Batty Boy Cornelius de Weever

UPDATED: Birthday And Easter Greetings To The Former Minister Of Ass-Whuppings And Bribes, The Patriarch Of Rum & Nepotism, Petrus Leroy de Weever, Eva And Ludmilla’s Drunken, Demonic, Daddy

He kicked a female with fibroid tumors in the stomach, and stole her laptop, hoping to REMOVE INCRIMINATING PHOTOS OF HIMSELF, COR MERX, ROY MARLIN THROWING THE PATRICK ILLIDGE BADA BING CASE…Scroll down to see photos

Judgment November 4, 2014 Theft by Petrus Leroy de Weever tablet blogger Judith Roumou on January 11, 2014.

Happy birthday, seasons greetings…. big gifts and surprises. These documents got Leroy de Weever kicked out of Government. He was CONVICTED, video footage proved his assault and theft, but he bought an appeals judge…same way he bought his niece, Cornelius a Ministry and same way he buys his daughters positions. Leroy de Weever THOUGHT he got away.. HOW ARE THEY SCREENING MINISTERS IN SINT MAARTEN? Speaking of INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM🤷🏿‍♀️

HIS ATTORNEY HATZMANN HAS BEEN KICKED OFF BOARD AFTER POSTING RACIST DIATRIBES. I have screenschots

FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Criminal cases about: 2015

Date of judgment: 4 November 2015 Public Prosecutor’s Office number: 100.00011 / 14

Contradiction

COURT IN FIRST INSTANCE OF SINT MAARTEN

PENALTY

in the case against the accused:

Petrus Leroy DE WEEVER,

born on April 1, 1954 in Sint Maarten,

residing in Sint Maarten, at Date Mussel Road 39.

  1. Investigation of the case

The investigation in open court took place on October 14, 2015. The suspect appeared, assisted by his counsel, mrs. S.H.M. Ibrahim and G.

Hatzmann.

The public prosecutor, Mr. D.M. Noordzij, demanded at the hearing that the accused be sentenced to a fine from NAF in respect of the charged act. 750, – in case of non-payment, to be replaced by 15 days in custody.

Counsel spoke in defense. Primarily, the request was made to declare the public prosecutor inadmissible in his prosecution and, in the alternative, to acquit the suspect of the charges charged against him.

  1. Indictment

The accused has been charged that:

on or about 11 January 2014 in Sint Maarten, he has taken away a tablet (Samsung brand), in any case any good, wholly or partly belonging to J.R. Roumou, in any case to someone else or others than the suspect.

  1. Preliminary questions

Validity of the summons

During the hearing, it appeared that the summons meets all legal requirements and is therefore valid.

Criminal cases concerning: 2015 Date of judgment: 4 November 2015

Contradiction

Parquet number: 100.00011 / 14

Jurisdiction of the court

Under the statutory provisions, the court has jurisdiction over the alleged knowledge

to take.

Admissibility of the prosecutor

The defense has argued that the Public Prosecution Service should be declared inadmissible because it carried out prosecution actions before the Common Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (the Court) prosecuted the accused had ordered. Reference is made to a letter of 14 January 2014 in which the Chief Public Prosecutor H. Wesselink to the Advocate General T.H.W. Stein, acting as acting Attorney General, has requested that the criminal investigation department be charged with the investigation of Ms. Roumou of 11 January 2014 against the accused.

The General Court stated first of all that inadmissibility of the public prosecutor can only be a sanction if there are serious violations of the principles of due process, as a result of which the interests of the defendant are deliberately or with gross disregard for his right to a fair treatment of his case has been neglected. “This means that an unlawfulness must be established, that the interests of the suspect in this case must have been affected and that the fair treatment of his case has been deliberately or with gross neglect of those interests. Furthermore, a declaration of inadmissibility by the Public Prosecution Service qualifies as a legal consequence in the prosecution if a serious infringement has been made of principles of due process in which the legal system has gone to the heart of the legal system.

Pursuant to Article 123, first paragraph, of the Constitution of Sint Maarten, a minister or a member of Parliament is prosecuted for committing a crime by the Attorney General or another member of the Public Prosecution Service to be appointed by him, after Order of the Court, at the request of the Attorney General. The procedure is regulated in the National Ordinance on the Prosecution of Political Authorities. Article 2 of this National Ordinance provides that prosecution of a political authority suspected of crime only takes place after an order to prosecute from the Court, at the request of the Attorney General.

Criminal cases about: 2015

Date of judgment: 4 November 2015 Public Prosecutor’s Office number: 100.00011 / 14

Contradiction

On the basis of established case law, an act of prosecution exists if it concerns an act aimed at obtaining an enforceable decision from the court (NJ 2014/227).

From the documents in the file it appears that the public prosecutor only committed an act on 16 December 2014 aimed at obtaining an enforceable decision from the court, being the submission of a claim for a judicial procedure. preliminary investigation in the case against the suspect before the examining magistrate charged with hearing criminal cases, which was instituted by the examining magistrate on 8 January 2015. It follows from this that the prosecution against the suspect by submitting the aforementioned claim by the public prosecutor, despite the fact that the investigation had already started at an earlier stage, only started on 16 December 2014.

The suspect stated in court that he was a member of Parliament until October 2014. As it appears from the foregoing that the suspect was no longer a Member of Parliament at the time of the prosecution, there is no question of a violation of Article 123, first paragraph, of the Constitution of Sint Maarten, as well as Article 2 of the National Ordinance on the prosecution of political authorities . The defense is therefore rejected.

The investigation in court did not reveal any other facts or circumstances that stand in the way of the public prosecutor’s admissibility. The Public Prosecution Service is admissible in the prosecution of the suspect.

Grounds for suspension of the prosecution

There are no grounds for suspension of the prosecution at the hearing

proved.

