JXC requested a political trial against judge Ramos Padilla for “bad performance” and “disciplinary offenses”

National deputies of Together for Change denounced before the Council of the Magistracy the federal judge of La Plata Alejo Ramos Padilla for “poor performance in their duties and multiple and repeated disciplinary offenses for having offered objectively false testimony” before the Committee on Impeachment of the Lower House.

The presentation of the deputies Pablo Tonelli (PRO), Mario Negri (UCR) and Juan Manuel López (Civic Coalition) took place after an opposition motion to promote the complaint against the magistrate was rejected at the last meeting of the commission. At the hearing on February 23, he had testified under true oath that he was the victim of “an open impeachment trial for two years.”

Also Ramos Padilla had accused Tonelli (who at that time was a counselor to the Magistracy) of having promoted that impeachment trial based on “illegal wiretapping.”

Guillermo Moreno: “Alberto Fernández took Cristina Kirchner and Massa out of the ring, he is in his best stage”

In the letter, the legislators of Together for Change consider that in the same testimony of February 23 “the magistrate made statements that constitute a clear lack of consideration and respect due to other magistrates, as well as an alleged lack of measure and decorum in his judicial function”. In this sense, they claimed that “If the detailed conducts are verified, progress is made with” the dismissal of the magistrate or, at least, the application of a disciplinary sanction.

To begin with, remember that the investigation against Ramos Padilla “began on March 15, 2019 and ended on June 5, 2020, for which reason only a year and three months appeared, and not two years as the judge had stated.

“And since the complaint was dismissed, both by the commission and by the plenary session of the Judicial Council, there was never a declaration of admissibility or imputation in the field of the commission, nor a formal accusation, much less a true ‘trial’, ‘political trial’, or ‘prosecution’ to those who refer to the Constitution, laws and regulations in force,” they added.

Bullrich rises in the polls and the PRO mayors seek to annul the internships in their districts

At the same time, They pointed out that “it is especially false” that “Deputy Tonelli has promoted this complaint, investigation or process.” “And obviously, a much more serious falsehood is, then, to affirm that this non-existent impulse was based on ‘wiretapping’ or ‘telephone conversations,'” they added.

As they explained, “Dr. Tonelli’s only participation in the file in question was in his capacity as instructor, as a result of the one carried out in the Disciplinary and Accusation Commission.”

Members of Together for Change mentioned that “the witness categorically affirmed, under oath to tell the truth, an alleged participation of Deputy Tonelli in an also alleged leak of wiretaps, which never existed and for which there is no evidence whatsoever.”

“In the file processed before this Council, not even a subpoena project was ever presented in the terms of article 20 of the Regulations, and therefore, the witness was neither accused nor subjected to any ‘political trial’, and there was no the least ‘use’ of any listening”, they reiterated.

You may also like