"Hello everyone, this week I would say two of the many important things: 1) a no Napolitano, we have often criticized the Head of State because he could not say the word "no" this week it said one, because we will see, what is involved. 2) The advances provided by the newspapers on the so-called "reform Justice "presented by the Minister Alfano, who is not really a reform of justice.
the law to Fano on the shield to Berluconi
Again using the wrong words to name things, is a reform of the courts, which passes for a reform of the judiciary to make people believe that this would help to meet our needs citizens, when in fact meets the needs of politicians to control the judiciary.
begin with the "no" Napolitano Law Alfano, no award, we begin to use the right words in our vocabulary and to make clean and then in our minds, and we already know that most Sometimes awards are solutions to disputes decided by arbitrators impartial, unbiased, independent, authoritative, there is no controversy here, there are processes to Berlusconi and there is no impartial arbiter, there Alfano, is a constitutional law laid down in Art. 138 of the Constitution which sets out certain things: 1) to process the Head of State and the Prime Minister takes the approval of a majority in Parliament, approval to proceed with the majority in Parliament, with a simple majority, 50% plus 1 of members of parliament 2) the Alfano law is retroactive, it is obvious that it is retroactive, that is for jobs started before it is approved and for crimes committed before it is approved and this is evident, make it to frustrate the process of Berlusconi, and then if it was not "retroactive" would apply only for jobs that will arise in the future, for crimes that are committed in the future , but here the problem is to block the existing processes, so it is obvious that either they do or do not do it retroactively, and 3) the suspension of trials and repeated until the termination of, what do you mean? What if today Berlusconi fails to suspend its processes with this constitutional law Alfano, when the term ends prematurely if you go to elections before the expiry natural if you go to the elections in 2013, what happens in the new term? What happens is that if Berlusconi returns to the prime minister may use the new law Alfano, and then its processes do not reproduce even the end of the current term and the beginning of the next, continue until you stop doing the Premier and now has 74 years and in 2013 it will be 77 and if the Prime Minister for another 5 years will reach 82, but the reiterabilità not only means that one can be brought behind the shield of a another term, means that if you change sofa, always within the two Presidency of the Republic, President of the Council's true anyway, so if Berlusconi was elected in 2013 when it will to renew the Head of State, President of the Republic, it would drag the shield that had as Prime Minister. So basically the
reiterabilità means that if Berlusconi can get back to Palazzo Chigi, or even go to the Quirinal, what we call suspension is actually abolishing forever, secula secolorum in its processes, this is essentially vulgar words in the Constitutional Law Alfano, know that it goes into effect soon, the Senate must still approve it first, then the House first, then pass 3 months, then again go to the Senate again passed the House unless will never be amended at that point it goes to referendum because it is Clearly, if they can approve it by majority of 50 +1 and already this is not safe, given the critical positions of Finian, so it's sure not reach a majority of 2 / 3, the referendum is virtually automatic, just ask and then Citizens will decide on the question: do you want the law is equal for all, or rather that there is a person, the head of the government more equal than others? And Mr Berlusconi will have to be a campaign to ask citizens to give him impunity, only to him, to no one but him and the Head of State, if the Head of State will be included in that shield, because they understood the Head of State in the shield? Why not where we want to make a shield is just the name of the beneficiary, because if they do only for the prime minister, even those who now pretend not to see, understand that security is not a function of the two Presidents, but it is a protection the person of Mr Berlusconi.
By the way this thing so who is the head of government can not undergo the process is ridiculous, because in the meantime ordered a country who should not be able to process the prime minister and had jobs after being appointed Prime Minister, should resign, this is the case in other countries, but above is not written anywhere that it is only one Head of Government not have time to go occasionally to some hearing or to send his lawyers to represent him in any hearing, Berlusconi made the Minister of Economic Development for 6 month interim, said he had undertaken a great deal, has now stopped because he appointed Minister for the Romans, so obviously great that commitment that has made the Ministry of Economic Development, now that he's got more, leave a lot of free time and therefore could use it to go to trial, those who did make it to him to go a few days at the dacha in Russia to celebrate the birthday of Putin, it was not an official diplomatic mission, went there to find his friend, well, it is the demonstration that free time has in spades!
