Travaglio down from the pulpit: except by prescription.
The bad example of Mark: Cav but the critical advantage of the snail Justice on the case Previti.
Marco Travaglio is saved from a slanderer prescription, the same requirement which was thrown against a lot of times, but which now is careful not to give up despite the law so permits. There, we wrote how he would have done, with the same grace nor indeed, he might have added things like "Labor has got away 'or' facts process' or something like that. We simply add it to review the reasons for the sentence on appeal, as came out of time, there remain no doubts: the sentence was confirmed in all respects and explains how Labor has manipulated a fact, and he wrote the false , moreover, with intent to defraud. And a gentleman - always make up for the language travagliesco - Not liable to be confused with a Berlusconi or a D'Alema or Andreotti, if it is considered innocent abandon the requirement. Because he does not?
But we summarize the facts, because they are tasty. The conviction at first instance was in October 2008: The alleged links pecked eight months in prison (suspended sentence) and 100 euro fine as slandered Cesare Previti. Parenthesis: the libel is the crime par excellence in the press, it is often physiological writers of legal things: in the case of Labor, however, the conviction turned it into a classic target of his own method, and also why, two years ago, the media gave some space to the news. Article Travaglio, however, was 2002, and the Espresso was subtitled as "wicked pact between the Mafia and Italy Force. A man of honor speaking to a Colonel of the relations of Cosa Nostra and politics. It is killed before repent. " The development, then, was a classic copy & paste where a turncoat mobster Force explained that Italy was a director of several massacres. Those who had collected the secrets of this regret was the colonel of the carabinieri Michele Riccio, who in 2001 was convened in the office of his lawyer, Carlo Taormina, together with Marcello Dell'Utri. In that study, according to Riccio, one predisposero shady things, like save Dell'Utri and Labor in the article just quoted a statement made by Riccio. And he did it this way: "On that occasion, as in others, at the Chambers of. Taormina was also attended by Mr Previti. And so practically ended the article. Previti's shadow stretched out on so many records, but traffic was mainly associated with a serious crime: attempting to suborn a witness as Riccio. The detail is that Labor had failed to fully read the report of the colonel. Here he is in full: "On that occasion, as in others, at the Chambers of. Taormina was also attended by Mr Previti. Previti, however, was the defendant for other reasons related to common activities Taormina with the policy, and was not present at the time of discourses concerning the legal position of Dell'Utri.
A beautiful and good, defamation, intentional or not know how it is linked to some sloppiness that journalists often associate the need for synthesis. The fact is that Judge Robert Di Gioia del Tribunale di Roma, 15 October 2008, condemning the Labor cited eight months. And he wrote: "The fact on the presence of Mr Previti in a context of illegal business was incorporated in combination with a clearly insinuating ... it is clear that the omission of the entire content of the sentence of Riccio, reported only in part, upset the meaning. Labor has given a distorted representation of the fact ... the primary purpose of insinuating suspicions on the actual role played by Previti. But the worst was yet to come: "The methods of preparation are part symptomatic of the existence, in the hands of the author, a precise knowledge of the attitude of the offensive conduct and its suitability for damaging the reputation." In everyday language: Labor had done it on purpose, knowing that I had defamed defaming.
"have recourse to appeal" the reporter announced after the sentence: too bad if it was said many times supported the abolition of the Appeal. "We'll see the reasons for the sentence" she said then. Then, when they were made known, he never said a word.
The ruling is of Appeals 8 January 2010. At that time, Labor was arguing furiously (via web) with Henry Tagliaferro, a blogger who had made him particularly educated fleas in most circumstances. The ruling essentially upheld the conviction: he had just been granted for extenuating circumstances, a reduction of sentence. But Labor was a clever and so wrote to Tagliaferro, "The decision at first instance in which I was sentenced to eight months a couple of penalties and fines was just devastated by the Appeal Court, which eliminates the imprisonment of 1000 and leaves a multinational € ". Devastated, she wrote. "Now look motivation," he added, "and I hope it will be written by a judge who has the faintest idea of \u200b\u200bwhat a newspaper article."
