You have to wonder whether the perversity by the revolution was on purpose or just coincidencal. Last week, on International Women’s Day 2012, there were two separate judicial decisions in Venezuela: In the first one, Judge Maria Affiuni’s appeal against the extension for two more years of her detention, was denied by Appeals Court. In the second one, Edmundo Chirinos, who was sentenced to twenty years in jail for the murder of 18 year old patient Roxana Vargas, was given by the Appeals Court the benefit of serving his sentence at home.
The difference? Judge Affiuni should be tried in freedom according to the law, as she has been in jail for more than two years without a trail Despite this, the Appeals Court extends her jailing for two more years, which she is spending at home because she is ill. Of course, she can’t even get treatment in Venezuela, as she is not allowed to be visited by a Doctor or to go to a Doctor.
Giving Chirinos the benefit of serving his sentence at home is perfectly legal, such a benefit is contemplated by the law for people over 70 years old. He is 77.
However, Chirinos told reporter Ibeyise Pacheco, that he only turned himself in because he thought his connections to Chavismo would save him and if he were given the benefit of serving his sentence at home, he would escape.
Curiously, Affiuni is in jail for freeing an enemy of the Government who had also been in jail for two years without a trial. She applied the law and Chavez suggested she should be jailed. Which she was. The Prosecutor has never been able to show that there was any irregularity.
Meanwhile, Chirinos was given the 20 year sentence explicitly at the Yare II jail. He can now go home and even try to escape thanks to the appeals Court.
Happy Perverse Revolutionary Women’s Day!
The Devil's Excrement 
March 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm
In democratic societies, it’s totally unheard of for a judge to be prosecuted for making an “illegal” decision.
Simply because, there’s no such thing.
A judge can make a wrong decision based upon the pretexts of the law–but it can never be criminal. And the only democratic remedy is removal of the judge based on the law, and certainly not criminal prosecution.
It’s called separation of powers, and if given a choice between her interpretation of the law and Chavez’s, I think I’ll go with her.
Fuck Hugo. I’ve had enough of this bullshit. I pray and waitfor the rest of his cancer to put him in the dirt.
March 13, 2012 at 8:59 pm
This is disgusting-
http://babalublog.com/2012/03/female-islamic-faces-must-be-scrupulously-hidden-but-howze-bout-female-islamic-booties/
March 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm
I think you meant contumacious, Miguel.
I lean toward the side of “coincidental”, aided by ignorance, greed and corruption. But that’s another story.
March 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm
“You have to wonder whether the perversity by the revolution was on purpose or just coincidental”
Interesting word:
“perversus”?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perverse
March 12, 2012 at 3:22 pm
The MUD has a program for voting day and the REP, I dont know what it is, but someone very competent I know gave up his job for a year to lead that.
March 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Is this real? https://p.twimg.com/AlFBQM7CMAAQ31I.jpg and if real what are the MUD doing about it?
March 13, 2012 at 5:24 am
if you run those cedula numbers thru the cne page all the names come up. Most of them seem to be in Cafetal but the Muñoz one has the address listed as the consulate in Houston
March 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Just slightly off topic, I will note that the President of the USA has declared (by executive order, I believe) that he has the right to order the killing of anyone, anywhere in the world, including US citizens, without due process or even a criminal investigation, if he, the president, has determined said person is or could be a threat to the security of the US (read US government). Hugo’s hubris doesn’t yet go that far. Though he probably wishes it could.
March 12, 2012 at 1:54 pm
M-are you sure?
“Hugo’s hubris doesn’t yet go that far. Though he probably wishes it could.”
March 12, 2012 at 2:07 pm
That’s certainly a misstatement of the US position. First of all, no one claims the right to kill anyone inside of the US, except after a full trial, with all guaranteed rights. Then, if the legislature has provided for the death penalty for that offence, and the judge or jury agrees it should be imposed, it will be.
So, this has zero to do with how Afiuni is being treated, inside Venezuela. She has legal rights, and the government there doesn’t respect them.