But above all this is a ridiculous thing for another reason, namely that Berlusconi knew before being elected to Parliament two years and a half ago, in 2008 and being appointed Chairman of the Board, to have jobs, why? Because he had before and thus could be included in a program of the PDL, I would say at the top of the PDL program, since it is the thing that engages him, in which say eleggetemi because if I am elected I will be a shield, and so we would know if the center-right voters are willing or not to vote for Berlusconi to give him the shield, but in reality he always makes the election campaigns on the bridge over the Strait, the reduction of ... all promises that does not maintain, is the only one who is holding the shield, but he had never promised to voters before the election. Why
Napolitano said no? He could say no for this reason: I do not have processes gentlemen, I do not see why you should make me a law that suspends them to me, if you want to make a law that suspends the processes to the Premier, make a law suspending the processes and the Premier Keep out of the President of the Republic that does not need protection, he might mention the preparations for the Constituent Assembly where they pose the question whether to make the head of state immunity and the founding fathers decided no, they decided that the Head of State for ordinary crimes and processed as any citizen, and is not responsible for any action taken in its capacity as Head of State, in fact as you know there is always the countersignature of a Minister when the Head of State takes an initiative, because he is not responsible, this was established, for the acts committed in their duties, if someone lies with the car or stabbed a neighbor or building is an abuse, whatever, those are common crimes committed outside of ' perform these functions, not to mention the crimes committed before being put into operation, for those the Head of State is an ordinary citizen, for ordinary crimes or extra functional prefunzionali.
There are only two crimes committed in the exercise of the functions for which the Head of states and processes, are the two most serious offenses that can make a head of state: high treason against the Constitution, in these cases, the Parliament expressed a qualified majority, shall vote with a majority of 2 / 3 for commissioning indict the Head of State, known in Italy that impeachment is not called like that and then the head of state will end up before the Constitutional Court that the process or for high treason or against the Constitution. Outside of those two cases for offenses functional Head of State is not liable for ordinary crimes and is treated as an ordinary citizen, even if it is established practice, then you know that legal practices have the force of law, for which it was established that for common crimes not expect the end of the term, a bit 'what's happening in France, also there for the Cape State, it happened for example that when the Public Prosecutor of Rome opened an investigation on the funds and some blacks SISDE Sisde leaders said they passed the reserved funds, the ones you use for expenses that can not be documented, paid informants, confident, unrepentant, spies, foreign spies, funds are reserved in the availability of the Minister of the Interior, and then some ministers made use of these funds earmarked for non-institutional, were investigated several former Ministers Interior including Scalfaro, Scalfaro expected him to finish his presidential term, then sent out the survey and discovered that it was not true at all, that Scalfaro was a good person, and then the investigation of abuse ' office was closed but was not made during the presidency of the Republic to Scalfaro.
The strange shield to the President of the Republic
Then the head of state for ordinary crimes is tried to practice after his term expires, the offense function, tied to the office is not responsible, except to attack the Constitution and high treason, in which case you need a qualified majority of two thirds of Parliament to put it charge and drag it to the Constitutional Court.
Now this rule is not abolished in the constitution, why? Why is left is an article of the Constitution which concerns the possible crimes of the Head of State, next to that constitutional provision, the constitutional law Alfano was born in the intention of the Government of the majority who said that for ordinary crimes the Head of State is not actionable unless authorized to carry a simple majority of Parliament, 50% plus 1, then give it a paradoxical below those which is now the head of state, but rather for the crimes the functional head of state to be put in state indictment for high treason against the Constitution is no need for the 2 / 3 of the Parliament, so it's very protected the head of state, for ordinary crimes is very easy to put him on the abuse of buildings, it is easy to put it because the indictment? Why just 51% of Parliament, which is ridiculous, because it is ridiculous? Because while there is nothing comparable to high treason or attack the Constitution, but to put him in the indictment was for those very serious crimes is very difficult because you have to reach 2 / 3 of the Parliament, whereas if it is a construction abuse, libel, an argument with a neighbor or something, there is easy to put it to the indictment, why? Why just 51% of the Parliament and then the head of state becomes a hostage of the political majority that is in that moment.
Then there is the political majority at the time, so the government there at the time, can keep the broom head of state, why? Because it depends on a simple majority whether the Head of State should or should not be on trial for a 4-reatucolo money and therefore they can blackmail of course, if you're good we do not give permission to proceed, if you're good to give . That is the Head of State said no, why not say: I want to be equal to all other citizens before the law as it is now functional except the crimes, but because he says that doing so limits the autonomy and independence of the Head of State which, unlike the head of government, represents the entire nation, is not only a majority, of course, those who made the Law Alfano rushed to say: now make war, we had not noticed, they did not even read or pretend not to have caught something so devastating, because it all done? Why should I put a fig leaf on Berlusconi, the head of state is used in the Alfano Law as a fig leaf for Berlusconi.