The problem is that the motivation to be filed, did not take the usual sixty days: it took one year, 8 January 2010-4 January 2011. So the offense has lapsed, horror. Perhaps they were particularly complex motivations? We would say no, since they occupy only two pages. But what do they say? It is not just a detail, because the same Travaglio, nella sua disputa telematica con Tagliaferro, era stato tassativo: «Quando parlo di Corti d’appello come “scontifici” mi riferisco a quando mantengono inalterato l’impianto accusatorio e limano qualche giorno sui mesi o qualche mese sugli anni inflitti in primo grado. Quando invece stravolgono le condanne di primo grado, fanno altro: le riformano, le rivedono, le smentiscono. Vedremo se è così anche nel caso mio».
IL RICORSO
No, ora lo sappiamo: non è il caso suo. La sentenza d’Appello non stravolge, non riforma, non rivede, non smentisce, anzi: «La sentenza impugnata deve essere confermata nel merito», si legge, «in quanto ottimamente motivata, with full adherence to the underlying litigation ... with proper and correct legal considerations, all intended here reported, without duplication, as part of this motivation. It is hardly necessary to reiterate the scope of defamation against Mr. Previti ... Omit the phrase "at that time at the office of. Taormina was also attended by Mr Previti "to avoid any defamation, without taking anything to the news ... Just to have him appointed to no avail, el'aver totally omitted the specific data concerning the absence made by the witness, is proof of intent on the part of Labor. " We try a
synthesis, possibly better than those from reckless defamatory labor? Then: Labor gets angry with journalists defamatory, but he is a slanderer. Labor says that a prescription is not equivalent to an acquittal but to a conviction, because he was convicted. Labor says that it was felt that an innocent man who would give up the prescription, but he does not waive the requirement. Labor supports the abolition of the Appeal, but then appealed. Travaglio has written that the courts of appeals are only "scontifici" that maintain the adversarial system and that only cut out the sentence: this is what happened to him. A true Italian.
Filippo Facci
[Source ]
add this post to complete the final synthesis of a blog friend that I agree totally:
(...) And then, Marco, because if you are innocent, if you really paid on those sentences were legal, why not give up, why do not you try, why not prove your innocence because you look exactly like the various Andreotti and Berlusconi that you so despise and disapprove?
Someone tell me that Labor is not a politician, that he did not require a degree of righteousness greater than the general population, the so-called "civil society" is not required reputation free from any suspicion. That a journalist should not be an upstanding human being above all suspicion. But no, dear, do you the caverete with so little means - few - the rules have made you and now we respect them, and apply them without distinction of class and "caste" as you. Regardless of whether the council of presidents, ministers, parliamentarians, businessmen, bankers, journalists and sports managers. by Moggi to Porro, Bertolaso \u200b\u200band Berlusconi. We will remain attached to the prey regardless of their role in society. For the love of honesty. The truth.
In fact, I will say more: if Labor, overall the balance of power game, with its self-proclaimed role as champion of journalism "independent" and denouncing the abuses of power and hypocrisy, claiming central position in this arena, for a more free and just society, then you excuse and redeems himself.
If you want to be a voice against il padrone, che urla al “re nudo”, allora rinunci alla prescrizione, non ci prenda per i fondelli, rinunci e ci dimostri la sua innocenza. Travaglio, se vuole essere degno di ciò che rivendica per sé non usi questi mezzucci, come un Berlusconi qualunque.
Se lei vuole cavarsela così, con queste cavillosità che nella sostanza non scagionano un bel niente, allora vuol dire che lei è fatto della stessa pasta del Potere che denuncia. Un colpevole diffamatore salvato dalla prescrizione. Colpevole ma prescritto. Esattamente come Andreotti.
His complaints from now on will not be worth anything.
