Santo Domingo.- Environment prosecutor Andres Chalas on Tuesday affirmed he’ll not interrogate the deputy and powerful union boss Juan Hubieres, after the lawmaker refuse to be questioned unless it was in the presence of the media.
The union leader was accompanied by drummers and a mobile disco to the interrogation in the Justice Ministry at the Centro de los Heroes, into damages caused by a land invasion.
The official said interrogations are conducted behind closed doors everywhere in the world and because of the refusal he’ll subpoena 20 people which the Environment Ministry charged jointly with Hubieres, to respond as accused.
When asked if he would try to interrogate Hubieres again, Chalas pledged to subpoena the union leader when the investigation concludes and the case sent to court on criminal charges. “That case is closed unless he wants to appear to give his statement again.”
For his part, Hubieres said since the town of Mount Plata elected him Deputy, his duty is to them, but asked for a “transparent” interrogation so they see that he’s innocent of the allegations against him. “If the prosecutor wants to interrogate me let him comes here where I’m with you, that I am willing to give declarations, but I will not let myself be interrogated if you are not present.”
Written by: josean, 31 Jan 2012 3:46 PM
From: United States, Dedicating 4 more years to fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia
What is the "Purple Prosecutor" afraid of?
This could be very educational and informative to the country!
From: United States, FREEPORT, Long Island.... (Look, beyond the words)
Wow, talk about "GETTING BIATCHED"....He should have been imprisoned and I bet he didn't even get a permit for his entourage to protest. He caused hard working people to be late to work.
Sure, sit him in front of the media and interrogate this crook, ask him about the stolen transformer and why was he ready to inflict harm to officials wanting to remove the stolen transformer from his place of business .
AUDIT this BUM!!!!! Have him show his financials.
Written by: josean, 31 Jan 2012 4:23 PM
From: United States, Dedicating 4 more years to fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia
Bobby Joe,
This falls under the category of THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES CAN'T THROW STONES.
Regardless of what people think of Hubieres he is very sly fox. This politically motivated "show trial" is not turning out to be what the Purple Ones expected.
Hubieres first waived his legislative immunity and now wants he wants country to witness the questioning.
It seems the silver fox has outsmarted the “Modern Intellectuals” once again!
The prosecutor may be afraid to open a can of worms or in this case SNAKES he wouldn’t be able to close!
Now the country must be asking why don’t interview the “Owner of the Country “in the presence of the media?
What does the government have to hide?
Another political blunder for Lie-onel and his cronies!
From: Dominican Republic, vieja Santo Domingo
why should this thug be given different treatment to everyone else ,,,he can have his lawyer present with him but all initiaal investigations are closed to the the press ,,,can anyone inagine this thug being questioned by the FBI or NYP with press present ..It is this snubbing of the law that needs to be stopped.
The prosecutor did the right thing ,,,the thug is not yet on trial ,,,he is only being questioned..and why have a media circus...Full marks for a good move by the Prosecutor
Written by: josean, 31 Jan 2012 4:59 PM
From: United States, Dedicating 4 more years to fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia
"can anyone inagine this thug being questioned by the FBI or NYP "
That's the point, he is not being question by a transparent entity, this is a politically motivated prosecution in the middle of a presidential election.
Even in the US you have political motivated prosecutors and prosecutions.
The public pays for EVERYBODYS salary so the public has the right to know!
This is not an issue of national security or the possibility of revealing the launch codes!
From: Dominican Republic, vieja Santo Domingo
The public has a right to know .. I thought the basis was on the need to know ,,and a preliminary investigation for damaging public land seems to me to fit into the basket of need to know ,,and at this stage until any charges are laid it is best to always to have private investigations ,,even your friend Roy has agreed to that
Written by: okian, 31 Jan 2012 5:38 PM
From: United States
What a wuss!
Written by: josean, 31 Jan 2012 6:09 PM
From: United States, Dedicating 4 more years to fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia
Roy has the right to disagree with me. I don’t take position to please or displease my friends or anyone else nor to be popular or go with the flow. I take them because my limited intelligence suggests to me they are the right thing to do.
Nevertheless, given the political climate and the fact that this man is such a “monster; a threat to national peace and tranquility” and has already been convicted in the “Court of Public Opinion” by some yourself include; "why should this thug," why not let the whole process be recorded by the media!
What is the government afraid of?
