Today the case of court injunction to force production of document against GAP I
had personally petitioned for was completed, and the time has come for us to see
what I have achieved on behalf of all of us in this process. We could say that
even now that the file is complete, there has not as yet been any ruling, as is
usually the case with the court injunctions but the procedure has been
nonetheless a resounding success since I succeeded in forcing GAP and his office
to do what I wanted them to.
We all know that Pinocchio has rightfully earned his nickname (one of the many
that go around) due to his course held from the 2009 pre-election era till
today. We also know that it is practically impossible to secure a statement from
him that would not be of ‘political nature’ and to be generally made up of words
that can be used for no more than a ludicrous display of make believe at the 8
o’ clock news windows carrying of course the due ‘validity’ and ‘reliability’
usually associated with both the words and the windows.
So what was the purpose for the court injunction to force the production of
document and which I explained in my last press release?
To force him to appear for the first time in court during a court process
against himself (despite the multitude of ‘immunities’ and all the rest of the
judicial life belts secured by everyone who has foot on the threshold of
Parliament) and undersign his statement, which I can then bindingly refer to
during the other court processes I have planned for the future.
This has been achieved.
In the file of the court injunction that was completed and sealed today at 12
noon, the prime-minister presented himself. He was not absent, as the judge
expected (who was unpleasantly surprised) he would have done, but was instead
represented by the lawyer – member of the National Legal Council (NLC) and thus
was present through her. Her name is available to whomever is interested,
although you may see it along with her signature as the prime-minister’s
representative at the end of my Petition Note I am submitting herein.
Whoever has even cursory and superficial experience from courts, should know
that the litigant is in every case considered to be legally represented (that
is, he is regarded as being present) during a court process if he is duly
represented by his lawyer, and every statement his lawyer makes or submits in
writing to the bench, etc., is rightfully and totally regarded as his, (words,
submissions, directives, etc) and the empowering party is automatically
committed to and bound by any legal consequences there might accrue as a result
of these.
Thus, the first target was met: I had to deal with the legal representative of
the litigant I was interested in, and for all concerns, in the eyes of the Law.
The actual process was completed in lightning speed, because in the deafening
quiet of the court room when the judge announced my name and the name and status
of GAP as the main litigant, both the judge as well as the member of the NLC did
not want to be heard as proceeding with a trial, and the judge kept on repeating
‘very well, very well, petition granted and injunction will be discussed, the
rest you shall expose in your Petition Note, there is no need for you to expand
on them right now’.
Of course it should be noted that right before this they had both tried to
succeed to a rejection of the hearing of the case on the basis of baseless
judicial trickery (which they had anchored in totally underhanded and blatantly
eristic and unacceptable primary acts on the part of GAP’s office lackeys) so to
save GAP the trouble of even deigning to concern himself with my claims and
produce a response to that effect, as I had explained in my previous article.
Even indirect threats were made (as anyone can see in the documents attached to
the present) and an open refusal to respond to me prior to the court hearing.
I emphasize this because the Law, and in particular, the Code of Administrative
Process (CAP) as well as the Civil Code (CC) expressly forbid such behavior and
particularly in cases whereby such ‘due process-retarding acts’ as they more or
less refer to such acts, are attributed them with probative value: in other
words, the Law considers those who obstruct Justice via their express and
evident refusal to provide simple information (of non-personal nature)
automatically furnish proof that the other party’s claims are correct! (whoever
is interested, see articles 42 and 174, par 4 of CAP).
Of course, the member of the NLC not expecting that I would already have
furnished all the documentary proof for such behavior on the part of GAP’s
office, she was benumbed and bit her lip, uttering something like ‘this had not
come to my attention’, and of course under the circumstances, the judge was
forced to ‘examine the case’, that is, to proceed with the due process and so
now, not only is she forced to come up with a ruling on the case but also GAP,
via his legal representative, is also forced to proceed to substantive and
legally binding statements!
And here of course lies the real bombshell of the whole issue and the resounding
success of our efforts.
We have given answers to the following questions:
1. why they rushed to change names and titles of every ministry, service, etc.,
immediately after they rose to power in November 2009, and they now proceed with
mergers, resettlements and changes, so that we, as Citizens, may lose track of
where is who, under what title he/she is operating and what jurisdictions he/she
has (so that they will be able to elude cassation court rulings and payment of
damages, claiming that the pertinent court documents were not properly served to
them under the proper title or to claim that the position of the wrongdoer has
ceased to exist).
2. why all these petty dictators talk about is ‘political cost’ (see below).
3. what kind of victory would there be if the immunity of the parliamentarians /
government people and whatever law on the immunity of ministers were lifted (see
below).
GAP expressed himself perfectly in his Note of Defense (that is, the document in
which he attempts to counter my petition for a court injunction) that he
submitted via his legally-appointed lawyer (which is in our hands and which we
shall publish), containing full judicial and not political argumentation, and
thus judicially usable for whomever is interested.
