Wilders to get a re-trial – Judge caught influencing key witness
Despite the Prosecution requesting that the charges against Geert Wilders be dropped, the Appeal’s court refused the request and insisted on hounding Mr Wilders. Of course it is nothing more than intimidation and acting all politically correct as the Marxist/Socialists realise that if Wilders wins his case then the anti-Islamic flood gates are going to open all across Europe – as we’re currently seeing. The UN is doing its best to stop any negative views of Islam – and no wonder seeing as most of their committees are now made up of Muslims and is heavily weighted in their favor. At the initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the UN is on the verge of requiring all member states to pass laws criminalizing “the defamation of religions, including Islam.” – wow, what a surprise – a return to the Dark Ages is upon us.
However, it now appears as if one of the judges on the Wilders’ case has been caught trying to influence a key witness. Geert Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz appealed yesterday for the trial judges to be replaced due to their prejudice – his appeal has been granted, and the panel of judges will be replaced.
From Gate of Vienna:
This brief account from Elsevier with the stunning news that one of the judges in the Wilders case may have attempted to influence the expert witness Hans Jansen before the trial. Many thanks to VH for the translation:
Request to challenge the court assigned: new judges for Wilders
[October 22, 2010] The disqualification court has approved the challenge request of the Geert Wilders. Thereby the trial of the PVV leader will be delayed many months.
Geert Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz submitted a disqualification request against the judges.
One judge of the Court, Tom Schalken, dined with expert witness Hans Jansen a few days before the trial and spoke on that occasion about the trial against the PVV leader. According to Moszkowicz, Tom Schalken thereby exceed his powers; he should not have been talking about the case may have tried to influence the witness.
Bram Moszkowicz discredits by the judges, as they did not immediately approve to the request to hear the expert witness Mr. Hans Jansen again. The disqualification court supports the conclusion that delay can be seen as a rejection.
According to Moszkowicz the impartiality of the judges is in question, since they in fact are subsidiary to the judges of the Appeal Court, and the Appeal Court had gone too far anyway, because they in fact already convicted Wilders before the judges ruled.
The Appeal Court decided that the OM had to prosecute Wilders. Initially, the Prosecution didn’t want this. Schalken at the dinner had tried to convince Jansen of the necessity of the trial against Wilders.
Wilders has filed a complaint against Tom Schalken. He accuses him of “mafia practices”.
 “I wonder what kind of circus I ended up in” said Wilders. “A counselor of the court who ordered my prosecution has attempted to influence an expert witness. I find this a huge mess.” [source: Elsevier]