Now what will they do? It is not clear, why? Because if you put the head of state for authorization to proceed with the 2 / 3, Berlusconi may have problems so what should I do? They will probably make a different majority for approval to proceed with the Head of State and Head of Government, all why? Because obviously he is considering blocking the head of government processes, but we can also deal with this Law Alfano few months or few years because as we said this is not problem-solving to the Knight, as it will take a year and a half two years to send her into force, provided that Berlusconi is still interested in doing all of this ordeal for two years, since time is short and December 14 is just around the corner and is on December 14 that the Constitutional Court will determine whether its legitimate ground that procedurally it suspends until next summer is or is not legitimate, because if it is not legitimate accused Berlusconi back at Christmas and will have to be something ' more quickly, such as another such failure, perhaps changing a bit 'one just launched by the Court, or courts in a few months go to court decisions in the process Mills and Mediaset in the process.
Reform
Two of the judges, the reform of the judges illegally renamed "Reform of Justice" a few important points, while Alfano says and rightly so, that this reform is taken paro, paro from the draft by the Bicameral Roar.
In 1997, after six drafts exploratory Boato presented the seventh and final where in 1998 he went to vote in the bicameral chaired by D'Alema, the center-left and all parties of the center-right and center-left, except Refounded Communists, approved the draft Roar, then for luck when it came to translate into constitutional, then approved the draft in parliament in bicameral Berlusconi pulled back, why? Well because he wanted the amnesty and the fact that now was nearly in elections, can not remember if European, I think so, the center-left did not feel to amnesty because otherwise would have been swept away so that Berlusconi wanted to use the bicameral to get amnesty, since they do not gave it to him, blew the bicameral bicameral both had well served to block the center-left on a whole set of rules he would not, conflict of interest, antitrust, etc.. those were bought his participation in the bicameral giving him all won and now Berlusconi, at the appropriate time, he made a nice gesture of the umbrella, made him fall to the justice reform reform of the courts, constitutional reform, then it jumped and then the bicameral thought Berlusconi in the next term to make the famous Counter-judicial organization, Castelli, who then went into force with the decrees in the second Prodi government with the reform Castles - Mastella which was then revised and the same thing or perhaps corrupt, which means among other things that do not need to no reform of justice because they have already made eighty in these 15 years, in the book I remembered how many are in personam justice reforms made in these 15 years, just because now they tell us: the reform of the justice finally arrives, no, have made eighty justice reforms, have all had the effect of making it last longer processes.
This has no bearing on the length of trials, because affects only and exclusively on the status of the magistrate and in particular the Public Ministry, the black beast, and then remembering it's copying the reform of the bicameral already voted on by all parties in the bicameral, but fortunately not in force because of Berlusconi, God bless him , did save the bicameral Alfano proposes a number of points of the draft Roar, why? Because here it is even rewrite the Title IV of the Constitution, a huge block of laws, dozens of articles, what today is called "The Judiciary" and that in future the Minister will call "Justice" because the word "judiciary" is not like. First, careers, separation career, that's why they make a constitutional provision, because the Constitution provides that judges are distinguished only by how many functions and all belong to the same order then that is a state power, independent, says the Constitution, independent of all other powers, the which means that there is an order that the Judiciary is a state power and the entire Judiciary means: judges and prosecutors, but now we will separate careers. The constitutional position of judge is different from that of the PM, writes Alfano, the judge is a state power, it remains a state power, no longer the PM, is defined as an office governed by the standards of the judiciary, then the PM is no longer part of the career of the judiciary, becomes a kind of prosthesis of the forces of 'order, the forces of' order come to him and say: Ask me stop this, ask me why the interception , put me in this investigation, this autorizzami stalking and obeys PM, another thing is the judge who judgeth.
