This is a huge vitory. Wilders always argued that the three judges on this case were biased. Today three other judges ruled that the court had given a semblance of partiality. The case now has to start again with other judges. This will probably take months. And while it is true that these new judges might rule against Geert but with the public prosecutor demanding acquittal there is a much better chance that an unbiased court will acquit Wilders.
The relentless persecution and harassment of Geert Wilders is symbolic of freedom's struggle against the forces of oppression and evil. These are trumped-up charges in a kangeroo court hellbent on jailing one of the world's leading defenders of freedom and western values. On trial with Wilders is Churchill, Locke, Burke, Rand, Washington, and every individual who advanced liberty over slavery, individualism over collectivism, freedom over oppression.
"Newspaper De Pers: Judge Schalken of the Amsterdam court tried to influence expert witness Hans Jansen during a dinner. Mafiapractice."
-- Geert Wilders @Twitter
New trial ordered for Geert Wilders, the entire three-judge panel was dismissed on the following grounds:
- Remarks of judge Jan Moorse on Wilders usage of his right to remain silent
- Remarks by judge Jan Moorse that gave a value statement on Fitna
- The court’s rejection of hearing a key witness Mr. Hans Jansen again on how judge Schalken tried to influence him before the trial (hat tip Her Royal Whyness)
During the deliberation time of the substitution court Wilders has filed charges at a local police station against Judge Tom Schalken for trying to influence a court expert witness. (more here at Klein Verzet)
Today Wilders accused Judge Tom Schalken of the Amterdam court that ordered the trial against him of mafia practices."Newspaper De Pers: Judge Schalken of the Amsterdam court tried to influence expert witness Hans Jansen during a dinner. Mafiapractice."Newspaper De Pers today ran a story (NL) about expert witness Hans Jansen. It's about a blog posting of yesterday by Hans Jansen, who is a regular contributor of the Dutch group blog named Hoeiboei (NL). In yesterdays blog post Jansen wrote about a dinner for which he was invited only three days before his expert witness testimony in the trial against Geert Wilders (translation of this blog post by Hans Jansen here: Judge Schalken).
--Geert Wilders @Twitter
Hans Jansen was invited to a dinner by a 50 year old friend, Bertus Hendriks (NL), the friend however is also a leftwing activist for the Palestinan cause. Unknown to Hans Jansen were the other invited guests. It turned out several were judges and prosecutors, one of them was Tom Schalken. Of course Tom Schalken is not just a judge, he is one of the three judges who ordered the trial against Geert Wilders. During the dinner the judge repeatedly steered the conversation with Jansen to the Wilders trial. The judge clearly wanted to talk about it with Hans Jansen and influence his opinions about the trial. But Hans Jansen writes he was not very impressed by his obviously fake friendly way of convincing him.
In a way that can only add to conspiratorial mindset about this trial Judge Tom Schalken confirmed the dinner, and said there was not illegal about it. What was against the rules was that Hans Jansen spoke about the dinner publicly.
"I don’t know about the values at the Amsterdam judiciary. But it shows a bit, if I may use layman terms, that the court that ordered the prosecution of Wilders are a bit legal punks, not people with descent manners"
-- Hans Jansen @ Pow News on National Television yesterday about the dinner
The story has received wide public attention. Thus when todays trial begun, defense lawyer Moszkowicz refered to the press stories and asked the court to hear Mr. Hans Jansen again in court. The prosecution objected and argues that the incident was after the court ruled to prosecute Wilders and thus the incident was of no influence of prejudiced of judge Schalken. But Moszkowicz countered that he also wanted to know if the judge has tried to influence an expert witness in this trial and that his behavior could also clarify his earlier behavior in the court ruling that ordered the prosecution of Wilders.
Although, Hans Jansen was present in the court, the court rejected the request without motivation but in a rather cryptic way. They court said something like: they will not hear Mr. Jansen today, but that the issue will stay part of their deliberations and that they might hear him later if they deem that necessary.
After a short deliberation defense lawyer Moszkowicz requested for the second time a substitution court (Dutch: 'wraking') to ask for the disqualification of this court on grounds that he may not hear a key witness in this trial that can proof the innocence of Mr. Wilders and thus the defense can no longer assume the court is without prejudiced against Mr. Wilders.
The court of substitution is of course also an Amsterdam court. Thus the court of substitution is filled with the colleagues of the current court and with colleagues of the court that ordered the prosecution against Mr. Wilders. The question now is, how many dinner guest of Hans Jansen will be on this court?