Also GAP told us openly and bindingly what kind of governor he is, what ideology
he adheres to, and on whose support he addressed the People ignoring not only
demonstrations but also the Constitution itself.
We truly could not believe our eyes with the width of revelations contained in
this rather summary Note! There is no further need for any answer of his on any
of my letters, although I will never withdraw my legal claim, because he said
everything with this: GAP, and every one of his ministers, including all
governmental employees under his command, are above the Law and the Constitution
and above all regulatory checking and examination because every act of his falls
under the legal term of ‘governmental acts’ (!).
What are governmental acts? They are acts that are not subject to cassation
impeachment, that is, the check of courts and the Supreme Court of Justice so
that proper liability to the doer and perpetrator of the act be attached and
also for the chance of canceling such act via the Supreme Court, in our case, or
via all other superior court.
In other words, it matters little for GAP and his legal representative whether
there is or not any immunity (what everyone is so pompously discussing to lift
in the next revisory Parliament, this little carrot, in other words, so that the
People will accede to a change of Constitution in general). According to GAP, it
is enough that he is the prime-minister and so each and every decision of his,
as well as act, statement, pronouncement, etc., is automatically set above Law
and Constitution and not only is he not liable to checking concerning their
legality but he even not obliged to allow for questioning his person about them.
That is, if GAP kills somebody and then claim that his act was necessary within
his governmental policy, he will not stand trial, he will not be arrested and
will hold himself accountable to nobody.
Where is this stipulated in the Constitution?
Nowhere.
This is a law that can be traced back to Metaxas’ dictatorship and the 1967
Junta and to 19th century French legislation, which, according to international
literature, is the par excellance trademark of a dictatorship and
police-controlled state which does not possess any independent, above board
Authority (In other words, a state whose Justice is under government orders).
In other words, GAP, just like another roi soleil (the sun king, obviously a
green one) communicated to me before the judge that ‘l’ etat c’est moi’ (that
is, the state is me) and I would rather refrain from telling you where exactly
he intends to write what the average citizens tells him, he who had the affront
to call upon the citizens as being the ‘the first’ in his priority. Obviously,
the first to be exploited as he has shown us in a multiple ways, and now again
in a court of Law.
GAP sets himself above the Constitution and International Law / Human Rights,
based on an illegal status quo of 1842 in Europe and of 1911 in Greece that the
Constitution itself has cancelled since when it took effect. In other words, GAP
in his Note of Defense against my petition for the court injunction, called upon
the same legislative precedent that accepted the deportation of Amalia Fleming
‘as governmental act’, and thus, not subject to a check by Justice, so that he
could evade answering to these three simple letters of mine.
In other words, he admitted to his being a dictator, and in fact he states that
‘he is under no obligation to answer for and explain any of his decisions as a
prime-minister of Greece’.
Not about the Memorandum.
Not about siemens,
Not about his decisions about the illegal and undocumented aliens,
Not about the ceding of territory in the Aegean Sea,
Not about the crimes of black money and ‘sponsorships’
Not about ceding of rights in Cyprus the US is expecting him to do.
Not about whether he will involve us in war, sell the Acropolis, mortgage the
Citizens’ livelihood to industrialists and banks and decides to sign …the
annexation of Greece to Germany to China or to the Arabs.
This is all made explicit by the junta-bred law of 1971 which was called upon by
the glorious legislation of German Occupation and by the last Dictatorship.
And so as not to feel that all this is happening only to us, let me tell you
that all this international clique works upon calling on ‘governmental act’ so
that they maintain their impunity and to be able to claim ‘incapacity’ to cancel
prior ‘governmental acts’ of course only when such incapacity works in their
favour.
These are what GAP submitted legally for the first time in his career as
Prime-minister, which however is a status that accrues from a regime totally
different and one that recognizes as Ruler the People (and as such, the only
party capable of ‘governmental acts not liable to repealing’), i.e., someone
other than him.
The Constitution (which naturally bothers him and wants to see it changed even
in its diluted form it takes effect today) nowhere recognizes this term even in
cases where there is ‘judicial indulgence’ in the legal literature.
The legal precedent of the Greek Justice, when it does not bow to Juntas,
systematically rejects this claim (hence we were able to counter GAP’s claim in
our own Note of Petition).
At last, we have a legal document whereby GAP on his own will appears to reject
and dissolve the Constitution, on its most critical points, that is, the nature
of the Regime and the individual rights anchored in the Constitution.
What I strove to get from him I have already in hand, and now there is another
road opening up which I will discuss on behalf of all of us Greeks and our
Democracy, which appears as if it never existed, and which has led us all into
today’s situation whereby a top industrialist demands work conditions in place
before Kileler’s ‘white slaves of Thessaly’.
*We shall scan and upload for whom it may concern the sum total of particular
documentation and our own counter argumentation within the weekend.
Translation courtesy of Michael T.