  1. Evidence decisions

Proven statement

From the examination at the trial, the court has obtained, through the content of legal evidence, the conviction that the accused committed the charges, on the understanding that it considers it proven that:

Criminal cases concerning: 2015 Date of judgment: 4 November 2015 Contradiction Public Prosecutor’s Office number: 100.00011 / 14

on 11 January 2014, he took away a tablet (Samsung brand) in Sint Maarten for the purpose of unlawful appropriation. In any case any good, wholly or partly belonging to J.R. Roumou, in any case to someone else or others than the suspect

What more or different has been charged, as crossed out in the text, has not been proven, so that the suspect will be acquitted of this.

Insofar as language and / or writing errors occur in the charge, these have been corrected in italics in the proven statement. According to what was discussed at the hearing, the defendant was not harmed by this in the defense.

  1. Evidence

In the event of an appeal, the evidence will be included in an appendix to this judgment.

Evidence Considerations

The Defendant has denied having committed the offense charged to him. The defense has argued that the accused should be acquitted of the charges, because the video images do not show that the defendant took away the tablet from the complainant Roumou and that the witness Peterson did not see the theft of the tablet by the suspect himself.

The court rejects the defense of the defense and is of the opinion that the evidence – including the statements of the complainant and the witness Peterson and the judge’s own observation with regard to the video images shown in court with regard to the object with which the suspect the day has been waved – viewed in mutual coherence and (time) connection, together contain the reasons for the declaration of proven evidence and circumstances.

  1. Qualification and punishability of what has been proven

On June 1, 2015, a new Criminal Code Sint Maarten (AB 2013 no. 2, amended by AB 2015 no. 9) entered into force. The introduction does not provide for transitional provisions, so that the rules contained therein have become immediately applicable. However, insofar as the facts described in the indictment were committed before this date, the following applies.

Criminal cases concerning: 2015 Date of judgment: 4 November 2015

Contradiction of the Public Prosecutor’s Office number: 100.00011 / 14

Pursuant to Article 1: 1, paragraph 1, of this Code, no act is punishable other than by virtue of a preceding statutory penalty provision. The second paragraph of this article also provides that in the event of a change in the legislation after the time when the offense was committed, the provisions most favorable to the suspect will be applied. Seen in conjunction with each other, these paragraphs mean that, insofar as the provisions of this code regarding the punishment of an offense or the severity of the sanction threatened are not more favorable than those that applied at the time or the period on which the offenses accused of the accused were committed according to the charges, the provisions applicable at that time must be applied. If, in the opinion of the court, such a case occurs, this will be reflected in this judgment, insofar as relevant and not explicitly motivated, in the qualification decision and the statement of the legal regulations applied in the imposition of a punishment or measure.

The proven proven results in:

Theft,

criminalized by article 323 of the Dutch Criminal Code

Antilles.

The proven facts are punishable, now that no facts or circumstances have become plausible that cancel or exclude their punishability.

  1. Punishability of the accused

The suspect is punishable now that no facts or circumstances have become plausible that cancel or exclude his criminality.

  1. Imposition of punishment or measure

In view of the nature and seriousness of the proven and declared punishable, the circumstances under which the suspect was guilty of it and the person of the suspect, as has become clear from the investigation in court, the court considers that decision to be called appropriate. In particular, the following is taken into account.

During a meeting with mrs. Roumou, with whom he has a long-running conflict, is guilty of theft of her tablet. Thefts inconvenient facts that cause nuisance and damage to the injured party and feelings of

Criminal cases concerning: 2015 Date of judgment: 4 November 2015

Contradiction of the Public Prosecutor’s Office number: 100.00011 / 14

cause degradation in society. At the time of the charged offense, the defendant was a Member of Parliament and, in view of the position he occupies in social life, despite the aforementioned long-term conflict with the person reporting the crime, he could and should have been aware of the reprehensibility of his behavior and should have refrained from committing the aforementioned criminal offense. .

All things considered, a different or lighter sentence than imprisonment of a length to be reported will not suffice.

  1. Applicable legal regulations The penalty to be imposed is partly based on articles 27 and 28 of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles.
  2. Decision

The dish:

declares proven that the accused has committed the charged act as deemed proven above;

declares not proven what has been charged or charged differently to the accused and

acquits the suspect of this

declares what has been proven punishable and the suspect punishable for this,

qualifies what has been proven as described above;

orders the suspect to pay a fine from NAF. 750, -, in the absence of payment and recourse to be replaced by detention for the duration of 15 days.

This judgment was rendered by the judge mr. E.M.D. Angela and pronounced in open court of this court on November 4, 2015, in the presence of the Registrar.

Happy birthday to the falling down alcoholic, THIEF and notorious Woman beater. Don’t you love it how women are all about female impowerment, until the ABUSER is in THEIR FAMILY?

I have some birthday gifts for alcoholic woman beater, selector of Ministers and THIEF. Big SURPRISE for the unscrupulous de Weever clan.

Leroy de Weever father of Eva Lista de Weever, and Ludmilla de Weever is St Maarten’s most notorious, misogynistic doman beater. From beating his sister Millicent on stage, to getting drunk and beating down Cormelius.

What he has done to his daughters..

But as long as Daddy gives them a Ministry position, he can beat, steal, even kill it seems. Just to remove INCRIMINATING PHOTOS of Leroy de Weever along with Roy Marlin, with Patrick Illidge Lawyer, Cor Merx. During the Bada Bing trial, Cor Merx was working for Leroy de Weever. What is done in darkness. Speentjes Notary..

Happy Birthday Leroy…. Remember PAYING THE PROSECUTOR, AFTER KICKING A WOMAN IN HER STOMACH WITH TUMORS?

Gifts for Millicent, Cornelius, Ludi, Cornelius….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.