2013. március 28., csütörtök

The Trajectory of Democracy: Why Hungary Matters




The Trajectory of Democracy: Why Hungary Matters 

The hearing begins at 40:41


The Helsinki Commission heard the testimonies from three different panels regarding the growing concern on the rise of tyranny in Hungary on Tuesday, March 19, 2013.

The most relative testimony to the Hagyó Case comes from Constitutional Law expert, and former Hungarian resident, Kim Lane Scheppel. Her speech begins at 1:49:00.


Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com/

The 4th Amendment (Un)officially Strips Hungary of Democracy

“We are people too!” People protest the 4th amendment outside of Parliament in Budapest on March 11, 2013.

Hungary has again made international headlines. As in the recent past, it is because of the political antics of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz cronies, who wield a super-majority presence in the legislative body, Parliament.






Mainstream international media powerhouses like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Al Jazeera, Spiegel, and BBC all reported on the newest amendment to the 14-month-old constitution.

Former CEO of BKV Is In The Hot Seat

On March 5th, the Kecskemét Tribunal in Hungary saw the continuation of the trial of the Miklós Hagyó and 14 other defendants associated with the Budapest Transit Company (BKV).




The hearing was fairly mundane – not much fresh information was presented.

The most interesting occurrence, though, involved Mr. István Kocsis. He was promoted to CEO of the transit company immediately following Zsolt Balogh’s time in the high seat. Kocsis therefore was responsible for transferring the demanded BKV-related data to the investigation authorities. Included in the submitted material was an internal audit of BKV’s operations. According to Erzsébet Székelyné, the current director of communications at BKV, the audit ordered by Kocsis was hastily created. She stated in court during the March 5th hearing that because of the imposed sense of urgency around the audits, they were not “substantial.”

Justice or No Justice: The Prosecution Manipulates the Indictment, Again



Justice or No Justice: The Prosecution Manipulates the Indictment, Again


Justice or No Justice: The Prosecution Manipulates the Indictment, Again
The trial of Miklós Hagyó and 14 other defendants continued in Kecskemét, Hungary on February 28th. During the hearing, the court witnessed another alteration to the indictment. This time, the changes were made to the alleged financial damage accumulated to the Budapest Transit Company (BKV). Unfortunately, the article from which I get this information does not detail the modifications. I would not be surprised if the prosecution and/or the Kecskemét Tribunal obstructs this information from the public.
The prosecution has already changed the charges in the indictment many times. In fact, defendants and followers of the case have dubbed the indictment the “political pamphlet.” This, no doubt, refers to the widely held belief that the case is show trial – a highly publicized trial in which the verdict is rigged. One cannot help but sympathize.
Out of curiosity, I briefly researched the possibility to change the original charges of an indictment in two other judicial systems which are usually considered “fair” and objective.
According to the Department of Justice’s website, it is generally forbidden to alter the original indictment charges in the United States. For example, the 1962 case of Russell v. United States yielded the opinion that if the original charges were changed or amended, then the defendant(s) “could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him.”
In England, the Crown Prosecution Service’s website states that amending the indictment requires “an express order of the court to comply with s5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915.” Otherwise, the amendment is null.
Judicial law permits the alteration of original indictment charges in Hungary. I fail to see, though, how that supports a fair trial. If the prosecution can amend or draft new charges throughout the trial, why even bother to create an indictment in the first place?


Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com/

Hagyó, the AAM Contract, and the Holey Accusations from the Prosecution



Hagyó, the AAM Contract, and the Holey Accusations from the Prosecution

Hagyó, the AAM Contract, and the Holey Accusations from the Prosecution
The Budapest Metro Line 4 (Metro4) has for many years been a major project for the Budapest Transit Authority (BKV). Once finished, it will be the first fully automated metro line in Hungary. Totaling more than 12 kilometers (7.5 miles), it will pass from south Buda under the Danube River and continue deep into Pest. The project has been notorious, however, for its continuity. Critics of the project have considered its progress slow and its management incompetent; tell-tale signs of government corruption. Those in charge of the project say that a lack of resources and manpower are the true hindrances.
Miklós Hagyó is quite familiar with the project. From 2006 to 2010 he served as deputy mayor of Budapest, and in that capacity he was responsible for the political oversight of the city’s assets. In the trial of Hagyó and the other 14 associates of BKV, the prosecution claims that Hagyó “instructed” then chief executive of BKV Attila Antal to strike up a business agreement with the Hungarian consulting firm AAM, who has a strong public sector track record. The alleged purpose of the arrangement was the creation of an assessment report on Metro4. It intended to ascertain the quality and progress of the project’s “management, the administration, as well as quality assurance activities.” The prosecutors assert that Hagyó was required to present the report to the City Council’s Budget Committee.
At this point, everything seems fairly normal. As usual with the Hagyó Case, though, the abnormalities appear when one analyzes the prosecution’s accusations and methodology.  Regarding the contract with AAM, the prosecution claims in the indictment on page 17 section 21 the services provided by AAM were “unnecessary,” and they caused BKV financial damages totaling 50,093,400 forints (nearly 230,000.00 USD at the time of writing).
Here arises the first question: By what means has the prosecution determined this contract to be unnecessary? There are most certainly no explanations provided in the original indictment. Neither has the prosecution explained thus far in the trial how this contract and the related work were unnecessary.  Besides that simple question, the major refute to this assertion is that the prosecution admittedly neglected to seek consultation from any organization or individual who could be capable of accurately determining the necessity of the AAM contract.
On the other hand, Miklós Hagyó did provide ample evidence for the worthiness of the contract during his first in-court testimony. Perhaps most significantly, though, Hagyó indicated that while he scoured through tens of thousands of pages of collected evidence related to the AAM contract, he failed to find the actual Metro4 assessment report…Let me repeat that: The prosecution did not provide the assessment report of the Metro4 project in the case file. Mind you, this accusation that Hagyó “instructed” his subordinate to create a needless contract with AAM from which he could extort a significant sum of money was one of the most significant reasons Hagyó was forced to endure nine months of hard jail time prior to the trial. The AAM accusation was one of the biggest indicators that Hagyó was an Al Capone-like figure, dictating his less capable minions to do his dirty deeds. Indeed, this questionably “unnecessary” contract which Hagyó allegedly “instructed” his subordinate to create is a major catalyst for the entire trial.  And the prosecution did not even include the report, the primary evidence, in the case file.
Other parts of Hagyó’s testimony strongly support the necessity of the AAM contract. For example, he included several quotes from then City Council members who reviewed the report produced by AAM. Here are a few excerpts:
“It is a very fair, well-prepared report. It also shows that we got a lot of information.”
– Former Minister of Transport Katona Kálmán
“We can thank both the referring Deputy Mayor [Miklós Hagyó] and László Becker [Metro4 Commissioner] that this material was prepared…”
- Dr. Gábor Dancs
There are more which attested to the necessity and value of the assessment report from AAM.  They are available in this section of Hagyó’s testimony. He also systematically explains how he was not directly involved with the Metro4 project or AAM. According to him, the Metro Commissioner László Becker held the reigns for the project’s development.  Hagyó claimed that he was merely the political representative of the project for the City Council.
Despite, these shortcomings in the validity of the prosecution’s case against Hagyó, the trial persists. When I inquire to those who follow the case how this is possible – how a trial can subsist when an overwhelming amount of evidence supports innocence of the defendants – the Hungarians just shrug their shoulders. “It’s Hungary. It’s normal,” is a typical response.
Please visit http://www.hagyomiklos.com to view the original indictment and the testimony of Miklós Hagyó.

BKV case: the prosecution quipped to the Népszava


BKV case: the prosecution quipped to the Népszava
The prosecution disapproved the latest report of the Népszava on the Thursday’s hearing of the Hagyó case on the Kecskemét Tribune. We wrote that on the hearing of the former BKV leader who gave opinions about the contracts what were signed at the time of the main defendant of the case, Hagyó Miklós (former deputy lord mayor), it turned out that the witness of the prosecution agreed her testimony with the present leader of communication at the BKV.

We also reported that the prosecution made the witness to give back the glucose (candy) what she got from Hagyó Miklós, because according to the prosecution it can be suitable to have the “sympathy pique” of the witness.


According to the prosecution the published article which came out during the break of the hearing could influence the witness with the comments of our article what they criticized and the similar phenomenon’s can effect in the future that the witnesses will pick their words. However the defendants – from them occasionally Hagyó – continually communicate, they socialize/touch with the reporters who are in the hearing, the prosecution thinks that behind the writing which can influence the witnesses is „Hagyó’s impact”.
Kádár András, the lawyer of Hagyó Miklós on the hearing indicated that he feels a twin standard in the observation of the prosecution. „They labeled my protégée as the number one public enemy, they outraged him in the nation media, but in that time they didn’t take the stand” – drafted the lawyer.

Kádár also remembered, that the character of the Népszava report, whom the prosecution disapproved of, the BKV leader who was heard as a witness wanted to be in the media herself, because she signaled in the crossfire of the cameras and of the photographers that they can make pictures and sound recording of her and she allows the usage of the records. 


The BKV case after the interact, continued with the hearing of the witnesses about what henceforward we will report – without bias, according to the letters of the records what is available on the internet (www.hagyomiklos.com). 

