What were the reasons Paulus did not become a judge?

�

The Refugees Unleashed Forum Index -> Natalee Holloway Case Discussion

What were the reasons Paulus did not become a judge? - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

liesbeth

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:06 pm

Last edited by liesbeth on Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 908

liesbeth

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:13 pm

Last edited by liesbeth on Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 908

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:24 pm

AlwaysL8 wrote:

I don't know about it stopping him from becoming a judge, I am just saying that in most gambling establishments there is a legal age limit and I believe it has been said 18 in Aruba. If so, Paulus broke the law by accompanying joran to partake in an illegal activity. Simple as that, it is what it is. Legal age usually means there is a law against it if you are under that age.

In most jurisdictions there is a legal age limit to have sex. I believe it has been said 17 in Texas. Following your reasoning the FLDS children broke the law accompanying Warren Jeffs to partake in an illegal activity. Simple as that, is that what it is?

AlwaysL8 wrote:

Are you saying there is no written law in Aruba for gambling? Can a 5 yr old gamble in the casinos? I thought Glenda said awhile back that they had officials at all entrances checking ID/enforcing the legal age.

There is written law in Aruba that forbids offering hazard games to minors.

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:26 pm

liesbeth wrote:

It is against the law on Aruba. Period.

So how many florin is the maximum penalty for being in a casino with a 17 year old son liesbeth, you know it all so well..

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:31 pm

liesbeth wrote:

So I am making up stuff.

liesbeth wrote:

Sure. Is that the reason the VanderSloot trolls do not post on the Dutch Fok anymore? Wink

I don't have the foggiest idea what happened of Fok, I only followed a funny-pictures thread there...

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

Bongo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:41 pm

liesbeth wrote:

So I am making up stuff.

Sure. Is that the reason the VanderSloot trolls do not post on the Dutch Fok anymore? Wink

1st sentence: Agreed. Fully.
Example: 2nd sentence.

Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1153
Location: The Netherlands

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:41 pm

Please liesbeth, proof that I can make mistakes too. I read the Aruban penal code cover to cover, came across hilarious stuff about adultery and other funny differences between Aruban and Dutch law. I must have missed the part about going gambling with your children, I realy wonder what the fine class is..

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

Bongo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:14 pm

dugo wrote:

Ehm, peeing in public and showing your private parts in the mall can get you a conviction/transaction and can land you in a heap of trouble if you want to become a judge, see[1].

Noooo.. paying a transaction [bekeuring, without interference of a judge] is like 'afkoop van de overtreding'.. case closed. One can still become a judge..

peeing in public: EUR 75
showing private parts in public: EUR 150
emptying ashtray on road: EUR 45

ROCKET LAUNCHER: being in a casino with 17 year old son: EUR 0 Laughing

Last edited by Bongo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1153
Location: The Netherlands

minitess

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:14 pm

dugo wrote:

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213

minitess

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:18 pm

Let me take that one step further, using Warren Jeffs as an example, as you did.

If Warren Jeffs facilitates a 17 year old having sex with a minor - both the 17 year old, and Jeffs are guilty - as both are legal to have sex, but not with minors.

So with that analogy - since Paulus was of legal age to gamble, he was facilitating a crime by taking his minor son to participate in a poker tournament, which by law his son was not of legal age to do.

I understand the point you are trying to make Dugo, so by using this logic - would Paulus then not be guilty of helping the casino cater to a minor?

Just like Jeffs is guilty of facilitating statutory rape?

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:25 pm

Bongo wrote:

Noooo.. paying a transaction [bekeuring, without interference of a judge] is like 'afkoop van de overtreding'.. case closed. One can still become a judge..

Yes bongo, but you will have to wait 6 years.

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:26 pm

liesbeth wrote:

Everybody on Aruba knew he went with his minor sun to gamble in a casino. That is disaster for our constitutional state.

The horror! We will fall into a state of anarchy!

