jensting
04-05-2012, 12:40 PM
(Zorro / Nono the clown was attacked by a (group of) clam(s) in March 2011. A criminal case is on-going against one clam.)
We had the, I believe, third court appearance today.
To remind our readers of where we left of: the lawyers for the clam had made a procedural error and the case had been postponed by a month and a half (against the objections of the lawyer for the clam).
Today, we heard from the lawyer for the clam again. He introduced two new urgent pleas:
- That his client was, in fact, the victim of an aggression (not the aggressor), having been attacked by Anon Vicieux here present in the court. (At this point the lawyer had to be reminded that if he planned to call Vicieux as a wittness then he, Vicieux, had to be shuffled out of court while the lawyer laid out his plea; Vicieux was shuffled out of court and waited outside.) Because of this, the case was all wrong and his poor client should be recognised as the victim and so on and so forth. (We note that the clam did not cite the complaint he had made to the police about this - maybe we would have gotten 'round to that, later....) A bunch of evidence (including a DVD) was added by the clam to the case.
- In any case, that his poor client had not had his rights read to him when he was taken in by the police. There has been a recent tightening of the rules about arrests and following questioning - "Garde a Vue" - so that the arrestees are made aware of their rights (sounds a lot like the Miranda warning in the US). The clam lawyer made a big hoo-hah about this very technical point.
The odd thing is that these two points were not presented at the last court meeting (where the clam lawyer pleaded for having the case heard there and then so as to spare his poor client the agony of uncertainty etc and so on and so forth). What did happen at the last meeting of the court was that the case was delayed because of a procedural error made by the clam lawyer.
Nono's lawyer made a technical (but important) point that this case should have been heard in a different court.
So, we were presented with three reasons not to go ahead. The court decided to think about it and, ehrm, postpone once more, to the 30th of May.
In the meantime, Nono's lawyer doesn't pay for himself. I just made a donation - did you? (http://www.pascale-drea.com/nonojoomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=69)
Best regards
Jens
We had the, I believe, third court appearance today.
To remind our readers of where we left of: the lawyers for the clam had made a procedural error and the case had been postponed by a month and a half (against the objections of the lawyer for the clam).
Today, we heard from the lawyer for the clam again. He introduced two new urgent pleas:
- That his client was, in fact, the victim of an aggression (not the aggressor), having been attacked by Anon Vicieux here present in the court. (At this point the lawyer had to be reminded that if he planned to call Vicieux as a wittness then he, Vicieux, had to be shuffled out of court while the lawyer laid out his plea; Vicieux was shuffled out of court and waited outside.) Because of this, the case was all wrong and his poor client should be recognised as the victim and so on and so forth. (We note that the clam did not cite the complaint he had made to the police about this - maybe we would have gotten 'round to that, later....) A bunch of evidence (including a DVD) was added by the clam to the case.
- In any case, that his poor client had not had his rights read to him when he was taken in by the police. There has been a recent tightening of the rules about arrests and following questioning - "Garde a Vue" - so that the arrestees are made aware of their rights (sounds a lot like the Miranda warning in the US). The clam lawyer made a big hoo-hah about this very technical point.
The odd thing is that these two points were not presented at the last court meeting (where the clam lawyer pleaded for having the case heard there and then so as to spare his poor client the agony of uncertainty etc and so on and so forth). What did happen at the last meeting of the court was that the case was delayed because of a procedural error made by the clam lawyer.
Nono's lawyer made a technical (but important) point that this case should have been heard in a different court.
So, we were presented with three reasons not to go ahead. The court decided to think about it and, ehrm, postpone once more, to the 30th of May.
In the meantime, Nono's lawyer doesn't pay for himself. I just made a donation - did you? (http://www.pascale-drea.com/nonojoomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=69)
Best regards
Jens