rescue groups have become controversial as the refugees and asylum seekers they save from drowning at sea are brought to European shores at a time that European nations are attempting to stop the flow of migrants.

Al Jazeera’s John Psaropoulous reports from Lesbos, Greece.


Al Jazeera. 2018-09-17. Refugee advocates blast arrests of rescue workers in Greece

Greek authorities have accused the rescue workers of a host of crimes, including espionage and people trafficking..

Athens, Greece – Three years ago, Sara Mardini and her sister rescued 18 refugees in the Aegean Sea, diving into the water and guiding their sinking dinghy to dry land on Greece’s Lesbos island.

Mardini and her sister Yusra, who went on to swim in the 2016 Olympics, were subsequently lauded as heroes and gained international notoriety.

She went on to work with the Emergency Response Centre International (ERCI), a nonprofit organisation on Lesbos, before eventually continuing their journey to Germany. In late 2017, she returned to Lesbos to volunteer with ERCI again.

But now 23-year-old Mardini is behind bars in Korydallos Prison, a high-security facility in the capital, Athens, and three of her ERCI colleagues have been arrested, as well.

Authorities arrested them on August 21 and dealt them daunting charges ranging from people smuggling to espionage and membership in a criminal organisation. Under Greek law, they can be held in pre-trial detention for up to 18 months. 

Greek police detained Mardini at the island’s airport as she prepared to travel back to Germany for university studies.

Her lawyer, Haris Petsalnikos, maintains that she was not in Greece during many of the incidents detailed in the allegations and has called for her release. 

The accused individuals include ERCI field director Nassos Karakitsos, a Greek citizen, and volunteer Sean Binder, a 24-year-old German national. A third individual who was charged has requested that his name be withheld, according to the organisation.

In a press release, Greek police said the NGO facilitated “the illegal entry of aliens into Greek territory” and provided “direct assistance to organised illegal immigration networks”.

The statement added that police are investigating 30 individuals in connection to the case, which includes allegations of human trafficking, money laundering, spying and counterfeiting, among others.

A week after the arrests, the ERCI published a statement dismissing the “unfounded claims, charges and accusations”.

‘I knew I had to do something’

Panos Moraitis, a 39-year-old Greek national who founded the ERCI in December 2015, said he plans to present himself to authorities in Lesbos in the coming days and expects to be arrested, as well.

Rejecting the allegations, Moraitis explained that he decided to join a swell of volunteers heading to Greek islands as the refugee crisis unfolded in 2015.

Each morning, while commuting to work, he would listen to the radio and hear updates from Lesbos as tens of thousands of refugees reached the island. “I heard the news every morning, and I saw the photos,” he recalled, speaking to Al Jazeera by telephone.

“What really tipped me over was what convinced thousands of people to volunteer: the photo of Aylan Kurdi,” he recalled, referring to a Syrian toddler whose lifeless body washed up on Turkish shores in September 2015.

At the time, images of Kurdi went viral and made international headlines.

“My wife was pregnant with my daughter then, and I knew I had to do something,” Moraitis said.

Advocates say the arrests are part of a broader wave of clamping down on volunteers, aid workers and activists who have worked with refugees and migrants fleeing warzones and economic devastation in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.

In 2016, Greek police arrested a pair of Spanish activists who were attempting to help transport refugees from the country, in the port city of Igoumenitsa.

In March, Italian authorities launched an investigation into Proactiva Open Arms and seized a rescue ship, accusing three individuals of criminal activities related to facilitating migration to the country.

Two months later, three Spanish firefighters were put on trial for helping refugees enter the EU on Lesbos. Those charges could land them behind bars for 10 years.

In Hungary, far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government passed into law in June a measure prohibiting individuals and NGOs from providing aid to refugees and migrants entering the Central European country.

Nassim Lomani, an Athens-based activist who came to Europe from Afghanistan two decades ago, said the effort to crack down on rescue workers, NGOs and refugee solidarity activists comes at a time when the EU seeks to stem the flow of refugees and migrants to the continent.

“It’s getting worse,” he told Al Jazeera, “and I have the feeling it will continue to get much worse.”

Arrivals continue

In recent months, several European countries, among them Germany, Austria and Italy, have sought to limit the entry and movement of asylum seekers.

Last month, Germany struck a deal with Greece to return asylum seekers to the Mediterranean country if it was their first port of entry into the bloc.