Outside of the US, historically the Executive has the right to determine who is at war with the US, and if they present a threat to the population of the US, they may be killed. That was the case, for example, of the “Barbary Pirates”. Some people think that, in the conditions of the “War on Terror”, the President should have to justify such a serious decision before a special judge. That may well be a good idea, but no such court exists. For the President to be able to do this, Congress would have to set up such a court, and invest it with this supervisory power. They haven’t.
So Obama is faced with people, maybe even US citizens like Mr. Al-Awaki, holed up abroad, who cannot easily be arrested. So he either acts, or dithers because it’s unprecedented to kill US citizens without a trial.
The US debate on the Executive power in these circumstances has to do with how established legal principles are to be applied.
March 12, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Jeffry House
The US President either “dithers” or “acts” when deciding whether or not to murder a US citizen, or anyone else, without a trial? I give thanks to all that is holy that I have more morals and ethics in my smallest fingernail than you have in your entire conception of reality. You are one sick puppy.
March 12, 2012 at 10:02 pm
LOL. name calling by anonymous fools hurts sooo bad!
March 12, 2012 at 12:38 pm
In the book Pacheco says that Chirinos turned himself in because he thought his contacts with the Government meant he would not be found guilty.
March 12, 2012 at 12:19 pm
For those not in Venezuela who might not know and I believe is relevant to the issue: Dr. Chirinos used to be Hugo Chávez shrink,
March 12, 2012 at 10:48 am
So just because Afiuni happens to a be a judge you assume her actions were lawful and followed protocal? There is such a thing as corrupt judges you know. Ask the mafia. They buy them all the time. Afiuni freed a white-collar criminal who confessed to stealing millions without following protocal. She literally walked him out of the court and then wrote up the ruling afterwards. I applaud the government for putting her in jail. For too long the courts have been a mockery of justice because of people like Afiuni.
March 12, 2012 at 10:50 am
Nothing has been proven against her, the law is the law, if after two years you have not been tried, you have to go free. She is in jail because Chavez ordered it. Period.
March 12, 2012 at 11:02 am
To say nothing of the fact that Judge Affiuni has breast cancer and is not allowed to leave home to get treatment. Have you ever heard of the COPP? Then what are you talking about? You know so much about the case, you should know about the law, the law clearly says that after two years you go free. Period. No discussion. Even if you murdered somebody you go free if you have not been tried. The problem for clown Chavez is that she would go free if tried, because they have no proof that she did anything except apply the law.
March 12, 2012 at 11:21 am
Here’s the core of the Afiuni case: Where, in God’s name, is the proof, after two and one half years in custody?
In fact, the case collapsed years ago. For people interested in facts, not unsubstantiated accusations, here is some background:
http://jeffryhouse.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=7
In a police state, you go to jail because the Leader says so. Afiuni shows us that Venezuela is such a police state.
March 12, 2012 at 11:30 am
Nobody should be in jail simply because the president order it publicly in a TV show. period.
Nobody should be in jail if there hasn’t been an investigation and enough proof. Period.
I guess that, to use your own words, …”just because Afiuni happens to a be a judge you assume her actions were…” corrupted?
March 12, 2012 at 1:37 pm
I agree with nearly all the above, but I would add one observation: being tried in freedom will not be possible, because that would be utterly inconsistent. How could she be released from jail because her two-year period has been exceeded, when the reason she is in jail is for releasing someone whose two-year period had been exceeded?
It would be as much as admitting that she did the correct thing, so it will not happen. She DID do the right thing, but no one in authority will acknowledge it in any way. And it would undermine their case if they did.
March 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Afiuni broke the law, period. She violated judicial protocol and legal procedures. Cedeno being delayed his trial does not give a judge the right to release him unilaterally without notifying anyone. Delayed trials happen everywhere, court systems are messy. That doesn’t mean we have to release every suspected criminal if he spends a day too long in jail. The circumstances Afiuni released this corrupt banker also make her highly suspect. If she were free, she’d probably be in some bank in Miami right now, cashing out a huge bribe from Cedeno or one of his cronies. We are all equal before the law, including judges, so I’m glad the government is acting firm on this decision.
