The Government Took A Breath After A Fierce Judicial Autumn
2021-01-28 | by CusiGO
After a fierce judicial trial, the breath of the coalition government became calmer. In less than two months, the court has concluded most of the public complaints and investigations involving the executives of PSOE and Pomo, which have brought their agenda under constant attack from the opposition. When the Supreme Court refused to sue the second vice president, Pablo Iglesias, it was called the Dina case. The same thing happened in the delcygate case, or in response to the epidemic. Neuronal events also decreased.
Dina’s case. Judge Manuel Garc í a Castell ó n is investigating the Dina case, which is part of villarejo’s case, in which he claimed to have stolen a mobile phone from a former aide of the party leader. On 7 October, he demanded that the church be blamed for discovering and divulging secrets and destroying computers, False statement and crime simulation. The Supreme Court rejected a proposal that there was no reason for action against the vice president at this time.
“It is a legal anomaly to accuse Paul Iglesias. Pablo echenique, spokesman for Spain’s parliament party, said after accepting the high court ruling on Wednesday: “all Spanish jurists know this, but it fills months of false rubbish and slander in its talks, messages and front page reports.”. Rafael mayoral, who is also a deputy to political forces, said: “some of the actions of judges endanger judicial justice.”
The Supreme Court ruling limits Garcia castron’s leeway, and he has been returned for investigation. Accusations of discovery and disclosure will be a difficult door to open. As the High Court pointed out to him, in order to be able to blame anyone for the crime, the victim had to file a complaint against him in advance. Dina bousselham, a former church aide, has written to the judge that she has no intention of suing her former boss: “Dina has always believed in the way the church behaves, and at all times, because it’s impossible, Iglesias’ behavior is nothing more than to protect his privacy, “his lawyer stressed in the document, in which he referred to the leader of Poulos as a” friend “and promised to” understand “that he kept his mobile card for a period of time without telling her anything.
On the other hand, the possibility of attributing computer damage to the church has also been questioned by the report of the science police, who believes that the external damage of the suspicious card is “compatible” with the attempts of professional companies to retrieve the content. The judge blamed the prisoners on the vice president, but it was not clear what the culprit was. In addition, with regard to the indictment and the offence of misrepresentation, the Supreme Court recalled that the law required a final judgment or order to be made in advance, to dismiss the complaint and to show that “the allegation was substantially false.”. This condition was not met, and it became more complicated after the high court charged the judge, accusing him of making up the church case for political gain, He ruled out other research routes “in order to put forward a specific alternative as a reality without greater rationality”.
Delsey case. On November 26, the supreme court ended a public investigation into development minister Jos é Luis Á balos, because Venezuela’s vice president, delcy Rodr í Guez, entered Spanish territory in January 2020 despite the EU ban. Judges ruled out the possibility that alos could be found guilty in a case filed by the lakolata party and vox after a plea for prevarication. Another judge in Madrid, Antonio Serrano Arnal, also investigated the part of the investigation that affected the non indictees two weeks ago.
They argued about the pandemic. On December 18 last year, the Supreme Court also rejected as many as 20 complaints and 30 charges against the government president and his ministers for managing the coronavirus epidemic. The judges not only ruled out some kind of general action against the executive’s decisions – the resolution stressed that criminal responsibility was “strict personal responsibility,” but also that there was no “legitimate” evidence that any criminal act was caused by its components. Complainants (including VOX) even talked about murder and minor injuries. All this happened after the June 8-m case, which was opened to representatives of the Madrid government because he allowed a feminist demonstration on March 8, 2020.
Neuronal events. Last summer, a court in Madrid launched a macro case, which triggered charges against pomos as a legal person and announced several members of his senior management in November, which has been greatly reduced. On January 12, he ended his investigation into the overspending of the reform of the new party headquarters and the alleged unauthorized access to a female lawyer’s training hard disk. At the end of October, he began to investigate the alleged misappropriation of funds from the solidarity fund, A fund in which government officials donate part of their salaries for social purposes, the opposition calls it “fund B”. Earlier this month, he took the same action against a party to the April 28, 2019 election contract with consulting firm abd Europa.
So, in this case, only two lines are alive. The prosecution asked for a filing of a so-called “excess bonus” paid to training manager Rocio Esther Val and his treasurer Daniel de frutos. The other is about the contract signed with the consulting firm neuron on the 28-a election date, where the prosecutor’s office did see signs of possible false crime in the commercial documents and another election document, although this cannot be attributed to the party as a legal person. In this regard, the Madrid Provincial High Court urged the judge to specify “promptly” the crimes he committed in the training.