The representative of Juntos por el Cambio Pablo Tonelli asked the Impeachment Committee on Tuesday to
dismiss and annul the testimony of Judge K Alejo Ramos Padilla as mendacious, inaccurate, fanciful, reckless, false and speculative
about the cause of Operativo Puf and the impeachment petitions against him.
The former judge of Dolores and current judge of La Plata
testified under oath to tell the truth
on February 23 at the request of the Kirchner deputies.
In a presentation, Tonelli - who was a member of the Judicial Council until last year - "the witness did not testify truthfully and about facts of which he had direct knowledge and through his senses, but rather lied, he
affirmed things that he never perceived or occurred, omitted to account for all the facts that he did know, made inaccuracies that denote bad faith, speculated
on matters that he obviously did not know about, made assumptions and statements without foundation and, worse, accused me of absolutely false behaviors and criteria,” Tonelli said in a document delivered to the president of the commission, the Peronist deputy Carolina Gaillard.
“It is about a witness
lacking suitability
(arg. art. 456 of the CPCC) whose testimony I leave contested and I request that it be discarded.
At the next meeting of the commission I will present complete copies of file 35/19 and its accumulated 58/19 of the Council of the Magistracy, so that its certification by the member deputies allows corroboration of everything stated here and the mendacity of the witness ", held.
On February 23, Ramos Padilla, Tonelli recalled, stated that he had "an open impeachment trial for two years" which "
is not entirely true
."
In the case of lower magistrates, their prosecution or “political trial” requires a decision by the plenary of the Council of the Magistracy and the consequent intervention of the Jury of Enjuiciamiento (art. 115 of the National Constitution)”.
look too
Another setback for Cristina Kirchner: they removed a judge K from the case for Operative Puf
In the particular case of Judge Alejo Ramos Padilla, "he was subjected to
an investigation, which is prior to the accusation or prosecution
, carried out by the Commission for Discipline and Accusation of the Council of the Magistracy (file 35/2019 and its accumulated 58 /2019)”.
That investigation began on March 15, 2019 and concluded on June 5, 2020, thus lasting only one year and three months.
And the complaint was dismissed by the majority K “both by the commission and by the plenary session of the Judicial Council, there was never an accusation or a true “prosecution” or “political trial”.
In the "most mendacious" part of his statement, the witness stated that "on the basis of wiretapping, in which I did not participate, a political trial was carried out against me, on the 35th of 2019, and just in case I brought the opinion that expressly states that the reasons for which Dr. Tonelli promoted the process based on a complaint by Mahiques and the Civic Coalition was having attended the Freedom of Expression Commission on March 13, 2019, having requested assistance from the Truth and Justice Program and having been mentioned in telephone conversations held by third parties.”
In the first place, Tonelli specified, "
it is false
that I promoted this investigation or process and much more false is that this non-existent impulse was based on wiretapping."
"I had to intervene in that file as an instructor counselor, as a result of the draw carried out in the Disciplinary and Accusation Commission, but
I did not present any opinion or opinion of an accusatory nature
, much less based on wiretapping," Tonelli explained.
Then he said that "he was not satisfied with that
lie
, the witness added that" for this reason a political trial was carried out against me, and obviously I know that this is of interest to you because there was also a leak of those wiretaps - I am referring to even to the audios - in which Mr. Bonadío and Deputy Tonelli participated, who delivered them to Mr. Bonadío without anyone asking for them "".
“The witness attributed to me an alleged participation in an also alleged leak of wiretaps, without any proof.
The accusation
is not only false but also unusually serious,
especially having been made without any evidence to support such a claim.
Saying, anything can be said, as the witness did throughout his statement, but proving reckless claims, like this one about the leak, is something very different, ”he highlighted.
"And it is evident that there is no evidence that involves me in the alleged leak, which
is not even accredited
and in which I had nothing to do if it really had existed," he stressed.
He assured that "the truth of the matter falsely stated by the witness is that, in my capacity as examiner of file 35/2019 and its accumulated 58/2019, I received, on May 24, 2019 and without having requested it, a letter sent by the judge Bonadío through which he provided me with "material classified by intelligence law 23,520 (mod. law 27,126) which must be kept confidential, limiting its access to the fewest number of people possible..."
Tonelli insisted that "Ramos Padilla
was neither charged nor subjected to any "political trial"
, there was no use of any wiretapping and the preliminary investigation instance did not last three years
but just fifteen months
."
Later, he recalled that Ramos Padilla said that "if what is being discussed is the validity of wiretapping in a political trial, it is clear that there is the "Olivetto doctrine" or the "Tonelli doctrine" that consider that, in these cases, they are you listen to them”.
Another false claim
.
That "Tonelli doctrine" does not exist, because as the witness knows perfectly well, I never formulated a project directly, nor did I encourage or propose the use of wiretaps, much less did I consider them valid.
"The so-called "doctrine"
is an invention or a fantasy of the witness,
in addition to a lie formulated repeatedly under oath to tell the truth," he said.
In other words, "the witness Ramos Padilla insisted on sustaining a falsehood, perhaps with the purpose
of misleading this commission or public opinion
following the present process."
The witness later said that "on this wiretapping railing... on May 24, 2019, the secretary of the Council of the Magistracy says that he received the recordings... but he says that, in compliance with what was ordered by counselor Tonelli, to Whoever directed the official letter and in the case of classified material informs the rest of the commission, at 5 or 7 in the afternoon, the content of these wiretaps.
So that?
So that it would appear on Sunday in the Lanata program ”.
Tonelli said that these are “
very serious and false statements.
The witness accuses me of spreading the wiretaps involving him, for which he bases himself on assumptions without the slightest objective foundation.
The biggest falsehood
consists in affirming that the other councilors did not receive the material”.
“The thing about the “handrail”
is an invention and a temerity of the witness.
On the other hand, the witness attributes a certain and concrete intention to me, without having the slightest element to support his lie,” Tonelli specified.
Lastly, as "another example of
the inaccuracies and lack of reliability
regarding the veracity and good faith with which the witness acted, he highlighted that in a passage of his statement he referred to" the political prisoners of pavilions C and D ””, in allusion to the former Minister of Planning Julio De Vido and other former officials K imprisoned.
However, when asked for details in this regard, he maintained that he had not used that expression: "if you heard me correctly, I said "political prisoners", but well, I think it was a deputy from the ruling party who said that, but I said “political prisoners” and I was referring to the people who were there”.
"Obvious and flagrant contradiction"
, concluded Tonelli.
look too
Juan Ramos Padilla attacked the Court in an act in support of Cristina Kirchner