In Italy, the newly appointed far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, has prompted outrage across the continent by refusing to allow refugee boats to disembark on the country’s shores.

In late August, Salvini initially blocked a boat carrying some 177 people from unloading, leading to a nearly week-long standoff.

But in Greece, boats continue to arrive, despite declining living standards in the overcrowded camps, particularly on the islands, and the apparent attempts to discourage rescue workers and activists.

According to the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR), more than 21,000 refugees and migrants have reached Greece in 2018, a number that pales in comparison to the nearly million who passed through the country three years earlier.

On Thursday, the Greek coastguard retrieved 65 people on a boat in the Mediterranean near southwestern Greece, according to the local daily Ekathimerini.

Arrivals have also swelled on the country’s land border with Turkey, where a growing number of people cross the Evros River to enter Greece.

Meanwhile, with the charges pending against four of its members, the ERCI has suspended all its operations indefinitely.

Among those services was a clinic in Moria, a cramped refugee camp on Lesbos, and programmes in the nearby Karatepe camp.

“Based on what I’ve seen till now, our people are being prosecuted for doing nothing wrong,” Moraitis said.

“It feels like the authorities want to make an example out of us to scare others from doing search-and-rescue,” he concluded.

“In the end, they [authorities] will say, ‘Oops, our bad,’ but lives will have been ruined already.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia

Myanmar. Segreti di stato e libertà di stampa. Giornalisti condannati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-09-06.

Codice Penale 001

Caratteristica saliente della Weltanschauung occidentale, così come essa è interpretata dall’ideologia liberal e socialista, è quella di considerare il proprio modo di pensare come l’apice della perfezione, cui tutti gli abitanti di codesto mondo dovrebbero sottostare. In caso contrario essi sarebbero ‘illiberali‘, vocabolo da loro usato a significare che non seguono l’ideologia liberal.

È una mentalità ampiamente rigettata da gran parte del mondo civile, che resta ben attaccato alle proprie tradizioni e guarda anche di malocchio l’ideologia liberal e le sue conseguenze.

Il problema sta acuendosi man mano che passa il tempo, essendo in atto una cospicua devoluzione di queste ideologie e, soprattutto, un deciso e marcato ridimensionamento del loro potere politico, economico e militare. Gli Elettori non votano più partiti ad ideologia liberal. L’Occidente non trova più in sé stesso la forza di imporre il proprio modo di vedere: sta subendo grandiose mutazioni.

* * * * * * *

«A court in Myanmar has sentenced two Reuters journalists to seven years in prison for violating a state secrets act while investigating violence against the Rohingya minority»

*

«Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, nationals of Myanmar, were arrested while carrying official documents which had just been given to them by police officers»

*

«Both of the journalists are Myanmar citizens who were working for the international news agency»

*

«They have maintained their innocence, saying they were set up by police»

*

«The case has been widely seen as a test of press freedom in Myanmar»

* * * * * * *

Vi sono molti modi di fare giornalismo.

Alcuni giornalisti hanno raggiunto fama mondiale per l’acutezza e preveggenza delle loro analisi politiche, sociali ed economiche: sono diventati commentatori letti con attenzione perché sono riusciti ad enucleare l’essenziale e gran parte della verità contenuta nelle informazioni disponibili. A livello mondiale sono uno sparuto manipolo, guardati anche con sospetto da parte di tutti le persone schierate.

Gran parte dei giornalisti centra la propria attività nel tentativo di fornire le notizie con la massima celerità possibile: la testata che pubblica per prima il report di un qualche evento polarizza de facto l’attenzione dei lettori. Ma in un mondo ove le telecomunicazioni sono accessibili a quasi tutti i cittadini, ed anche a costi del tutto ragionevoli, questa condotta implica l’accesso a fonti usualmente riservate, che lasciano fuoriuscire inside information, quasi invariabilmente a scopo politico ovvero di lucro.

Vi sono poi giornalisti a caccia dello scoop, che quasi sempre prende corpo nel rivelare una qualche verità, vera o presunta tale, tenuta nascosta, riservata. Spesso ritenuta essere segreto di stato.

Questa ultima attività si scontra con la giurisprudenza civile e penale della nazione in cui il giornalista ha agito.

Essere giornalisti perché si scrive su di una testata più o meno nota non conferisce l’immunità diplomatica. I giornalisti non sono al di sopra della legge.

