The Willders trial, part troi

[Fragony]

MAN how something can hit you back in the face

After the judges got succesfully replaced for obvious bias, it's going up a little higher. If you read part deux you know that the justice department never wanted to prosecute our Geert, but were forced to do so by the notoriously activist Amsterdam court. That the judges were handpicked was obvious from day one, more obvious on day 2, and their position was unholdable on day 3. But, the person behind the prosecution, naturally a high-judge at the notoriously activist Amsterdam court has intimidated a key witness, and is summoned as a witness. Because it's the Amsterdam court it will probably be denied by the new handpicked judges, probably also attended the pink ballets but let's assume they didn't against knowing better for now. Too funny all this.

Corruption looks like this btw http://images.vpro.nl/img.db?3349483+s(150)

New times must be confusing for old men, internet mia muca's it's unedited, nobody to call

[Fragony]

As expected the Amsterdam court who enforced the prosecution decided that the Amsterdam court didn't intimidate key witnesses. The number of reply 's kinda show how much you care, but bear with this going to much more spectacular than you think, the old boys network tried to gob up much more than they could ever chew, it's amazing to see the reality of abuse of power unfold before your eyes and hitting back ad face, the loyal lapdogs of Beatrix von Amsberg Lippe-Biesterfelt ain't seen nothing yet

[Louis VI the Fat]

The farce will continue this Monday:

After a break of more than three months, Geert Wilders is scheduled to appear in court again on Monday. The charges are the same: inciting hatred and discrimination and insulting groups of people. But the judges are new.

Populist anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders successfully objected to the trial proceedings last year. The judges had made mistakes, he claimed, and had not given him an honest chance to conduct his defence. The review committee agreed with him.
So the trial has had to be restarted. All the witnesses may have to appear in court again. And the Public Prosecutor's Office is represented by the same prosecutors. The same team who called for Mr Wilders to be acquitted when the trial started to go awry the first time.

http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/wil...fferent-judges


The trial was pretty much over by last October already:

The Geert Wilders' trial is as good as over. The public prosecutor has called for the populist politician to be acquitted of all charges. The trial will continue, but everything is now an anti-climax.
During two days of intricately-constructed arguments, the prosecutors told the court they found no evidence that Mr Wilders had broken the law.


Acquittal
"We request acquittal on fact 2... we request acquittal on fact 3." Statement after statement, and charge after charge, prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman, who took turns reading the arguments, said Mr Wilders had not broken the law.
The prosecutors consistently came to the same conclusion. What Mr Wilders said may be "hurtful to Muslims and may be met with emotional responses" but he did not break the law.
The prosecutors analysed each of Geert Wilders' statements for each of the five charges against him. The charges included group defamation, inciting hatred of Muslims and non-western ethnic minorities, and inciting discrimination of Muslims and non-western ethnic minorities.


Few precedents
The prosecutors based their arguments on a few basic principles. In the first place, there is little jurisprudence in Dutch law to fall back on, particularly in the cases of incitement. The jurisprudence on the European level is somewhat broader, including recent cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights against Jean Marie le Pen in France, and Daniel Féret in Belgium. The lawyers cited both cases, as well as a few cases in Dutch courts.
In addition, prosecutors maintained a very close, cautious reading of the law. Statements must meet very specific criteria to be considered incitement. This is particularly true in the case of a politician taking part in a national debate.

Against Islam, not Muslims
For Geert Wilders' comments to have been illegal, they had to target a specific group, and be aimed at creating an intrinsic division between two groups.
But Ms van Roessel and Mr Velleman said Mr Wilders' statements were not directed toward Muslims as people, but towards Islam. For example, "stop the tsunami of Islamisation" and "the Qur'an is the Muslim Mein Kampf" are clearly directed at Islam. Mr Wilders' film Fitna falls into the same category.
But prosecutors said this was true even for statements such as saying a neighbourhood of Utrecht is now a "dirty, filthy place because 95 percent of the people who live there now are Muslim" or " there is a connection between Islam and crime. These thugs' behaviour stems from their belief."
These comments were also seen as part of Mr Wilders' campaign against Islam, not against Muslims.


Democratic
Another qualifying factor factor in the case was that his comments were part of a broader social debate, and were part of a political programme that would get implemented in a democratic manner. The nature of the programme itself is irrelevant, as are his motivations for saying or writing what he did.
The fact that some of his programme will now be implemented by the new government, supported by Mr Wilders' party in parliament, was not even mentioned in court.
Mr Wilders remained stony-faced even while the prosecutors were letting him off the hook, just 24 hours after the cabinet he made possible posed with the Queen. He can allow himself a smile.

http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/wilders-hook


I did not find anything concerning old boys networks, pedophile conspiracies, involvement of the royal family, or Donnie Darko.

[Fragony]

Can only serve you in Dutch, but it's true that the justice department is runned by pedophiles. The pink ballets, everybody knows about them, even the odd non-perverted judge