Talk:Romanian Constitutional Bar

BLP concerns

WP:PRIMARY sources have been used with caution. No person is accused of a crime in this article except as shown by secondary sources which render court verdicts. The names of the culprits have not been mentioned, except for the bosses of the fake UNBRs. Of course, other persons have been named, since the article does not accuse them of having committed a crime. Persons named in the titles of the footnotes are another matter.

E.g. the man sentenced for threatening government officials has also been sentenced for illicit practice as a lawyer, but we cannot state this in the article since it is not WP:V to a secondary source. The primary source providing the information is nevertheless public, so his sentencing is not a secret/confidential. So, yeah, he got acquitted of illicit practice of a regulated profession by a lower court, but was definitively sentenced to a criminal fine for illicit practice by the competent Court of Appeal.

Note: for what "minute" means, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minute

About WP:NPOV: the website of the European Union says that what I called "the real UNBR" is the genuine National Association of Romanian Bars. How do we know this? The EU website displays its website and the physical address of its headquarters. Pompiliu Bota will get in control of the website https://unbr.ro when pigs will fly. And he is no longer in control of his own website at https://www.bota.ro . https://unbr.eu (the fake UNBR website) still claims to be the website www.bota.ro and was last updated on 18 February 2019 according to what itself claims. The last news at that website is that the Bota Union had a convocation for general assembly of its members on 23.06.20221 (sic!). Is that supposed to be the year 2021 or the year 2022? No way to tell, and I don't think he meant 203rd century. The copyright is from 2020.

About WP:N: Evenimentul Zilei, Adevărul and România TV are mainstream media. I don't say they are "unbiased" (whatever that means), but they are reliable sources for everyday news.

The name Morecuț (pronounced Moræhkoots or Morækoots) is not a slur. Google her names and you will see she is a real person. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

These being said, the media are not always critical of the Bota Bar and sometimes depict their fake lawyers as victims of a conflict between bars. But the hard fact is that if the Police knows that they act as lawyers, they're in trouble. And courts no longer accept them to plead as lawyers. A decade ago that was still murky, but now it is clear for all public prosecutors and judges. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

https://juridice.ro is the Society for Juridical Sciences. It has both scholarly and commercial articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

About Sonia Florea having WP:COI: in the Netherlands a judge who was member of a jurists association having the purpose of combating internet piracy was accused of having a COI during a trial concerning internet piracy, but the decision of the competent judicial panel was that a judge who strives for applying the law does not have a COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, many local (provincial) or juridical news outlets have been WP:CITEd. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Verdict

The verdict of the Bucharest Municipal Tribunal or yesterday (written 22 April 2023) shows that the Romanian Constitutional Bar does not exist as a legally established organization. The verdict can be attacked with a recourse. A recusal of the judges who passed the verdict has been asked, but there is no hope that it will be declared successful. In fact, the recusal has been judged thrice, and it is formally appealable, but there is no real chance of succeeding. Bota stands no chance, since merely having friends or relatives who legally work as lawyers does not establish WP:COI.

At most, RCB has existence in penal law (as organized crime), but it never had existence in civil law. And only organizations which legally exist can be disestablished by a civil court.

And RCB cannot go bankrupt, since only organizations which legally exist can fulfill the requirements for bankruptcy. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary:

• merely striving to apply the law (i.e. seeking to expose those who illegally work as lawyers) does not establish WP:COI;
• legally being a lawyer of having friends/relatives who legally work as lawyers does not establish WP:COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

About the verdict form 21 April 2023: there is a quarrel about stamp duty, see https://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=200000000424192&id_inst=2 tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected the demand for public aid again, on 5 September 2023. Reason: lacking signature. While this may seem a picayune detail, it is possible that it tells a lot: Mr. Bălăcescu's signature possibly wasn't considered valid, since he has no way to prove that he is the president of a legally established organization, and therefore it is possible that his signature does not count. I don't know this for sure, I only mention it as a working hypothesis. I mean: just because everybody calls him the president of the Romanian Constitutional Bar, it does not mean that he is the president of a really existing organization. The proof is in the pudding. If one is the president of a legally established organization, there are ways to prove that such a person is entitled to sign papers in the name of the organization. But since the whole point is that the RCB is not a legally established organization, Mr. Bălăcescu has no way to provide evidence that he is entitled to sign papers in the name of such an organization. It is like asking someone to provide evidence he is the King of France. Since the King of France does not exist, nobody can prove he is the King of France. Unlike, say, one man can prove he is the Pope of Rome, and another man can prove he is the Patriarch of Moscow.

Morals: no person is legally entitled to sign papers in the name of the RCB. So, papers signed in the name of the RCB cannot be considered validly signed. Meaning: such papers only represent the will of the person who signs them, since the RCB does not exist as a legally established organization. Papers signed by Mr. Bălăcescu only render Mr. Bălăcescu's own consent, and papers signed by Mr. Bota only render Mr. Bota's own consent; and these two people do not legally represent the RCB, since there is no such thing as the RCB in civil law. None of them are lawyers, and Romanian courts do not allow them to plead as lawyers.

The request for reconsidering the stamp duty (amount, fee) was rejected on 21 September 2023. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

I don't know if the case of Greceanu vs. Bota + UNBR Bota has come to a grinding halt. The website of the Romanian courts says the appeals and recourse were exhausted, yet it stops short of saying that the decision has remained final (definitive). Extraordinary avenues for attacking the verdict remain open, but such avenues are rarely successful.

Anyway, the decision was that UNBR Bota cannot be a party to this trial, since it lacks trial capacity of use. This was introduced by default (ex officio) by the Bucharest Sector 6 Court, sometime between 7 September 2020 and 30 March 2021, and AFAIK never shown to be false. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Judging the recourse has been suspended: https://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=30300000000369190&id_inst=2 tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The case has been revived, the next hearing is in September 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Explaining the Romanian law

I took the liberty of explaining Romanian law when needed. E.g., in Romania NGOs are established by court decision, while that might not be the case in the US or the UK. The reader needs to understand the background in order to make sense of the statements from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Organized crime

"Organized crime" was not in the final sentencing of the group, due to the statute of limitations, but they were de facto treated by the court as organized crime. Why? Because certain goods/attributes remained confiscated in the final verdict, because the group used them to break the law. So, yeah, there was no penal punishment for organized crime, but the dispositions of the verdict treated them as organized crime. That means that the court could no longer condemn them to prison, but had to decide what to do with those goods (whether to return them to the accused or not). That is, those members of the Constitutional Bar were not sentenced by the court, they were nevertheless creamed by the court as not innocent. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)