Spesso poi la divulgazione di notizie riservate porta in rotta di collisione con quanti le detenevano.

* * * * * * *

Bbc pone il problema dei giornalisti condannati in Myanmar come un problema di «press freedom».

A nostro parere questa impostazione è errata.

Se sia ammissibile che i giornalisti godano della libertà di pubblicare ciò che ritengono, sarebbe altrettanto ragionevole ammettere che debbano rispettare le leggi e le usanze e, soprattutto, il codice penale, ossia quanto legalmente e correttamente uno stato difenda, massimamente ciò che ritiene essere ‘segreto di stato‘. In altri termini, forse riduttivi ma meglio comprensibili, i giornalisti sono anche essi soggetti al codice penale.

Nemmeno i governanti sono al di sopra del codice penale: chi lo infrange prima o poi finisce alla sbarra. Il caso di Mr Lula dovrebbe ben insegnare qualcosa.

Una cosa è la libertà di stampa ed un’altra totalmente differente è l’immunità dal codice penale. Ma chi si credono di essere i giornalisti?


Bbc. 2018-09-03. Reuters journalists jailed in Myanmar over secrets act

A court in Myanmar has sentenced two Reuters journalists to seven years in prison for violating a state secrets act while investigating violence against the Rohingya minority.

Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, nationals of Myanmar, were arrested while carrying official documents which had just been given to them by police officers.

They have maintained their innocence, saying they were set up by police.

The case has been widely seen as a test of press freedom in Myanmar.

“I have no fear,” Wa Lone, one of the two journalists, said after the verdict. “I have not done anything wrong. I believe in justice, democracy and freedom.”

The two men, who both have families with young children, have been in prison since their arrest in December 2017.

“Today is a sad day for Myanmar, Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, and press freedom anywhere,” Reuters editor-in-chief Stephen Adler said.

Both of the journalists are Myanmar citizens who were working for the international news agency.

Read their report ‘Massacre in Myanmar’

Judge Ye Lwin told the court in Yangon the pair had “intended to harm the interests of the state”.

“And so they have been found guilty under the state secrets act,” he said.

The story behind the journalists’ arrest

Blow by blow: How a ‘genocide’ was investigated

Wa Lone, 32, and Kyaw Soe Oo, 28, had been collecting evidence about the execution of 10 men by the army in the village of Inn Din in northern Rakhine.

During their investigation, they were offered documents by two police officers, but were arrested immediately afterwards for the possession of those documents.

Authorities later launched their own probe into the killings, confirming the massacre took place and promising to take action against those who had taken part.

‘Deeply troubling’

The verdict has been widely criticised by observers and human rights groups.

“We are extremely disappointed by this verdict,” Britain’s ambassador to Myanmar, Dan Chugg said according to Reuters.

US ambassador Scot Marciel echoed the same criticism, saying the court’s decision was “deeply troubling for everybody who has struggled so hard here for media freedom”.

The UN’s resident and humanitarian co-ordinator in Myanmar Knut Ostby said the UN had “consistently called for the release” of the journalists and that “a free press is essential for peace, justice and human rights for all. We are disappointed by today’s court decision”.

“The outrageous convictions show Myanmar courts’ willingness to muzzle those reporting on military atrocities,” Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said.

“These sentences mark a new low for press freedom and further backsliding on rights under Aung San Suu Kyi’s government.”

What next for Myanmar after damning report?

Myanmar rejects UN ‘genocide’ accusation

Seeing through the official story in Myanmar

The verdict had been delayed once because of the judge’s ill health.

The ruling comes a year after the crisis in Rakhine state came to a head when a Rohingya militant group attacked several police posts.

The military responded with a brutal crackdown against the Rohingya minority.

Media access to Rakhine is strictly controlled by the government so it is difficult to get reliable news from the region.

——

‘A crushing blow to freedom’

Nick Beake, BBC Myanmar correspondent, Yangon

Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo bowed their heads as the verdict was delivered while their families broke down in tears in court.

The reporters have always insisted they were framed. Wa Lone – who missed the birth of his first child while being detained – protested his innocence once again as he was led away.

Many will see this verdict as a crushing blow to freedom of the press in Myanmar and another setback for democracy, three years after Aung San Suu Kyi’s party triumphed in free elections.

Last week, UN inspectors called for Myanmar’s top generals to stand trial for genocide for the crimes committed against the Rohingya – the very subject these reporters were investigating.

——