Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Orams Judgment was a politically motivated one!

I have read the judgment several times and I have no doubt that the Orams v Apostolides judgment was a politically motivated one, with the Turkish political thesis fully in mind, as it also seems to be adopted by the British Department of State under the current Tony Blair’s UK government administration.

Here is the full text of the Judgment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... _1,00.html

One doesn’t need to read further into the merits of the decision to realize it. The fact that the judgment was a politically motivated one is obvious from the introduction (paragraph 1) of Mr. Jack’s judgment, in which he profoundly uses political extemporizations rather than legally established concepts in order to introduce the underlining grounds of his overall approach. It is my strong belief that a judge is not supposed to do this!

In paragraph 1 of the Introduction, he says only the following:

“These appeals raise the question of the enforceability in England of judgments of the courts of the Republic of Cyprus concerning land within the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Turkish Republic is not recognised by the United Kingdom or by any country save Turkey, but it has de facto control of the area which it occupies. The appeals have an importance which extends far beyond the parties to them.”

He chooses to use the term “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” without inverted commas, even though it is a standard common practice in nearly all languages of the world to do so, when referring to non-recognized and legally invalid entities. It is even a syntax rule of the English grammar, when making refference to words, terms or concepts that are dubious or their meaning is disputable. One would have expected a judge to have been among the last people on earth to do such a “mistake” when referring to an illegal and non-valid entity from an international law perspective. He chooses not to do so, not because he doesn’t know this rule of syntax, but deliberately in my opinion, and this reviles his politically motivated intentions right from the start.

He treats the two entities in the first sentence of the above paragraph as if they more or less have the same status, by placing them on either side of the scale or across each other, and claims that the “appeals raise the question of the enforceability” of the courts of the one (RoC) concerning land within the territory of the other (“TRNC,”) contrary to international law which regards and recognizes the territories claimed by the “TRNC” to be de jure territories of the RoC. He refuses to make mention of the fact that the “TRNC” is a non-existing entity in international law, and he even accepts that this non-valid entity has its “own territories” (“land within the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”) …he says. He shows no regard to the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the Loizidou case and the UN resolutions which simply recognize the said areas to be sovereign areas of the RoC under Turkish occupation, and the “TRNC” to be an imposed regime of the occupying country (Turkey) with no legal substance. He chooses to disguise these facts of international law, and he makes his own arbitrary and politically motivated assumptions.

In the second sentence of the above paragraph, he says that “The Turkish Republic is not recognised by the United Kingdom or by any country save Turkey, but it has de facto control of the area which it occupies.” Again, he “fails” or deliberately avoids to indicate that the “TRNC” is not recognized by the UK or any other country simply because it is based in an area or it claims to “own” control of an area that is part of the sovereignty of another recognized entity (the RoC,) illegally occupied (in international law) by a foreign country (Turkey.) He refuses to call things and issues by their names -as they accepted and /or are referred to in the letter and the spirit of international law, as it would have been his duty as a judge of a hypothetically international law abiding country to have done so, and instead he tries to extemporize in order to as much as possible appear fanciful to those that have an interest in reading the case.

My conclusion, and irrespective of the validity of the merits on which the judge based his final decision, is that he was biased right from start, with an obvious desire to play down the international legality framework surrounding the dispute, and more keen in adopting political views and ideas, either those accepted by Turkey and the TCs, or (most definatelly) those behind the scenes political views supported by the current British administration under the guidance of Tony Blair’s government, in promoting its international “diplomatic” agendas and "initiatives."

[laptanige]

The words of frankie howard in a carry on film spring to mind.... IMFAMY INFAMY THEY HAVE ALL GOT IT IN FOR ME

[lysi]

The words of frankie howard in a carry on film spring to mind.... IMFAMY INFAMY THEY HAVE ALL GOT IT IN FOR ME

LAPTA NIGEL, THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE TURKISH BANANA REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS.
WWW.LOBBYFORCYPRUS.ORG
WWW.MISSING-CY.ORG

[Swashbuckler]

No Lysi, get it right.