Today, fortunately it is not, it happens very often that the forces of 'order they want to do something and instead say that the PM no, why? Because he is steeped in culture of impartiality, not to arrest someone even if it is, has to arrest the culprits, no one provided that, we've said a thousand times, the PM is not paid by the piece on the arrests or convictions, the prosecutor must seek the truth, the court must ascertain the truth and then make a trade complementary, so they must be in the same career, because the truth comes out only if the PM and the head judge have the concept and the criterion of impartiality and the bush, the police forces do not have this duty, the police forces, as you know, make a career based on the statistics and the statistics are tot raids, arrests tot, tot seizures, then go to those who know if you got then will be convicted or not, it's important that you take so many, even arrive at the aberrations of certain officers sequestrants or executives diverted several times by the same game or even the drugs are found, as has happened recently in some high officials of the ROS, why? Why should fatten the statistics, the judge and the prosecutor has nothing to do with this way of working.
Now the PM is released from the culture of impartiality and the truth will become only the judge, will be a long arm of the forces of 'order, and he asked those grants as a jukebox of the police and to the detriment of this guarantees citizens, of course, because the court will have to wait long after arriving to rectify their mistakes that will set the police forces and the PM, Today it is the PM's first citizens 'bulwark against abuse of the forces of' order.
The Office of the PM and this is the first limit to be put to the powers of the PM, the prosecution continues to hold, it is for him to open investigations and seek indictments, God forbid, but should exercise it 's prosecution in accordance with the priorities set by law, that's what they do, they write into the Constitution that the PM should follow the priorities laid out by law, then it becomes an ordinary law, 50% plus 1, which states that the PM should give priority to certain crimes than others and guess what 'in which crimes should give priority to the PM, today must not give priority to anything, if you have more than enough to do it gives priority to more serious crimes or those committed more recently, since older ones are likely to end up in the prescription, if it should choose its own, but there is no legal requirement that between bankruptcy and a theft is obvious that gives priority to the bankruptcy, why? Because the bankruptcy has stolen thousands of citizens million, while the theft, as theft is a serious, as it may have taken away the victim?
In the future you will see that we have a law that would force judges to give priority to snatching, petty theft, street crime and neglect bankruptcy, false accounting, corruption, graft, fraud, crimes that take away money from state coffers or from the world of finance to the detriment of citizens and investors. Imagine this majority establishing the priority crimes, but they are also able to remove the mafia, the Camorra crime el''ndrangheta by priority, given the representations of the Mafia, Camorra and 'Ndrangheta in government and in the majority.
According to the PM limit, the availability of the Judicial Police will be left to the rules laid down by law, the Constitution will write this and then make a law by a simple majority, 50% plus 1, which explains that the PM is no longer the dominus of the Judicial Police, today, the Judicial Police does what it says to the PM, the PM said "go there and they go there" to investigate and they are obliged to investigate that, but in the future, the Judicial Police will be left to the hierarchical control that, is it? Government, the Guardia di Finanza responds to Minister Tremonti, the police respond to the Minister Maroni, interior, the Police respond to the Minister of Defence, Russia and depend on the government and nothing else, so if the judge says indagatemi a bit 'on that financial transaction on the tax fraud, they say, no, must do what the government says, the judicial police officers, think a bit 'when it comes to investigate a boy beaten up in custody or during an event, it is useless cases we make the names, we know them all, there are more and more!
When the Judicial Police must investigate itself, unless there is a specific order of the Magistrate, with the cabbage that I'm going to investigate my colleague or my manager, if I have an order of the Magistrate I do and are protected by that order, why? Why he asked me, but I do not have the order of the Magistrate and this is my initiative to investigate one of my top, I do not, why? Why do I break the career, they send me to investigate the sheep in Sardinia or in Aspromonte! Do you understand the logic of separate careers, and then the strip the flesh off the autonomous powers that guarantee autonomy of the Magistrate, PM, and then rights and fairness to the citizens.
The CSM, of course, separating the PM by the courts as a career also separate the CSM, one will be for the PM and one will be for the judges, so meanwhile, split a single body, it split into two bodies, which will contain a lot less, naturally Why? Because they are less people and that attention will no longer be made as stated in the current Constitution for the 2 / 3 of magistrates and for 1 / 3 to be elected by Parliament, but if there is good will be fifty-fifty half elected by Parliament and half of the magistrates, if we go wrong will go wrong and I think there is a Murphy's Law, with this political class, may be worse if we go to 1 / 3 the CSM will consist of judges and 2 / 3 by politicians and call it self-governing body of the magistracy, a self-governing body that actually has a majority of politicians , imagine what becomes the CSM, not an organ of self-assurance and the Judiciary, but a firing squad to punish the judges, who? Those unable to, those loafers? Those lazy? Those corrupt? Those collude? No, those will be promoted, the good ones will be punished, efficient, and in recent years, the CSM has betrayed its duty to defend the honest judges (see Forleo, De Magistris, magistrates, Nuzi, and Apicella Verasani of Salerno who had dared to the nose in some shrines) and even betrayed by a majority of judges is still, when they imagine what most politicians fail to do, probably will even conquer the prosecutors in Milan and Palermo for the moment have not yet succeeded despite attempts to dismantle.
