Every layman knows that judges must remain blind and deaf and must fight for the ultimate form of justice. After all, they possess a scale that indicates precisely down to a nano-particle whether the suspect's scale is going to fall or rise. Only then will the judge decide, on the basis of all available facts, what his balanced and independent judgment will be.
Then the magistrate, wearing a black gown with a white bandage, checks whether the suspect is acquitted or not and what the appropriate punishment is. And that shouldn't depend on the mood of the day, the drinking of the day before or the lingering marital problems. The judgment in Leeuwarden must be exactly the same as that in Maastricht if it concerns comparable offences.
under art. 2 states on the oath of judges: 'Before taking up office, every judge shall take an oath in public session that he shall perform his duties impartially and in accordance with his conscience and that he shall not disclose any of the secrecy of deliberations. to make'. In addition, a judge-to-be should mindlessly pronounce this preconceived sentence: I swear/promise that I will be loyal to the King, and that I will observe and observe the Constitution and all other laws. Mind you: completely impartial and also according to his conscience.
The front page of the AD of Friday 8 October literally read: 'Judges were wrong in the allowance affair', preceded by a slightly smaller headline: 'Invariably side Tax Authorities chosen'.
Well, these are texts from an MSM newspaper editor, so not from a prominent lawyer. But why has no one been frightened by this for a long time? This could very well be a damn reason for mass occupation of courthouses and arbitrary detention of judges. (Yeah, haphazardly and I'll explain that later!)
Because is this really new news, or is this a repetition of moves, especially in other matters besides this affair? Is this an incident or rather structural? This is obviously a rhetorical question and everyone knows why. After all, judges are not blind, not deaf and in many major cases in which the government is involved, they also miss their conscience. People without conscience are called psychopaths. This is not meant as a swear word, but indicates a mental illness, for which there are institutions and treatments! Well are unscrupulous in 'good?' (in this case bad) company; at the top of all sorts of organizations you stumble upon these kinds of sick people.
Judges were therefore wrong in the allowance affair. Very deliberately in the plural, because this case has been going on for years, so it concerns a warehouse full of judges. And not only in this harrowing case with thousands of victims. Victims who lost everything, while in the evening the judges filled themselves with champagne and caviar, offered by the state. (Don't take this literally, but the state pays judges horribly well to make these kinds of tidbits possible!) To broaden the plural interpretation: where were judges demonstrably wrong more often? Even a layman can make a list
Gas extraction area Groningen, Demmink in relation to pedophilia (with or without murder), various cases of UWV and Tax Authorities, Limburg (highest province with floods and non-paying insurance psychopaths) and for over a year and a half the annoying flu, known by many vets as Covid-19. In very many cases the judges sided blindly - yes or blindly - with the government
If we look at the modern flu troubles, the entire policy is based on a faulty PCR test and a non-isolated virus (which is therefore not a virus) with a poison syringe full of experimental ingredients as medicine. (I have never heard so many noisy ambulances a day as from the start of the 2e national spray party, paid for by the government.)
A little judge would have read himself between two private parties without one and a half meters of mouth caps. Then he/she could have known that more than a year ago, in fact, should have known. And every judicial lamzak who refuses to read in and will therefore not be aware of all sides of the medal oath, should be immediately assigned a spot under any Limburg bridge.
That is why, as far as I am concerned, all judges may be arbitrarily removed to Camp Vught. It is a pity that there are a few "good" ones by accident. The victims of Demmink, allowances affire, Groningen, Tax Authorities, UWV, Limburg and the sprayed and unsprayed corona victims will not mind. After that, judges appoint party-politically independent and for a limited period (8 years?).
But the judge who has the courage to put Wopke Hoekstra on water and bread for tax evasion via the Virgin and Channel Islands unknown to him, is a candidate to succeed the very undemocratic king appointed by his criminal mummy.
Yes, but, you will say, what Wopke did was not nice as a role model of taxation, but also just not punishable. My answer is that Wopke was already guilty the moment he took the oath on the fake head of state. Also for Wopke a one-way ticket to Vught, with the blessing of the aforementioned army of victims. They will not appeal.