We're the "Moullahia" Republic of Northern Cyprus. If, of course, you know what moullahia is?

(Anyone any ideas for the South? How about the Souvlaki Southern Republic? Or given how Tassos is another Papadoc, how about "Eatern Haiti"?)

[Piratis]

Kifeas, I total agree with you. This became even more obvious since the time that Blair had his own wife to defend those criminal scumbags.

The British and USA governments continue to fully support Turkey (and Israel and a few other terrorist states) as this is what serves their interests better. Justice in the UK/USA exists only as far as it does not affect their strategic interests. Beyond that there is no justice, and they don't have a problem to excuse and support criminals like the Orams, or to have secret jails were their enemies are held without even a trial.

In the specific case of the Orams however I don't worry. The will be punished one one way or another. Then we will see if similar scumbags like them will dare to openly support their criminal actions.

[Pyrpolizer]

Kifeas the fact that the judge refered to the name of the pseudo 3 times on the very first page without using quotation marks and generally as you describe it were mentioned from the very first date by Viewpoint WITH GREAT PRIDE! Have a look at the previous topics.

It is about time we learn that by releying on the honesty of any single individual is extremely dangerous. In this case all Turkey had to do is buy the judge and the UK Prime ministers wife. With Anan Plan, all they had to do was buy De Soto and Verhoigen.

I don’t know from how many judges the appeal will be examined. If it is 12 (as it is here) then be sure they will buy at least 3.

Did you notice how easily he turned down the argument that the decision of RoC court was against Uks public policy? This was the major argument every lawyer was expecting... In my opinion he did so deliberately. The court of appeals will turn down his decission based on protocol 10 yet justify it based on "UK public policy" … This circus show will of course end up once for all in the EU, but I am not sure how long that will take.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas the fact that the judge refered to the name of the pseudo 3 times on the very first page without using quotation marks and generally as you describe it were mentioned from the very first date by Viewpoint WITH GREAT PRIDE! Have a look at the previous topics.

It is about time we learn that by releying on the honesty of any single individual is extremely dangerous. In this case all Turkey had to do is buy the judge and the UK Prime ministers wife. With Anan Plan, all they had to do was buy De Soto and Verhoigen.

I don’t know from how many judges the appeal will be examined. If it is 12 (as it is here) then be sure they will buy at least 3.

Did you notice how easily he turned down the argument that the decision of RoC court was against Uks public policy? This was the major argument every lawyer was expecting... In my opinion he did so deliberately. The court of appeals will turn down his decission based on protocol 10 yet justify it based on "UK public policy" … This circus show will of course end up once for all in the EU, but I am not sure how long that will take.

Always a conspiracy theory against GCs, why are people always out to get GCs as soon as they take a knock? Why is everyone else always wong and GCs always right? I wonder

[Pyrpolizer]

from the very first date by Viewpoint WITH GREAT PRIDE!

No further comments you honour

[Pyrpolizer]

day instead of date

[stuballstu]

Piratis wrote

Kifeas, I total agree with you. This became even more obvious since the time that Blair had his own wife to defend those criminal scumbags.

The British and USA governments continue to fully support Turkey (and Israel and a few other terrorist states) as this is what serves their interests better. Justice in the UK/USA exists only as far as it does not affect their strategic interests. Beyond that there is no justice, and they don't have a problem to excuse and support criminals like the Orams, or to have secret jails were their enemies are held without even a trial.

In the specific case of the Orams however I don't worry. The will be punished one one way or another. Then we will see if similar scumbags like them will dare to openly support their criminal actions.

Piratis

you have completely ommited the fact that the land was sold originally by a Cypriot to another Cypriot who then sold it to the Orams. If the Orams are in your mind "criminals" then surely the other Cypriots are also the same. Why doesn't your government do something about that after all these are Cypriot citizens who are selling the land. Which ones are the criminals in your eyes?