Last abstention from hearing appeals again proclaimed a starting point for reflection on the usefulness and the ability of this form of struggle (as at present limited in its implementation modalities: self-regulation, law on strikes professionals, etc.). to give voice to the various claims and protests of our class. They can be transposed to the cries of pain from political advocacy and civil society?.
Well, let's face it all.
The "civil society", until they fail to understand is that our "freedom struggle" for the citizen, will never follow our demands we will continue to not enjoy popular support, not deceive ourselves!
The "politics" has nothing to fear from a category that, in its forms of protest, however, continues to "participate" in life where judicial there is a need (for example, processes with detained defendants or by ensuring the presence of the defender's office, all hazards emergency procedural notes) has nothing to fear, especially when the consequences of abstentions were now reinforced by legislation or case law which eliminate the effects (suspension of limitation periods, custody, etc.)..
Abstention from the hearings, which, incidentally, is not "strike", no longer produces any effect.
The feeling is that we should move on to other forms of protest, the identification of which is not easy. And this is due to real and substantial lack of unity, the lack of institutional representation, these elements, which together lead to the individual practitioner does not have the "courage" of the action-reaction, although it is blatant. E 'can now begin to talk about "abstention from the profession" as an alternative to "abstain from hearing"? E 'possible to propose a total ban on defense activities, even if they are right and necessary and essential? E 'unthinkable to convince colleagues that an effective form of protest must necessarily come to terms with the sacrifice of the profession, even when it is the duty waiver of all activities professional exclude from participation in hearings (think, for example, the preparation and filing of complaints-complaints, pleadings, motions, prison visits, interviews, and more you have, and so forth)? E 'can clear all the lists of the defenders of the office and take risks, where "mandatory", the complaint for interruption of public service because there was still refused to sponsor?
If the system is broken does not work!
If we insist (rightly), for example, want a separation of careers between judges and prosecutors because, wanting to simplify, the current prosecutor, finquando is "connecting" the judge, in substance is not "part" of the process, we must have the courage to not even be our "Party" (single sic) of the process: we must not participate in that process, whether or not a load of prisoners. Because if we believe that the process, although for this reason, it is a farce, then we must draw the consequence of this farce that we (especially the interests of the shop!) We are the main actors. To give last link in the chain: the accused or the victim, the hapless citizen who, however, ends up in the justice system.
If, for example, now we complain that the appeal process has become a mere agreement on the penalty, not just a market years or months of imprisonment, or faces a battle aimed at eliminating the second instance on the basis that it is useless (well, useful only to the usual interests of his pupils), or no longer participating in this latest farce.
If, again, for example, we complain that every time you go to knock on the door of a public prosecutor receives the response that he can not receive "because he is working" (and we're doing that?) Or "receives 12 to 12:30 and 11:59 as soon as they are, or continue to wait on your back or cease to be his partners, but in all senses! Lawyer or have no need to process anyone? To their work if the system is formally perfect (judge, prosecutor and lawyer), but if the lawyer fails, as they wield power? Today, we are constantly buffeted
.
arrive in the morning to the courthouse and looking in the designated parking spaces, we are forced to park cars or motorcycles on public roads or on sidewalks waiting for the fine for no parking: first slap!
We are going to climb towers with elevators and closed doors of some of them because we are prohibited from using dedicated only to "transfer power of attorney": according to slap!
We are approaching to the secretariats of the urban section of the prosecutor's office and there are signs that require us, not even invite us, of speaking to the staff only from 12:30 onwards: the third slap!
We need to withdraw copies of a file, but they necessarily can be withdrawn only on Tuesdays and Thursdays at tot tot at: Fourth slap!
We need to talk with the deputy prosecutor guy today because his secretary told us that his days of receipt, but unfortunately, it happens, just today "can not be disturbed because it is studying the hearing for tomorrow (and there anxiety is also why we must study the hearing for tomorrow but we are losing time in court): Fifth slap!
Let's go into closed session to find out, at least, to which can now be called our process, but invite us to wait because they're sipping coffee offered by the prosecution: sixth slap!
We read in the pleadings transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations with our customers, irrelevant in terms of the case but not expunged: Seventh slap!
The prosecutor in his indictment says that the exceptions raised during the defense process by the defenders of the accused has the symptom "that the process had to be done" (episode really happened): Eight slap!
