Scandal answer from the judge
Category : NEWS
When the search for justice was continuing throughout the country, a scandalous answer from a judge revealed the seriousness of the situation. The President of the Court, “This case is not important for me! This ByLock list that came from MIT (natioanal intelligence agency of Turkey) is important for me,” he said. The letter sent by Mustafa Dursun, brother of Uğur Dursun victim of “bylock” who was trialed on 15 June, assistant director of Kayseri Regional Directorate of Forestry, to haksozhaber.net exposes the unlawfulness of the victimization chain in court phase which is currently increasing in Turkey. After the custody and detention process, which is a complete tragedy, it reveals what kind of legal massacres are involved in both the indictments, the proceedings and the defenses.
How healthy do these prosecutors and judges decide?
The letter contains the following statements; “We did not want to be given us a privilege. The only thing we wanted that our files were quickly searched and decided and no new victims were produced. Our prosecutors, whom we have appointed to the courts because of this process, are so young; It seems impossible to make a decision by looking at the file without hesitation and fear of pressure. Because they know; Even if an innocent person, when I release it I am to be prosecuted or suspended/dismissed, exiled, imprisoned. Think about how healthy these prosecutors and judges can decide. In fact we had a complete legal disaster in our first stance. After a period exceeding 2 months no information added to the case additional to accusation and all needed documents were gathered;
Then why did you write all those official demands from the institutions?
The President of the Court; “Okay, you put everything into the file, I believe that what you are telling me; But for me this file does not have a point! This ByLock list from MIT is important for me,” he said. Not know whether to laugh or cry ? Then why did you write and ask all those document from institutions. BTK also is included. Why is it not even necessary to examine the communication (HTS) and NAT registration report from the BTK(information and communication technologies authority). If a vaudeville is established and we are introduced as an extras, what does it mean to do it in a formal courtroom ? We have at least four people, including our lawyer who will testify to this experience. Then why would a court be made after a court head said the case is not important? If it can not put any information or documents against my brother in any of the institutions and organizations that he wants, how will we look at the justice of this judgment and be silent. During the court, attitudes such playing his phone, constantly looking at his left and right and huffing and puffing, mess with his hair … In short, even though when he is listening Mr. Judge did not bother to respect.