As for her being severly ill, she looks fine to me. The last time she had a medical exam they ruled out the cancer. Someone doesn’t have cancer just because their defense lawyers say so.
March 12, 2012 at 4:52 pm
And what is the penalty for violating judicial protocol? Not jail, but an examination by the Judicial Board, which will decide whether she should be tried or not. So you believe in the law, but have no respect for the law. Affiuni was randomly assigned the case. The request was to free Cedegno, she did because that is precisely what the law says, independent of whether Cedegno, who also had been in jail more than two years without a trail, had done. The law applies to corrupt people, criminals, to everyone, no trial within two years you are free and have to report. THAT IS THE LAW, so you cant reinvent the law at will. That is not what the rule of law is all about, sorry!
March 12, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Yes, wise boy? Has she been tried, or even indicted? Is a trial underway?
What you say about her would constitute slander too. Like the things Hugo Chavez said about her, that I hope will be used against him.
March 13, 2012 at 11:05 am
“That doesn’t mean we have to release every suspected criminal if he spends a day too long in jail”
First, what “we”?
Second, there is apparently a Venezuelan law which says one can only be held in prison for a maximum of two years prior to a trial and conviction. I suspect this was implemented to minimize the harm from someone getting arrested on trumped-up charges, or at least that would be a benefit of that. I’m sure you can imagine that being abused by the wrong folks, no? That was ostensibly her reason for releasing Cedeno in the first place.
As I understand it, laws do not give us “rights” to do things (such as for a judge to release a prisoner awaiting trial). Laws give us OBLIGATIONS. If this law is indeed what it is reported to be – and since there has never been any argument that it did not, to my knowledge, but feel free to prove me wrong – then she had no right to release Cedeno, but she did have the obligation to do so.
And the Venezuelan government has the same obligation to release her now, health issues (and she doesn’t not have cancer, not that that’s the only potential problem, just because some anonymous blog commenter questions it – or are you her doctor?) or not.
“The circumstances Afiuni released this corrupt banker also make her highly suspect. If she were free, she’d probably be in some bank in Miami right now, cashing out a huge bribe from Cedeno or one of his cronies”
Something tells me if any such evidence existed, we would have heard about it already. Many, many times. If you think suspicion is enough to put someone in jail, then please let me contact your local cops. I’ve got some suspicions I’d like to share.
March 13, 2012 at 11:08 am
Oh, and if you (and I say you, when I mean the Venezuelan government and/or prosecutors, because you apparently consider yourself part of that group) are afraid of someone ending up in Miami, then why not release them but give them a travel restriction, make them surrender their passport? That’s certainly not the same as jail.
March 13, 2012 at 9:42 pm
That guy Alfiuni freed was according to rumors dating one of Chavez’ daughters, and ended up dumping her and supposedly that was one of the reasons he was in jail “just because”.
March 12, 2012 at 9:34 am
Of course it is coincidental, but it goes beyond that. In Affiuni’s case, the law says you have to be freed. In Chirinos’ case, you can or not be given the benefit of house arrest, it is optional not obligatory. Chririnos is a friend of the Government, Affiuni, is not.
March 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
I don’t quite like the relationship between the title and the events, Miguel. What you wanted to show is that in one case (Chirinos), the law is strictly applied even for a terrible crime while in the other case (Afiuni), the law is totally overlooked. But the fact that these two events happened on March 8, is totally coincidental.
In fact, Chirinos could have killed a male patient instead of a female patient, and he would still be given house arrest because of his age.
Afiuni could be a male judge, instead of a woman judge, and still be denied her appeal to be freed.
What is presposterous is the treatment of the two cases: a doctor that kills a patient is given house arrest and a judge that applied the law is denied her freedom and her medical treatment.
March 11, 2012 at 10:27 pm
http://babalublog.com/2012/03/photo-of-the-day-24/
Gotta love this!!!