The defense of David Sánchez He has presented allegations against the decision of the judge of Beatriz Biedma of propose to judge the brother of the President of the Government for prevarication and influence peddling following its hiring in the Diputación de Badajoz. In the law of the lawyer Emilio Cortés who has accessed Lasxta this one wonders “what should he have done (his represented) to access the public function (…), without his inauguration being controversial and to be able to make a living”
Issue that a line often in the aforementioned text obtains answer: “Very simple: sit in front of the map of this country and, with the information that would be given to him about this particular, finish fixing, after a discard process, What municipality has not visited his brother in condition of general secretary of the PSOE (in reference to Pedro Sánchez) “.
In this way, “the automaton indication fades that where he has been giving a rally, supporting a regional or provincial candidate, or in an analogous act, already constitutes a forbidden land so that a citizen with academic degree and sufficient merits can present them to obtain the position, “says the document.
Therefore, the lawyer defends that this circumstance, conceived as “indication of crime (…) goes through label a citizen as second categorysimply for inferring “in three points. On the one hand,” that the brothers have to carry well yes or yes “; on the other, that one, with influences, wants to help the other because of their position and will be carried out ahead of whatever”; and, finally “that the above is the causal stimulus of a criminal plot with intervention of many people, but without rising the veil approx happened “.
Sánchez in Extremadura: “In which of them was the criminal pact?”
In another fragment of the letter, the defense of Pedro Sánchez’s brother does not hesitate to criticize the judge’s car in which he proposes to judge his represented for having served as “pure logic ‘, using as novel criteria of provisional imputation” that “‘ he did not know anyone in Badajoz ‘, but that it was a’ public fact that his brother had been general secretary of the PSOE ‘and that’ as such, I had visited Badajoz on several occasions and the province ‘”.
At this point, the lawyer throws rhetoric again when asked “what are those occasions?” in which Sánchez visited the region, which in the brief is underlines is “composed of 388 municipalities (165 in the province of Badajoz)”, as well as that “In which of them was the criminal pact?”.
A “pure logic” of the judge that David Sánchez’s defense also criticizes that it is used to conclude that Pedro Sánchez as a member of the Ferraz dome “and its close environment would have close relations (…) with other members of the party in Extremadura with the capacity to influence people who had competition to create the position ‘”. Then, Cortés wonders what are those “influential people” That criticizes the judge or mentions. Situation that does not hesitate to compare with the mythical clued game.
“Indiciarious Vagrace” and a car “inconsiderate towards the brothers”
Likewise, in the brief to which this chain has accessed the lawyer of the brother of the president of the Government also regrets the unconnection of the facts with some criminal type, specifically, with those of administrative prevarication and influence peddling of which his represented is accused. Tiring, even irony, Cortés wonders as if “a practical case were for the students of the Law Faculty, what crime has committed outside the extraordinary work indicator?” From which he accuses the judge: “We do not know,” says the document.
In short, for the lawyer “The car (of the judge) is unjustifiably inconsiderate towards the Sánchez brothers”. Towards the president “because he is attributed to the light, and without quoting him, a criminal influence capacity of which there is no trace -they would have close relationships, all in conditional -“; while towards musician for “a bisoñez in the development of his absolute profession of a homologable judicial discourse, banishing the hypothesis that their merits were superior to those of the remains of the applicants.”