From: United States, FREEPORT, Long Island.... (Look, beyond the words)
This is a good example of the meaning for "PARIGUALLO".
The last time I saw this much Back Peddling was in the De La Hoya and Trinidad fight......
Written by: juanb, 31 Jan 2012 6:31 PM
From: Dominican Republic
Notice the way Ricky works in the PLD stance. They are afraid of open inquiry. Hence, his comment:
"and at this stage until any charges are laid it is best to always to have private investigations".
Best for whom?
From: United States
What is the actual charge against this man?
Written by: josean, 31 Jan 2012 6:50 PM
From: United States, Dedicating 4 more years to fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia
"Written by: juanb, 31 Jan 2012 6:31 PM
From: Dominican Republic
Notice the way Ricky works in the PLD stance. They are afraid of open inquiry. Hence, his comment:
"and at this stage until any charges are laid it is best to always to have private investigations".
Best for whom?"
Precisely juan, precisely!
They stepped into excrement and now they are trying to save face!
Written by: RoyStone, 31 Jan 2012 7:37 PM
From: Australia
I don't know the procedure here, but in many countries, if police have reasonable grounds to suspect he has committed a crime, he can be arrested and questioned, with a lawyer, but not with the media or anyone else. He can remain silent. Then if as a result the police believe they have a case, he is charged and held until trial. He can apply for bail and an amount will be by a magistrate, based on the seriousness of the charges and the probability he will not show up. Bail can also be refused. Then the actual trial is open to the public and the press, unless there is reason not to, for example to protect the identity of children. If anyone disrupts the proceedings they can be evicted. If he refuses to respond when questioned, or fails to attend court, he can be tried ex parte - ie. in his absence.
Written by: RoyStone, 31 Jan 2012 7:43 PM
From: Australia
Whether it is politically motivated or not is irrelevant. If he has committed a crime then he should be charged and if found guilty, convicted.
It seems to me he thinks he is above the law because he can muster a bunch on thugs, and turn on a performance. Perhaps he is right. It would be the best thing for public confidence in the law if he is given a fair trial, and if found guilty, they throw the book at him.
Written by: josean, 31 Jan 2012 10:27 PM
From: United States, Dedicating 4 more years to fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia
Whether it is politically motivated or not is {irreverent}
Roy, I am irreverent; I think you mean irrelevant!
{if found guilty, convicted}
Roy, what's the difference between being found guilty and convicted?
Do you mean if found guilty, sentenced?
I agree with you, he should be given a fair trial and if found guilty/convicted should be sentenced to what the law prescribes as a penalty; however, again given the political climate and the suspicious timing of this "prosecution" it would be in the best interest of the country, in my humble opinion, if it were as transparent as possible.
I am sure you have heard the American expression you can indict even a ham sandwich!
continued;
Written by: josean, 31 Jan 2012 10:37 PM
From: United States, Dedicating 4 more years to fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia
“It was first uttered by Sol Wachtler, the now former New York State chief judge during a lunch interview with the New York Daily News. The story published by the Daily News on January 31, 1985 included the famous quote "district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large" they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich".
I believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and therefore I am opposed to secret Grand Juries, secret interrogations etc. Now if the accused wish privacy or to relinquish it it should be his or hers option, since the state always has more resources and unfair advantage in the power relationship but if found guilty/convicted then obviously the privilege of privacy is lost, since he or she has also lost the presumption of innocence.
From: United States
why are they even messing around with him. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW Send the Police to arrest him and arrest everyone of his cronies who attempt to disrupt commerce and public transportation. In other words show some Balls and if needed fill up a jail with his supporters and fine each and everyone a years salary. That will put a quick end to this saga
Written by: RoyStone, 1 Feb 2012 12:24 PM
From: Australia
Yes, josean, I too and irreverent, but I hope not irrelevant. Regardless I've fixed my typo, thanks.
I agree than in the circumstances, transparency need not only be done, but seen to be done. As for convicting ham sandwiches, doesn't it depend on how much money they have got and are prepared to spend?
Being found guilty means the court has determined that the offender committed the offense as charged. What happens after that is the matter of sentencing, sometimes on Tsaris principles. For example in Australia, women receive much lighter sentences - often no sentence at all, for the same offense. However gender is never stated as an extenuating circumstance in the judges' reasoning. The judge just tries harder to use another excuses. Still there are specific defenses available only to women.