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:35 pm

liesbeth wrote:

Rechtspraak

Het Huis Huguetan aan het Lange Voorhout, Den Haag, waar de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden zetelt.In Nederland worden zaken in eerste aanleg behandeld bij een van de negentien rechtbanken. Men kan tegen uitspraken van een rechtbank in hoger beroep gaan bij een van de vijf gerechtshoven of een van de bestuursrechtelijke hoger-beroepsinstanties. De Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba hebben respectievelijk het Gerecht van Eerste Aanleg en het Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba. Van uitspraken van de Nederlandse gerechtshoven en het Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba staat in beginsel cassatieberoep open bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.
Op basis van het zogenaamde concordantiebeginsel, vastgelegd in artikel 39 van het Statuut, wordt onder meer het burgerlijke recht en het strafrecht in Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba zoveel mogelijk op overeenkomstige wijze geregeld. Dat maakt het mogelijk dat jurisprudentie van de Hoge Raad met betrekking tot een zaak die in het ene land speelt, vaak overeenkomstige gelding heeft in de andere twee landen van het Koninkrijk.

What on earth does the fact that there is a single supreme court for the whole Kingdom and art. 39 of the Kingdom statute have to with this. Stop quoting random shit out of your failed google searches to the article in the Aruban penal code that makes it a crime for a kid to gamble, or a crime for his father to join him. Stop it, it doesn't exist.

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:49 pm

minitess wrote:

The difference there is the law states that someone uder the age of 17 is not yet old enough to give consent to someone to have sex with them. If a 17 year old has sex with another 17 year old, there is no law broken.

In other words - it is against the law for an adult to have sex with a child under the age of 17. But - if a 17 year old person has sex with a 16 year old person - the 17 year old is violating the law, regardless of whether or not the 16 year old said "yes". By law, that 16 year old cannot legally say "yes" to sex.

Let me take that one step further, using Warren Jeffs as an example, as you did.

If Warren Jeffs facilitates a 17 year old having sex with a minor - both the 17 year old, and Jeffs are guilty - as both are legal to have sex, but not with minors.

So with that analogy - since Paulus was of legal age to gamble, he was facilitating a crime by taking his minor son to participate in a poker tournament, which by law his son was not of legal age to do.

I understand the point you are trying to make Dugo, so by using this logic - would Paulus then not be guilty of helping the casino cater to a minor?

Just like Jeffs is guilty of facilitating statutory rape?

You are making some jumps I can't follow..

Now if the question is going to be .. is Paul a co-perpetrator or an accomplice in a crime comitted by the casino.. then we are on interesting territory..

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

minitess

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:53 pm

dugo wrote:

You are making some jumps I can't follow..

Now if the question is going to be .. is Paul a co-perpetrator or an accomplice in a crime comitted by the casino.. then we are on interesting territory..

YES! That's what I'm saying. Smile

Paulus = Warren Jeffs in this analogy.

Jeffs facilitated the statutory rape (a crime committed by another) and Paulus facilitated the crime of a minor gambling (a crime committed by another - the casino)

I understand what you've said about Joran not being punishable for gambling. BUT - the casino is at fault, and the question regarding Paulus is, did he facilitate that crime committed by the casino, by purposefully bringing his underage son there to gamble, knowing it was against the law for the casino to allow that?

I think that's where the question comes in about Paulus' ethics regarding his propriety of being a judge - or even an attorney for that matter.

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213

iquitos

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:01 pm

liesbeth wrote:

It is not about being perfect or not, it is because wanting to be a judge.

According to the Dutch law he did not qualify anymore.

what the hell are you talking about. i don't understand a thing you say.

beady eyed rat

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15065
Location: nowhere man

iquitos

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:04 pm

dugo wrote:

Re: when did he get the news he

Hardly news if it is scheduled to end at 1/1/06

i meant when did he know he would not make it to full judge status. i know how long his training appointment as substitute judge was for. Maybe it could have been extended, for example.

beady eyed rat

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15065
Location: nowhere man

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:00 pm

minitess wrote:

YES! That's what I'm saying. Smile

Ok .. this thread is officially derailed now, so who cares is we are going to wander off completely now. Statutory rape is rape, not because the person says who was raped said NO! but because a statute in the law said NO!

The casino is WJ, Joran the little girl and Paul the parents who arranged the marriage, but let's leave it, analogies always break if you take 'm too far..

[/quote]

minitess wrote:

I understand what you've said about Joran not being punishable for gambling. BUT - the casino is at fault, and the question regarding Paulus is, did he facilitate that crime committed by the casino, by purposefully bringing his underage son there to gamble, knowing it was against the law for the casino to allow that?

I think that's where the question comes in about Paulus' ethics regarding his propriety of being a judge - or even an attorney for that matter.