Giorgio Tenaglia
[Source ]
The bad example of Mark: Cav but the critical advantage of the snail Justice on the case Previti.
Marco Travaglio is saved from a slanderer prescription, the same requirement which was thrown against a lot of times, but which now is careful not to give up despite the law so permits. There, we wrote how he would have done, with the same grace nor indeed, he might have added things like "Labor has got away 'or' facts process' or something like that. We simply add it to review the reasons for the sentence on appeal, as came out of time, there remain no doubts: the sentence was confirmed in all respects and explains how Labor has manipulated a fact, and he wrote the false , moreover, with intent to defraud. And a gentleman - always make up for the language travagliesco - Not liable to be confused with a Berlusconi or a D'Alema or Andreotti, if it is considered innocent abandon the requirement. Because he does not?
But we summarize the facts, because they are tasty. The conviction at first instance was in October 2008: The alleged links pecked eight months in prison (suspended sentence) and 100 euro fine as slandered Cesare Previti. Parenthesis: the libel is the crime par excellence in the press, it is often physiological writers of legal things: in the case of Labor, however, the conviction turned it into a classic target of his own method, and also why, two years ago, the media gave some space to the news. Article Travaglio, however, was 2002, and the Espresso was subtitled as "wicked pact between the Mafia and Italy Force. A man of honor speaking to a Colonel of the relations of Cosa Nostra and politics. It is killed before repent. " The development, then, was a classic copy & paste where a turncoat mobster Force explained that Italy was a director of several massacres. Those who had collected the secrets of this regret was the colonel of the carabinieri Michele Riccio, who in 2001 was convened in the office of his lawyer, Carlo Taormina, together with Marcello Dell'Utri. In that study, according to Riccio, one predisposero shady things, like save Dell'Utri and Labor in the article just quoted a statement made by Riccio. And he did it this way: "On that occasion, as in others, at the Chambers of. Taormina was also attended by Mr Previti. And so practically ended the article. Previti's shadow stretched out on so many records, but traffic was mainly associated with a serious crime: attempting to suborn a witness as Riccio. The detail is that Labor had failed to fully read the report of the colonel. Here he is in full: "On that occasion, as in others, at the Chambers of. Taormina was also attended by Mr Previti. Previti, however, was the defendant for other reasons related to common activities Taormina with the policy, and was not present at the time of discourses concerning the legal position of Dell'Utri.
A beautiful and good, defamation, intentional or not know how it is linked to some sloppiness that journalists often associate the need for synthesis. The fact is that Judge Robert Di Gioia del Tribunale di Roma, 15 October 2008, condemning the Labor cited eight months. And he wrote: "The fact on the presence of Mr Previti in a context of illegal business was incorporated in combination with a clearly insinuating ... it is clear that the omission of the entire content of the sentence of Riccio, reported only in part, upset the meaning. Labor has given a distorted representation of the fact ... the primary purpose of insinuating suspicions on the actual role played by Previti. But the worst was yet to come: "The methods of preparation are part symptomatic of the existence, in the hands of the author, a precise knowledge of the attitude of the offensive conduct and its suitability for damaging the reputation." In everyday language: Labor had done it on purpose, knowing that I had defamed defaming.
"have recourse to appeal" the reporter announced after the sentence: too bad if it was said many times supported the abolition of the Appeal. "We'll see the reasons for the sentence" she said then. Then, when they were made known, he never said a word.
The ruling is of Appeals 8 January 2010. At that time, Labor was arguing furiously (via web) with Henry Tagliaferro, a blogger who had made him particularly educated fleas in most circumstances. The ruling essentially upheld the conviction: he had just been granted for extenuating circumstances, a reduction of sentence. But Labor was a clever and so wrote to Tagliaferro, "The decision at first instance in which I was sentenced to eight months a couple of penalties and fines was just devastated by the Appeal Court, which eliminates the imprisonment of 1000 and leaves a multinational € ". Devastated, she wrote. "Now look motivation," he added, "and I hope it will be written by a judge who has the faintest idea of \u200b\u200bwhat a newspaper article."