The purpose of separation of powers
The CSM course will not be able to express opinions on laws that relate a shame the judiciary, can do so only when I asked the minister and the minister knows that as a CSM worthy of the name, not can do horrendous negative opinions on laws, not to seek the views CSM and so there is not even that glimmer Regulatory control on justice.
And then hold on tight because there is an excessive fat from the Minister of Justice, Alfano gives a little 'more powers, and of course many more powers in them gives the Minister, then Minister for Justice will have enormous powers interference on the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, the Attorney General will report annually to the Houses on the state of justice, concerning the prosecution and the use of means of investigation, you think the Minister of Justice, a political party the majority, it is every year the Oireachtas and report back on how justice should be, how is to prosecute, on whom the PM had asked to prosecute and who not to and use of methods of investigation, will stick their nose if the Magistrate has used wiretaps, he used the stalking, bugs, this that other methods of investigation, if he does not like an investigation, if he does not like someone who investigates the report to the Minister and Parliament to end what it does? Vote the report of the Minister, is put to a vote in Parliament prosecution by public prosecutors, Parliament must approve or disapprove annually the investigation of the judiciary, think that abortion, abomination, monstrous, where does finish the separation of powers, Parliament votes on the activities of the Judiciary, today could not do, why? Because prosecutors could raise a conflict of powers between the branches of government, as the prosecution should not respond to others, if not the law, let alone to Parliament, the majority or the government attorney in the future will no longer be a power of was therefore no longer be able to raise the conflict before the Constitutional Court against these abominations, imagine how the Judge will feel intimidated by the prospect that its inquiry should be publicly denounced and rejected by the parliamentary majority, having plus behind the CSM that the protection, but a firing squad that can shot at the back, by a majority of politicians, and judges who make inquiries about the power uncomfortable if they do not find it anymore, except the suicide bombers, would-be suicides.
The Minister of Justice then becomes a figure who may submit proposals and requests to the CSM, and even attend meetings of the CSM is proposed, contributes to the training of judges and PM, I'll teach him to courts and judges the job of PM, teaches him the Minister by appropriate teachers, you can imagine, imagine Alfano, Castelli, Mastella, Biondi, Mancuso, the various Ministers we have had in recent years, a most indecent of the other, when you think can help to train new judges, training that will pull out!
Last two points: Sheehan returns to the law unconstitutional, the one that abolished the PM's call, you know that in 2005, Berlusconi fear of losing their appeals process, did abolish the appeal by his lawyer that the lawyer Pecorella that the President of the Judiciary Committee, it was determined that, if you are acquitted or prescribed in the first degree and PM calls he can not do more, so you the first time you got on well, go home for good and quiet blessed, but if he is sentenced at first instance, then you can appeal and if you lose your job and you condemn on appeal, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, but the PM can not to appeal against the acquittals and the instructions and then speak of equality of arms between prosecution and defense in criminal trials is unconstitutional this crap, the Court has failed, has also riconsentito PM, not only to the accused to appeal and now put it in the Constitution, a provision has already been declared unconstitutional by the Court. Finally
also includes the participation of people in the administration of justice, how? With the appointment of honorary judges elected to the functions of PM, there would be a bit 'of PM elected by the people, think how wonderful, you make the election campaigns for the election of the PM, the League will have its candidate, the PDL will have the its candidate, the PD will its candidate, Di Pietro will have its candidate, the radical Left, the UDC will have its candidate, who knows if they can find a candidate clean record, think how wonderful, election campaigns for the election of the PM, who will then never investigated by an elected PM at altitude League, Di Pietro share, net to the PDL, PD-altitude, high altitude UDC, think what a mess, think of an immigrant who is on trial on the counter a prosecution in a PM elected in Bergamo list of PM leaguers, must feel safe as you think, think if you do not have the right to ask the legitimate suspicion and transferring to another seat. This
to tell you the seriousness of what's happening, I do not think I have noticed great indignation in circulation, but then this is a country accustomed to all this crap that passes for justice reform.
voglioscendere
