Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Oktar II

Got a tip on a site that posts decisions and briefs on the Oktar case. It's right here.

First impressions: They really need to get a better translator for the documents -- it's virtually impossible to cut through. They also need to quit wasting time on the rhetoric, and focus on the facts.

However, the facts, as presented, appear to show the following:

Oktar and over 30 other members of the NSF (National Science Foundation) in Turkey were charged with the Turkish equivalent of Criminal Conspiracy. The case was tried in a "State Security Court" -- military courts of limited jurisdiction, which have jurisdiction over Conspiracy charges.

The first court to consider the case had to recuse itself, because the prosecutor was affiliated with one of the plaintiff's attorney (sounds like an ethics violation to me).

The second court transferred it to the third court, which found that it lacked jurisdiction because no finding could support a conspiracy charge or any other charge triable in that court of limited jurisdiction.

A bunch of other courts then all weighed in, saying they lacked jurisdiction, for (presumably) a variety of reasons.

In 2005, a court finally heard the case. They dismissed the allegations against 35 of the defendants, because statute of limitations had passed. The last six defendants were then acquitted on the merits.

Then, in 2007, another Court decided to reevaluate the case under a law that had been passed in 2005.

Keep in mind, this occurred after the alleged offense had been committed (not permissible in any Western judicial systems), and after a full acquittal (double jeopardy).

It also appears that the allegations of "setting up an organization for a criminal purpose" rests on no evidence that the organization was intended to commit a crime -- although there may have been (and I don't know yet) someone within the organization that committed a crime. That, of course, would not meet the standard of a conspiracy charge.

How many violations of procedure can we pack into one case?


josefnohra said...

The reason why there have been such unceasing and open unlawful acts while the laws are so plain, clear and obvious is because the prosecuting judges have acted and decided the case either based on some ideological reasons or else under the pressure of certain circles.

shilon said...

As far as I know about this case, the allegations are being investigated for 8 years and NO CRIME could be found. It's a fact that the case is based on ideological grounds and Adnan Oktar is convicted because he revealed many dirty secrets of Masons.

shilon said...

When the persons under custody do not to meet with their lawyers more than 48 hours of time, the ECHR names this as insulation and a violation of both the RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING (Article 6/3-c) and the RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON (Article 5/3). The persons under custody during the Security Headquarters investigation were made to meet with their lawyers on the 4th (Fourth) day.

During the interrogation phase of the case, the unreal, invalid and false police reports have been methodically leaked to the press. This unfair and illegal act is the violation of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. (ECHR art.6/2)

ungtss said...

thanks again for the info -- but are you saying that no crime was proven or that no crime was even alleged? I'm curious about what they said he did -- what witnesses were brought, what the witnesses said, etc. Do they keep transcripts from these hearings anywhere?