Smaller
Bigger
Close Gallery
Facebook
Digg this
del.icio.us
Technorati
Yahoo
What is the "Purple Prosecutor" afraid of?
This could be very educational and informative to the country!
Sure, sit him in front of the media and interrogate this crook, ask him about the stolen transformer and why was he ready to inflict harm to officials wanting to remove the stolen transformer from his place of business .
AUDIT this BUM!!!!! Have him show his financials.
Bobby Joe,
This falls under the category of THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES CAN'T THROW STONES.
Regardless of what people think of Hubieres he is very sly fox. This politically motivated "show trial" is not turning out to be what the Purple Ones expected.
Hubieres first waived his legislative immunity and now wants he wants country to witness the questioning.
It seems the silver fox has outsmarted the “Modern Intellectuals” once again!
The prosecutor may be afraid to open a can of worms or in this case SNAKES he wouldn’t be able to close!
Now the country must be asking why don’t interview the “Owner of the Country “in the presence of the media?
What does the government have to hide?
Another political blunder for Lie-onel and his cronies!
The prosecutor did the right thing ,,,the thug is not yet on trial ,,,he is only being questioned..and why have a media circus...Full marks for a good move by the Prosecutor
"can anyone inagine this thug being questioned by the FBI or NYP "
That's the point, he is not being question by a transparent entity, this is a politically motivated prosecution in the middle of a presidential election.
Even in the US you have political motivated prosecutors and prosecutions.
The public pays for EVERYBODYS salary so the public has the right to know!
This is not an issue of national security or the possibility of revealing the launch codes!
Roy has the right to disagree with me. I don’t take position to please or displease my friends or anyone else nor to be popular or go with the flow. I take them because my limited intelligence suggests to me they are the right thing to do.
Nevertheless, given the political climate and the fact that this man is such a “monster; a threat to national peace and tranquility” and has already been convicted in the “Court of Public Opinion” by some yourself include; "why should this thug," why not let the whole process be recorded by the media!
What is the government afraid of?
The last time I saw this much Back Peddling was in the De La Hoya and Trinidad fight......
Notice the way Ricky works in the PLD stance. They are afraid of open inquiry. Hence, his comment:
"and at this stage until any charges are laid it is best to always to have private investigations".
Best for whom?
What is the actual charge against this man?
"Written by: juanb, 31 Jan 2012 6:31 PM
From: Dominican Republic
Notice the way Ricky works in the PLD stance. They are afraid of open inquiry. Hence, his comment:
"and at this stage until any charges are laid it is best to always to have private investigations".
Best for whom?"
Precisely juan, precisely!
They stepped into excrement and now they are trying to save face!
It seems to me he thinks he is above the law because he can muster a bunch on thugs, and turn on a performance. Perhaps he is right. It would be the best thing for public confidence in the law if he is given a fair trial, and if found guilty, they throw the book at him.
Whether it is politically motivated or not is {irreverent}
Roy, I am irreverent; I think you mean irrelevant!
{if found guilty, convicted}
Roy, what's the difference between being found guilty and convicted?
Do you mean if found guilty, sentenced?
I agree with you, he should be given a fair trial and if found guilty/convicted should be sentenced to what the law prescribes as a penalty; however, again given the political climate and the suspicious timing of this "prosecution" it would be in the best interest of the country, in my humble opinion, if it were as transparent as possible.
I am sure you have heard the American expression you can indict even a ham sandwich!
continued;
“It was first uttered by Sol Wachtler, the now former New York State chief judge during a lunch interview with the New York Daily News. The story published by the Daily News on January 31, 1985 included the famous quote "district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that "by and large" they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich".
I believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and therefore I am opposed to secret Grand Juries, secret interrogations etc. Now if the accused wish privacy or to relinquish it it should be his or hers option, since the state always has more resources and unfair advantage in the power relationship but if found guilty/convicted then obviously the privilege of privacy is lost, since he or she has also lost the presumption of innocence.
I agree than in the circumstances, transparency need not only be done, but seen to be done. As for convicting ham sandwiches, doesn't it depend on how much money they have got and are prepared to spend?
Being found guilty means the court has determined that the offender committed the offense as charged. What happens after that is the matter of sentencing, sometimes on Tsaris principles. For example in Australia, women receive much lighter sentences - often no sentence at all, for the same offense. However gender is never stated as an extenuating circumstance in the judges' reasoning. The judge just tries harder to use another excuses. Still there are specific defenses available only to women.