Moving On - Children of the Children of God

a.. The now ex-magistrate had arbitrarily detained Ernestina Herrera de Noble
b.. In the opinión of the tribunal, he acted without any proof and therefore without impartiality
The judging Tribunal definitively sealed the fate of Roberto Marquevich yesterday: seven of the nine members of the panel removed him from his
office as federal judge of Court number one in San Isidro.

The Council of the Magistrature, through its counselors, which acted as prosecutors, Senator Jorge Yoma and lawyer Luis Pereira Duarte, had accused the ex-magistrate on three counts: the arbitrary detention of Mrs. Ernestina Herrera de Noble; the arbitrary denial for her release, and for denying her the benefit of house arrest.

The Tribunal found him responsible for the first charges, for which they removed him from office for "improperly discharging his office."

The verdict was read in the Audience Hall of the Palace of Justice, on the bottom floor of the building. Marquevich did not attend, but was represented by the public attorney.

Marquevich, who was an examining magistrate in the '80s, was promoted to the office of federal judge, by decree of the president at that time, Carlos Menem. The competency of the federal office he held covered a broad territory, including the presidential mansion in Olivos. Rumor has it that in April and May of this year, he had traveled twice to Santiago, Chile via
Brazil, to seek the help of the former president. Marquevich denies this.

Scandalous Detention

For many years, Marquevich's actions precipitated severe criticisms, but the Council of the Magistrature incomprehensibly omitted to bring him to trial in December 2001. At that time, Menemism, under which even yesterday the Judge sought refuge, had the hope that Memen would be re-elected as president.

But the detention of Mrs. Herrera de Noble in December 2002, not only merited the criticism of almost every social sector, but was not approved by Federal Prosecutor Rita Molina, nor by the Federal Appeal's Court of San Martin, a court that has always questioned the Judge, and revoked the arrest.

One year later, last December, the Council decided to prosecute Marquevich and suspended him. Although the organization constructed a weak accusation, only charging him with three of the eight charges that were originally formulated, it was enough for an overwhelming majority of the members to vote against him during the audience held yesterday in a court of the Federal Appeals Court.

The grounds
The votes that comprise the position of the majority maintain:
a.. The trial of a judge is a political trial.
b.. Marquevich acted with "evident bias and disdain for the norms that
enshrine freedom of mobility
c.. Since 1995, several denunciations have been formulated for the supposed appropriation of the children of Mrs. Herrera de Noble, and all were dismissed and archived, even by Marquevich. "Nevertheless, on April 30
2001, based on the same incident, Marquevich ostentatiously began his investigation. It was a radical and inexplicable change," states the
decision.

2.. The court found a number of procedural irregularities.
a.. "The bias of the judge was evidenced in the arbitrary order of the detention of Hererra de Noble, straying from the rules of the Procedural
Code," sustained the decision, which LA NACION had access to.

b.. The crime for which Marquevich accused the director of Clarin (for having incurred in a deception in the birth certificates of her children)had prescribed and could no longer be investigated. The judge, however, in order to reopen the case, "without any proof", tied the adoption of the children of Herrera de Noble to the kidnapping of children that occurred under the last military government. In this manner, he intended to continue the investigation. "It was abusive," stated the decision.

c.. It is not appropriate to detain a person in order to question them. "The detention and denial of release were manifestly disproportionate
decisions and evidence that the judge had exercised his faculties in an unreasonable and arbitrary fashion."

Criticisms of the Council
Several of members of the panel harshly criticized the Council for having reduced the number of charges from eight to three.

"The new system of membership of the Council, with the representation of various states, was established with the declared intention of transparency and objectivity. Nevertheless, if in this new procedure, corporate interests, political influence, lack of civic criteria, and interests at cross purposes reappear, it is an assault against the system itself."

Reader's comments on this article
Add a new comment on this article
from xolox
Friday, April 22, 2005 - 09:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh whatever, one argentine powermonger got caught being crooked. He was clumsy, that's all. They are all crooked!
(reply to this comment)
from All In the Family As the World Turns
Monday, July 05, 2004 - 17:00
(Agree/Disagree?)

"The Council of the Magistrature, through its counselors, which acted as prosecutors, Senator Jorge Yoma..." how's that for impartiality.

Zulema Yoma was Carlos Menem's wife. They had a bitter divorce process starting around 1990. There is bad blood between the Yoma family, to which Senator Jorge Yoma belongs, and the Menem side. "Yomagate" starting in 1992 didn't help, when Menem, who originally closed ranks with his relations, distanced himself leaving the involved Yomas (including his sister-in law, who in Menem's "Casa Rosada's" - the Argentine white house -- was in charge of protocol and agenda) on their own to face a famous Spanish judge's charges of drug-money laundering. Menem's recent remarriage gave a new chance to act some of this out. Jorge Yoma was not invited. He used to be an "ultramenemista" politically, but now sides with rivals.

Menem was put under house arrest in 2001 and faced up to 10 years in jail for charges of arms trafficking conspiracy. Fortunately for him, a former partner and fellow Riojano on the Supreme Court ruled that there was not enough evidence and let him go. And thaaat's the way the cookie crumbles!

I was told recently that Marquevich did Menem a major favor to get his judgeship. Oh well, when you play footsie for your career, your career just may go South (or...in this case even further South?) when the feet in the bed change.

(reply to this comment)
from 1984
Monday, July 05, 2004 - 13:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
which means that we, as children of the children of God not only suffered abused from our own parents, from Berg and his wrong teachings, but also from a gang of heartless and non profesional judges of a third world country, as victims not only of a community system based on the perverted teaching of a mad man, but also as victims of one of the worse legal system of South America
(reply to this comment)

From Jules
Monday, July 05, 2004, 17:08
(Agree/Disagree?)

There was a breaking news story today that disturbed me deeply. A couple in Ontario, Canada who for thirteen years abused and tortured their adopted sons received a sentence of only nine months in jail.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20040705/ca_pr_on_na/boys_in_cages

They stole the childhood of these innocent children. The scars they have caused will never go away. Yet these monsters would have a much harsher sentence if they had robbed a bank. It angers me a great deal to think that children are worth less to our fucked up society than money. (reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl
Friday, April 22, 2005, 06:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
To the extent I've thought about the legal philosophy involved in cases like these, the bottom line is this: Children are legally equivalent to chattel. They have no "rights" in the sense that adults have rights, such as the right to own property and defend it against government intrusion. Children do not have the "right" of self-determination, which is a fundamental principle of property acquisition. The laws of commonwealth countries (including the US) are based on a desire to promote self-determination and protect individual property rights. In this system of laws, "best interests of the child" is secondary to parental rights to their property and the interests of the state. If parents are censored or punished for abusing their property rights, it is because allowing child abuse and neglect is not in the best interests of the state. The responsibility and burden of the property (i.e., children) shifts to the state when parents forfeit their rights. How much time would this couple have gotten if they'd tortured & killed their pet dog? The history of child welfare advocacy goes hand in hand with the movement to prevent cruelty to animals. Laws protecting domestic animals from neglect and abuse came into existence at the same time as child protection laws. What does that tell you about the value of children's lives in the hierarcy of the social order? (reply to this comment)