How many more blows can be added ... But it is perhaps time to levarceli from the face?
Well, let's face it all.
The "civil society", until they fail to understand is that our "freedom struggle" for the citizen, will never follow our demands we will continue to not enjoy popular support, not deceive ourselves!
The "politics" has nothing to fear from a category that, in its forms of protest, however, continues to "participate" in life where judicial there is a need (for example, processes with detained defendants or by ensuring the presence of the defender's office, all hazards emergency procedural notes) has nothing to fear, especially when the consequences of abstentions were now reinforced by legislation or case law which eliminate the effects (suspension of limitation periods, custody, etc.)..
Abstention from the hearings, which, incidentally, is not "strike", no longer produces any effect.
The feeling is that we should move on to other forms of protest, the identification of which is not easy. And this is due to real and substantial lack of unity, the lack of institutional representation, these elements, which together lead to the individual practitioner does not have the "courage" of the action-reaction, although it is blatant. E 'can now begin to talk about "abstention from the profession" as an alternative to "abstain from hearing"? E 'possible to propose a total ban on defense activities, even if they are right and necessary and essential? E 'unthinkable to convince colleagues that an effective form of protest must necessarily come to terms with the sacrifice of the profession, even when it is the duty waiver of all activities professional exclude from participation in hearings (think, for example, the preparation and filing of complaints-complaints, pleadings, motions, prison visits, interviews, and more you have, and so forth)? E 'can clear all the lists of the defenders of the office and take risks, where "mandatory", the complaint for interruption of public service because there was still refused to sponsor?
If the system is broken does not work!
If we insist (rightly), for example, want a separation of careers between judges and prosecutors because, wanting to simplify, the current prosecutor, finquando is "connecting" the judge, in substance is not "part" of the process, we must have the courage to not even be our "Party" (single sic) of the process: we must not participate in that process, whether or not a load of prisoners. Because if we believe that the process, although for this reason, it is a farce, then we must draw the consequence of this farce that we (especially the interests of the shop!) We are the main actors. To give last link in the chain: the accused or the victim, the hapless citizen who, however, ends up in the justice system.
If, for example, now we complain that the appeal process has become a mere agreement on the penalty, not just a market years or months of imprisonment, or faces a battle aimed at eliminating the second instance on the basis that it is useless (well, useful only to the usual interests of his pupils), or no longer participating in this latest farce.
If, again, for example, we complain that every time you go to knock on the door of a public prosecutor receives the response that he can not receive "because he is working" (and we're doing that?) Or "receives 12 to 12:30 and 11:59 as soon as they are, or continue to wait on your back or cease to be his partners, but in all senses! Lawyer or have no need to process anyone? To their work if the system is formally perfect (judge, prosecutor and lawyer), but if the lawyer fails, as they wield power? Today, we are constantly buffeted
.
arrive in the morning to the courthouse and looking in the designated parking spaces, we are forced to park cars or motorcycles on public roads or on sidewalks waiting for the fine for no parking: first slap!
We are going to climb towers with elevators and closed doors of some of them because we are prohibited from using dedicated only to "transfer power of attorney": according to slap!
We are approaching to the secretariats of the urban section of the prosecutor's office and there are signs that require us, not even invite us, of speaking to the staff only from 12:30 onwards: the third slap!
We need to withdraw copies of a file, but they necessarily can be withdrawn only on Tuesdays and Thursdays at tot tot at: Fourth slap!
We need to talk with the deputy prosecutor guy today because his secretary told us that his days of receipt, but unfortunately, it happens, just today "can not be disturbed because it is studying the hearing for tomorrow (and there anxiety is also why we must study the hearing for tomorrow but we are losing time in court): Fifth slap!
Let's go into closed session to find out, at least, to which can now be called our process, but invite us to wait because they're sipping coffee offered by the prosecution: sixth slap!
We read in the pleadings transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations with our customers, irrelevant in terms of the case but not expunged: Seventh slap!
The prosecutor in his indictment says that the exceptions raised during the defense process by the defenders of the accused has the symptom "that the process had to be done" (episode really happened): Eight slap!
How many more blows can be added ... But it is perhaps time to levarceli from the face?
0 comments:
Post a Comment