On Thursday’s hearing on the court they heard 3 leaders of companies what were signed for BKV’s PR communication tasks. According to the indictment the contracts were unneeded and unsubstantiated. After the Népszava, the prosecution had to hang up in their witnesses too, because according to them the BKV was unable to do it by itself, as the indictment said.
Népszava-information




BKV case: the witness of the prosecution let something slip


BKV case: the witness of the prosecution let something slip
On the hearing of Dezslik Magdolna (who was the head of the department where they made opinions about the contracts of the Hagyó period) it turned out that the witness of the prosecution agreed her testimony with the present communication leader at the transportation company. The writer of the corroborator of the experts’ opinions of the accusations at the time of the direction of Kocsis István admits that she didn’t have experience or diploma for the contract’s audit. Hagyó gave her a candy on the hearing what the prosecution disapproved.
„Yesterday I talked on the phone with the director of the social connections at the BKV. I don’t know if it’s a problem” – said Dezslik Magdolna as an answer for the question of the prosecutor, who is a witness of the prosecution, and the former leader of the public relations at the BKV  on the hearing of the Hagyó case on the Kecskemét Tribune. As we already reported the mentioned Székelyné Pásztor Erzsébet the present leader of the communication was heard in the court, also as a witness on Tuesday. For the question of her defenders Dezslik first answered that they had a „psychic talk” with her former boss, but later she admitted that they were talking about their paradox statements against Hagyó and his fellows.

(Picture: www.thesecret.hu)

Dezslik Magdolna was engaged to the BKV by Kocsis István and she audited the contracts from the Hagyó period with him, from what later the accusations became which is the basis of the case. From most of the contracts since the beginning of the case it turned out that they existed before Hagyó and his fellows and it still exists.

On the hearing Dezslik Magdolna also admitted that she gave „expert opinions” for the accusations what Kocsis did about the BKV contracts that she didn’t have a professional qualification. „I didn’t have a diploma, I’m not an expert, I couldn’t give an expert opinion” –drafted the witness. About her carrier before the preparation of the BKV accusations she told that she was working at women’s magazines but it was boring professionally that’s why she registered at the assistant of Kocsis for the BKV. At the transportation company Dezslik earned 960 thousand forints per month and after helping the preparations of the accusations she left the company.
On the break of the hearing of Thursday Hagyó Miklós gave a candy to the witness what the prosecution observed that it can be suitable to have the sympathy pique of the witness. Dezslik Magdolna gave back the candy to Hagyó, and Hadnagy Ibolya asked the prosecution that doesn’t get away from the point.
NÉPSZAVA-information


Original:

BKV-per: Elszólta magát a vád tanúja

Címkék: kecskemét hagyó miklós bkv per | Szerző: Hagyó Dosszié | 4:30 pm
Dezslik Magdolna, a Hagyó-éra szerződéseit véleményező BKV-főosztályvezető kihallgatásán kiderült, hogy a vád tanúja egyeztette vallomását a közlekedési cég mostani kommunikációs vezetőjével. A Kocsis István irányítása idején tett feljelentéseket alátámasztó szakvélemények írója elismerte, hogy sem releváns tapasztalattal, sem diplomával nem rendelkezett, amikor a szerződéseket vizsgálta. Hagyó cukorkát adott neki a tárgyaláson, amit az ügyészség kifogásolt.
"Tegnap telefonon beszéltem a BKV társasági kapcsolatok igazgatójával. Nem tudom, hogy baj-e" - mondta ügyészi kérdésre adott válaszában Dezslik Magdolna, a vád tanúja, a BKV korábbi közkapcsolati főosztályvezetője a Hagyó-per tárgyalásán, a Kecskeméti Törvényszéken. Mint arról beszámoltunk, az említett Székelyné Pásztor Erzsébetet, a cég jelenlegi kommunikációs vezetőjét kedden szintén tanúként hallgatta meg a bíróság. Védői kérdésre válaszolva Dezslik először azt mondta, hogy csak "lelkiztek" volt főnökével, később azonban elismerte, hogy Hagyóékra nézve terhelő vallomásaik közti ellentmondásról beszéltek.

(Fotó: www.thesecret.hu) 

Dezslik Magdolnát a BKV-hoz Kocsis István vette fel, és vele vizsgáltatta át a Hagyó-éra azon szerződéseit, amelyekből később az ügy alapját képező feljelentések születtek. A szerződések közül többről a per kezdete óta már kiderült, hogy azok Hagyóék előtt és után is éltek és élnek.

A tárgyaláson Dezslik Magdolna azt is elismerte, úgy adott "szakmai véleményt" Kocsis feljelentéseihez a BKV-s szerződésekről, hogy szakirányú végzettséggel nem rendelkezett. "Nem volt diplomám, nem vagyok szakértő, nem tudtam szakvéleményt adni" - fogalmazott a tanú. A BKV-s feljelentések előkészítése előtti pályafutásáról elmondta, hogy női magazinoknál dolgozott, de az unalmas volt szakmailag, ezért jelentkezett be Kocsis titkárnőjénél a BKV-hoz. A közlekedési cégnél Dezslik havi 960 ezer forintot keresett, és a feljelentések előkészítésének segítése után nem sokkal távozott is a cégtől.

A csütörtöki tárgyalás szünetében Hagyó Miklós egy szem cukorkát adott a tanúnak, mire az ügyészség észrevételezte, hogy ez alkalmas lehet a tanú szimpátiájának felkeltésére. Dezslik Magdolna a cukrot visszaadta Hagyónak, Hadnagy Ibolya bírónő pedig arra kérte az ügyészséget, hogy ne térjen el a tárgytól.
NÉPSZAVA-információ /