If we forget that he failed even before Natalee set foot on the island. I think this is a stretch, grasping at straws and part of a witch hunt. I'll get back to that later.

Why I find the question interesting neveretheless is because the of the alcohol licence holders lobby is trying to push to make it against the law for minors to purchase alcohol. The VWA in the Netherlands doles out fines to the tune of 3k euro to licence holders who sell alcohol to sub 16 year olds. They find that unfair that they get a fine and the kid walks.

Now in case of a restaurant holder serving a family with a 15 year old wine gets fined, would he be able to drag the parents down with him if he files an art. 12 Sr demand for prosecution? It is an open question because there is no such case to be found yet in case law.

It is far fetched, imo, and you really need to have a grudge against Paul to to make a big deal out of this in an evaluation. The norm is onbesproken gedrag, which is laid down in objective criteria for which they use the court records to look for convictions.

If we still forget that he failed even before Natalee set foot on the island, there would be a very good reason to just fire him out of his position as replacement judge.

From Staats regeling of Aruba chapter 6 art 17-1-3
-wegens handelen of nalaten, dat ernstig nadeel toebrengt aan de goede gang van zaken bij de rechtspraak of aan het in haar te stellen vertrouwen;

translating legalese sucks but it mentions breach of trust, damaging the course of justice.

I think I mentioned this before.. Paul, with the help of a lawyer, trafficked information about Freddies witness statements to a suspect (Joran) who was in incommunicado detention. Karin Janssen said about this: "I can tell you, and I am putting it mildly, that that is rather disturbing in an investigation."

But the supreme court of the Netherlands never bothered with throwing him out of his function of replacement judge. It all ended silently 1/1/06 as decided on 1/1/03.

If we remember that he failed even before Natalee set foot on the island and assume he would somehow be able to resit whatever he failed, why on earth would he bother. The chances of being nominateted, let alone selected as the one out of the 3 nominations when an position opens up are 0 if you are a former murder suspect who has been world news. Trying to become judge after that is fighting windmills.

The whole discussion about the relation between casino and paul judge is theoretical luchtfietserij (excercise), has no relation to the reality with his not judgeship and only serves liesb and some other posters with an oulet for their righteous indignation, and my fondness to engage in theoretical nitpicking about the finer points of rule of law and its application..

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:21 pm

iquitos wrote:

i meant when did he know he would not make it to full judge status. i know how long his training appointment as substitute judge was for. Maybe it could have been extended, for example.

I think even if Paul was willing to give an answer he would have a hard time detailing when it reached the point of no return on track.. IIRC it got off track before this whole sagga began..

b.t.w. Nobody is ever sure he will become a full judge. If a position opens up 3 candidates are nominated, one is picked out.. (co-optatie + ballotage?)

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

resigned

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:36 pm

So was Paulus a replacement Judge ( in the the sense that we have subsitute teachers - filling in when other Judges were on vacation, ill, etc..) or not?
Did he ever preside over any hearings during his training period?

Did his position in the OM's office have anything to do with being a Judge in training or not, other than meeting one of the requirements to qualify as a Judge? If it was based solely on training to be a Judge, why would he continue in the OM position after he wasn't nominated as a Judge in 2005 - could he have been nominated in 2006?

----

1. Judge

The task of the judge is to give an unbiased decision in legal disputes, i.e. also in cases to which the government is a party. To guarantee that impartiality in respect of the government, a special selection and appointment system is in place and the legal status of judges is different to that of other government officials.

Anyone who wants to become a judge needs at least seven years of professional experience. This experience can be obtained via an internal training course with the judiciary or by obtaining legal experience elsewhere. The judiciary system will provide the necessary training.

Judges are appointed by the Crown, under the aegis of the Minister of Justice. Only Dutch nationals can be appointed to the office of judge. Moreover, the candidates must have a law degree from a Dutch university.

Individuals can only be nominated for appointment to the judiciary after a recommendation from a national selection committee, made up of members from the various courts, the public prosecutor’s office and individuals that are active in society. The judge will be appointed to administer justice at a specific court. Such appointment is not possible, unless the court in question has nominated the prospective judge. Thanks to these conditions, the appointment system is as objective as possible. The judge is a government official with a special status. After the initial appointment, the judge need not accept an appointment elsewhere.