The problem is that the motivation to be filed, did not take the usual sixty days: it took one year, 8 January 2010-4 January 2011. So the offense has lapsed, horror. Perhaps they were particularly complex motivations? We would say no, since they occupy only two pages. But what do they say? It is not just a detail, because the same Travaglio, nella sua disputa telematica con Tagliaferro, era stato tassativo: «Quando parlo di Corti d’appello come “scontifici” mi riferisco a quando mantengono inalterato l’impianto accusatorio e limano qualche giorno sui mesi o qualche mese sugli anni inflitti in primo grado. Quando invece stravolgono le condanne di primo grado, fanno altro: le riformano, le rivedono, le smentiscono. Vedremo se è così anche nel caso mio».
IL RICORSO
No, ora lo sappiamo: non è il caso suo. La sentenza d’Appello non stravolge, non riforma, non rivede, non smentisce, anzi: «La sentenza impugnata deve essere confermata nel merito», si legge, «in quanto ottimamente motivata, with full adherence to the underlying litigation ... with proper and correct legal considerations, all intended here reported, without duplication, as part of this motivation. It is hardly necessary to reiterate the scope of defamation against Mr. Previti ... Omit the phrase "at that time at the office of. Taormina was also attended by Mr Previti "to avoid any defamation, without taking anything to the news ... Just to have him appointed to no avail, el'aver totally omitted the specific data concerning the absence made by the witness, is proof of intent on the part of Labor. " We try a
synthesis, possibly better than those from reckless defamatory labor? Then: Labor gets angry with journalists defamatory, but he is a slanderer. Labor says that a prescription is not equivalent to an acquittal but to a conviction, because he was convicted. Labor says that it was felt that an innocent man who would give up the prescription, but he does not waive the requirement. Labor supports the abolition of the Appeal, but then appealed. Travaglio has written that the courts of appeals are only "scontifici" that maintain the adversarial system and that only cut out the sentence: this is what happened to him. A true Italian.
Filippo Facci
[Source ]
add this post to complete the final synthesis of a blog friend that I agree totally:
(...) And then, Marco, because if you are innocent, if you really paid on those sentences were legal, why not give up, why do not you try, why not prove your innocence because you look exactly like the various Andreotti and Berlusconi that you so despise and disapprove?
Someone tell me that Labor is not a politician, that he did not require a degree of righteousness greater than the general population, the so-called "civil society" is not required reputation free from any suspicion. That a journalist should not be an upstanding human being above all suspicion. But no, dear, do you the caverete with so little means - few - the rules have made you and now we respect them, and apply them without distinction of class and "caste" as you. Regardless of whether the council of presidents, ministers, parliamentarians, businessmen, bankers, journalists and sports managers. by Moggi to Porro, Bertolaso \u200b\u200band Berlusconi. We will remain attached to the prey regardless of their role in society. For the love of honesty. The truth.
In fact, I will say more: if Labor, overall the balance of power game, with its self-proclaimed role as champion of journalism "independent" and denouncing the abuses of power and hypocrisy, claiming central position in this arena, for a more free and just society, then you excuse and redeems himself.
If you want to be a voice against il padrone, che urla al “re nudo”, allora rinunci alla prescrizione, non ci prenda per i fondelli, rinunci e ci dimostri la sua innocenza. Travaglio, se vuole essere degno di ciò che rivendica per sé non usi questi mezzucci, come un Berlusconi qualunque.
Se lei vuole cavarsela così, con queste cavillosità che nella sostanza non scagionano un bel niente, allora vuol dire che lei è fatto della stessa pasta del Potere che denuncia. Un colpevole diffamatore salvato dalla prescrizione. Colpevole ma prescritto. Esattamente come Andreotti.
His complaints from now on will not be worth anything.
Giorgio Tenaglia
[Source ]
0 comments:
Post a Comment