Supporters sign a poster of Baltasar Garzón in Madrid.
2 OF 3 VERDICTS AGAINST BALTHASAR GARZON HAVE NOW BEEN DELIVERED. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN ALL 3 CASES THE SPANISH SUPREME COURT PROSECUTOR HAS ASKED THAT ALL CHARGES.BE DROPPED.
THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, FROM WHICH THERE IS NO APPEAL LAST WEEK FOUND GARZON GUILTY OF ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING CLIENT/LAWYER CONVERSATIONS AND SUSPENDED HIM FOR 11 YEARS. THIS WEEK THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND “SHELVED” THE NEW YORK bribery allegations on the basis that a staute of limitations applied, but did not quosh the charges.
A VERDICT IS STILL AWAITING ON THE CHARGE OF HAVING IGNORED THE AMNESTY LAWS OF THE 70’s AND ORDERING THAT CIVIL WAR VICTIMS BE ALLOWED TO BE EXHUMED FROM MASS GRAVES AND REBURIED.
THE MOST IDIOTIC RESPONSE HAS COME FROM DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría of the Partido Popular (PP), who demands that institutions be “respected” whilst failing to realise that institutions MUST EARN RESPECT through the quality of their decision making, and that where institutions are seen to be corrupt then questioning is warranted and indeed necessary by ALL. http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/02/10/inenglish/1328902787_716051.html
NO MATTER THAT GARZON was investigating up to 70 corrupt (PP) officials feeding at the E.U. “money trough” in the “good old days” since AZNAR, the money flowed like wine and to date no-one has been brought to justice for the mispent billions in Spain but BALTHASAR GARZON, the man who was leading the investigation.
NO MATTER THAT WIRE TAPS HAVE BEEN AUTHORISED in other judicial investigations on more than 1 occasion, and it is hardly supprising that GARZON’S PERSECUTION BY THE STACKED AND PERSONNALY BIASED JUDICIARY halts that particular investigation. excerpts from the tapes below IN JOSE YOLDI’S ARTICLE demonstrate the validity of Garzons cause.
The most balanced opinions I have heard are those from Amnesty International lawyer Hugo Relva
The conviction against investigating judge Baltasar Garzón had been forecast as the most likely result in all the private bets at the Supreme Court, High Court and General Council of the Judiciary. The investigation into allegedly illegal wiretaps ordered by the judge got started in February 2010, the third of three cases brought against Garzón in the Supreme Court.
A year before that, the far-right group Manos Limpias had sued Garzón over his inquiry into Franco-era crimes that the then-High Court judge felt constituted crimes against humanity. This part of Spanish history has never been judicially investigated on the basis of an 1977 amnesty law. Soon afterwards, a third case that had already been dismissed, involving sponsorship by Santander bank of lectures Garzón gave at NYU, was reopened.
The Franco-crimes case against him, pursued passionately by Judge Luciano Varela, was necessary to temporarily suspend Garzón from his duties, and the New York case extended the suspicion that he improperly accepted money from a source he later cleared of tax fraud allegations. But the important case against Garzón was the wiretap order.