Judges can remain in office until the age of 70. At a younger age, they can only be removed from office against their will by the highest court in the Netherlands, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden), at the instigation of the Procurator General (procureur-general) of this Court. This system provides adequate protection against political influence on appointment and removal from office.

The Dutch Constitution instructs the judiciary to render decisions on disputes and it contains provisions regarding the legal status of members of the judiciary.

With due observance of the prevailing legislation, judges may, at their discretion, hear cases; they also determine, to a large extent, the practical progress in the proceedings, for instance the length of certain parts of the proceedings. If a party to proceedings has doubts about the impartiality of the judge during the proceedings, the law provides for possibilities to object to that particular judge hearing the case.

Sometimes, one party to a lawsuit is dissatisfied with the work of the judge. A distinction is made between the decision rendered by the court and the behaviour of a judge. If the dissatisfaction relates to the judgment, the party complaining usually has the option of lodging an appeal. Complaints about behaviour of a judge may be filed with the board of the court where the judge in question holds office. Every court has a complaints procedure providing for the rules on dealing with complaints.

There are statutory provisions on the behaviour of judges. The purpose of these provisions is guaranteeing that judges do their work impartially.

Judges work in District Courts (rechtbanken). The District Courts have four sectors: the civil-law sector, the criminal-law sector, the administrative-law sector and the sub-district court sector. Judges working in the latter sector are called: kantonrechter, the others are referred to as rechter. The judges working in the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court are called raadsheer.

Judges are usually required to hear cases in one field at the time, after which they switch to another field. They need to have expertise in at least two fields. This rule is designed to prevent judges from focussing for too long and too much on one area of expertise.

Kantonrechters hear cases on their own. The District Court judges usually hear cases on their own, but some cases must be heard by a three-judge panel. The judges in the courts of appeal hear cases with a panel of three, unless such case can be heard by one judge. The law provides rules for this. The Supreme Court hears every case with five judges.

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_prof/legal_prof_net_en.htm

Click your heels together...

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 28559
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk

resigned

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:40 pm

dugo wrote:

On average - How many Judgeships open annually and are appointed by the Queen each year and would Paulus have been considered for a Judgeship anywhere... on Aruba, in the Dutch Antilles, all of the Netherlands?

Click your heels together...

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 28559
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk

all10suspects

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:42 pm

1. Judge

The task of the judge is to give an unbiased decision in legal disputes, i.e. also in cases to which the government is a party. To guarantee that impartiality in respect of the government, a special selection and appointment system is in place and the legal status of judges is different to that of other government officials.
-------------------------------------

Why is Judge Smid a judge? He clearly made rulings in favor of the suspects. IMO he should not have made any rulings on the case.

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 6356

resigned

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:01 pm

I don't understand how a person is a judge in training and a replacement judge at the same time, but has to be nominated and then appointed to be a permanent judge.

Do replacement judge's rulings get appealed more often? Do they even hear cases and make rulings? Confused

Click your heels together...

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 28559
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:05 pm

resigned wrote:

So was Paulus a replacement Judge ( in the the sense that we have subsitute teachers - filling in when other Judges were on vacation, ill, etc..) or not?

Haha, sort-off. It is a name for part-timer judges who have other jobs or obligations, like a training to follow.

resigned wrote:

Did he ever preside over any hearings during his training period?

Dunno, nothing that made the public database of significant cases. Never dug deep into it, I have no electronic access to aruban cases, maybe some stint in den bosch?

resigned wrote:

Did his position in the OM's office have anything to do with being a Judge in training or not, other than meeting one of the requirements to qualify as a Judge?

We have been using the term judge in training from day one. The track, or side track for professionals is called judicial officer in training. There are two directions, judiciary and prosecution, but whatever track you choose, you get to see both sides iirc.

resigned wrote:

If it was based solely on training to be a Judge, why would he continue in the OM position after he wasn't nominated as a Judge in 2005 - could he have been nominated in 2006?

I don't know the exact details of his course program, depends quite a bit on his previous experience. You have to go through several internships at om&judiciary anyway..

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

dugo

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:07 pm

all10suspects wrote:

Why is Judge Smid a judge? He clearly made rulings in favor of the suspects. IMO he should not have made any rulings on the case.

ROFLMAO

Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude

Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6129
Location: L4L

Display posts from previous:

	The Refugees Unleashed Forum Index -> Natalee Holloway Case Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

