At the time of writing this comment, we know the tax condemnation of general taxation. The court voted on it, without knowing the text of the motives. It also seems important for public opinion to separate the reasons for conviction.
The facts, the subject of discussion in the oral court, refer to the accusations. The junior at Ayuso and the Madrid Bar School was charged with the crime of disclosing the secrets of a private individual, punishable under Article 417.2 of the Penal Code. The Inspectors’ Association, along with other extreme reactionary groups, accused of the same and many other crimes, should demand a prison sentence similar to that which applies to rapists or hard-core drug traffickers.
Based on this accusatory allegation, tests were conducted in the oral court, which unfortunately prevented the entire session from being televised or broadcast live. Despite this, we saw the certification test. We were able to hear the theatrical statements of the newbie Ayuso. We know the false accusation of Miguel Ángel Rodríguez “MÁR” and, in conjunction with it, the unfounded accusatory assumption of the UCO, and the hostile financial ambiguity. We were able to see the only real test that the inspector did not filter anything from, which is an authentic lecture on responsible journalism, and it is a basic test that the inspector blatantly did not pay attention to. All the testimonies point only to the tax general’s liquidation of him, or his admission of tax fraud committed by Ayuso’s apprentice. This was the subject of the case, according to Article 417.2 of the Penal Code claimed by the defendants.
The Supreme Court will surprise us with its ability to compromise the law legally. We witnessed this when, at the request of Marchena, he imposed a professional malpractice pardon on him practicalUnder the pretext that they became rich because they did not finance it with their money. The mind-boggling theory of what horror is punishable by. In the famous court, his club asked him about this horror, but in the hub, no one asked about it. We saw it live.
Now back to the legal bargaining over procedural and criminal legality. If I couldn’t use a certification test that wasn’t very convincing, it wouldn’t matter if I filtered the mail. It dispenses with Article 417.2, which was the subject of discussion. Because of the announced penalty, it must be specified that they will be sentenced for disclosing information that should not be disclosed, which is the crime stipulated in Article 417.1. And again, the subject of the process that was not a subject of discussion, not a possible test, is a decision that, of contradiction and the rights of defense of the accused, is withdrawn by the fists of his sleeve.
The Inspector General, with courage he honored, was the sole author of the briefing note refuting MÁR’s slanderous report, indicating that he was the real fraud, the real fraudster. It condemns you for your dignity in issuing the memorandum, and also demands its duty of information and transparency, in defense of the honesty, legitimacy, and dignity of the Ministry of Finance.