Is it an insult to call a judge “perversor of justice”?

Trial against Jörg Bergstedt

This trial took place one friday, oct.2, 2015, before the one against Jus in the same court. Accusation: insult of a judge (“perversor of justice”). This can only be an insult if it is not true.
Therefore, in this trial will be to decide on the assertion of fact whether the judge is a “perversor of justice”. Details in German

1:00 p.m. The trial against Jörg Bergstedt was moved into the hall, in which the trial against Jus had to be held too.
1:20 p.m. The hall is full, people who came punctually are not admitted anymore. The “information of the public is safeguarded”.
1:40 p.m. Jörg refuses to continue its trial when the spectators standing outside can not participate. It is decided to move to a larger hall.
2:07 p.m. Gradually more spectators drift in who passed the entrance. The trial proceeds.
2:08 p.m. The director of the house interrupts the trial to count how many chairs are still free.
2:03 p.m. It’s going on.
2:17 p.m. The deputy director of the district court constatates that all waiting people found a place in the hall now (there are still places available), so that the information of the public is safeguarded. The trial continues with the examination a witness (the former stenographer).
2:22 p.m. “The accused always have the last word.” In this case, however, the judge seemed to have already begun with the verdict.
2:35 p.m. Numerous requests by Jörg Bergstedt follow. The judge speaks to the defenders of Jus already present, that that still might take “a little longer”. Lawyer Mertens: “I can not jump over the fence and beat Mr. Bergstedt until he stops.”
He added that his client would have the right to a fair trial today or a release TODAY. That if this would not be realized TODAY, he would file an appeal. Then his client would be outside on Monday at the latest.
Jörg challenges for bias, and asks for a 10 minutes break for the formulation, which is granted.
2:55 p.m. Jörg finishes writing the application, he advertises for the defense by
lay persons. He offers training, under the condition that it would be attended.
3:02 p.m. The stenographer of this trial goes home, she is obviously glad that she was not pestered as a witness today.
3:05 p.m. It goes on. Motion for bias against judge Pretzel. Reason: her claim, that Jörg’s insistence on the normal right of an accused limits the rights of the next accused. “It is obvious that she does not like the accused”. Another reason would not be clear. Twofold applications for trial shift were rejected by judge Pretzel. Presumably it was a matter of keeping out judge Witzel as a witness.
Break for another quarter of an hour. Judge Rauh will decide. By the way, this is the gentleman who counted before.
4:04 p.m. The challenge for bias is well founded. The argument of the defendant is followed in full. “Frugal defense”, “his trial was not so important”, “contact with the public to make bad mood against the accused”. Very nice. Exciting also, who will soon be the judge in this trial. Judge Wetzel will not. Again, the workforce is too small. In fact judge Rauh should now end the trial.
4:08 p.m. The third law clerk enters the hall. By the way, this is the one that was a witness before.
Judge Pretzel is back. Jörg invites her to visit the forest occupation.

Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *