the evidence

fortlaramie.jpg    

Alfred Jacob Miller (1810-1874). Fort Laramie. Oil on canvas 1851. GM Gilcrease permanent collection. Right-clicked from www.gilcrease.org searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com

     There is evidence of his (Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada’s) personal knowledge  that  the witness refuses to detail, a first-hand account, and not just overheard phone conversations  or phone conversations told him: The dinner-meeting sometime November-December 2006 at the  Makati Shangrila where FG sat throughout, with then Comelec chair Benjamin  Abalos, Joey de Venecia, Jun Lozada, and an assistant of FG, all arranged by Ben Abalos to show FG that the parties have reconciled their differences. This evidence is first-hand and can be corroborated,; and,  if true,  shows FG’s hand  in the contract-negotiations, if true, in peddling influence, and if true, in helping broker the deal.     

        Because it’s the witness’s life that’s on the line, and because  his life continues to hang in the balance until and after his direct and cross-examination are completely finished in a court of law or in an impeachment trial, and because no guarantees of safety could be completely given to him as long as  those who ordered him seized at the airport are still running around, only the witness has the right to decide how much of his life he would stake by how much he would disclose.     

        He can either save the important details for an impeachment trial  which may or may not come or wait until after 2010 and hope for a new government.  Today, nobody knows for sure how the Senate investigation would go, although you can be sure that the politicians who want to be President in 2010 are milking the most publicity they could  from his life; how many of them would be willing to set aside their ambition and investment for an impeached and convicted President resulting in the Vice President  succeeding for the remainder of the term?     

         Not having his own army, not being a warlord, not having a trove and a bailiwick, he survived the agents of the state solely on his wits and the political pressure created by the storm of the scandal (his family’s embrace  and quick thinking, the nuns’ strength of  faith, the relentlessness of the media, and the vigilance and indignance of concerned organizations).      

           His instincts should probably be trusted should he decide to save the details in an undisclosed affidavit or for an uncertain impeachment trial or a more uncertain  new and upright government.     

          He is holding back. And he will hold back. It is his only insurance  against the dogs of the state, pit bulls. If the Senate investigation does not result in any meaningful change, those dogs will come yapping at his doorstep and drag him out like a piece of meat.     

         Contract-negotiation is an entire process that involves exchanging of drafts and notes, groundwork (one-on-one), (money changing hands in this case), revising terms. He had more of it, evidence of  personal knowledge, but he is waiting for a more certain time.               

news flash: Lozada’s testimony corroborated by Neri’s negative pregnant

agnesarrelano.jpg

Agnes Arellano. Carcass Cornucopia/ above, Music for Making the Sun Rise, below. Sculpture installation: cold-cast marble, unhusked rice, crushed marble, wood. 1987. Fukuoka Asian Art Museum. Right-clicked from www.faam.city.fukuoka.jp searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com   

     This early, the evidence given by Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada on the ZTE negotiations has been corroborated, unwittingly, by no other than former NEDA secretary-general and now CHED chair Romy Neri himself.

    When asked for his reaction on the testimony of Jun Lozada that he (Romy Neri) instructed him to “Modify their greed.”, his response was: “oh, i just used colourful language, i just meant to make it cost-efficient.”     

        At the very least, Romy Neri had corroborated the following:    

         1.He knew Mr. Lozada .      

      2. He knew him enough to give him instructions.     

    3.He did give those instructions in those words: “Moderate their greed.”    

      4. The subject-matter of his instructions was the ZTE negotiations.    

       5.Both of them (Mr. Neri and Mr. Lozada) were involved in the contract-negotiations  as seen from the nature of the instructions, even within the purported belated meaning he gave to it.     

       6. He had asked and assigned Mr. Lozada to review the project and inform him of developments in the ZTE negotiations:  This is the import even within the context of the limited supposed meaning given by Mr. Neri.       

    7.Mr. Lozada was getting instructions from him on the ZTE negotiations and apprising him of its stages.     

           In other words, Romy Neri by not giving a general and specific denial  gave the public  (and now admissible in evidence as extra-judicial admission in the form of  negative pregnant) what in evidence and litigation is  called a  “negative pregnant”. Or, a denial that attempts to refute a specific qualification or quality and therefore  in effect admits the truth of the general statement that the event took place.   

        That’s a neat rule, isn’t it?  Lawyers always like to use it.    

         In other words (take a look at Number 7): by denying his meaning but not the event itself, Mr. Neri also established the context that indeed Mr. Lozada was being sent  by him to the contract negotiations in his (Mr. Neri’s) stead, to be his eyes and ears in the negotiations, and to report to him.    

       His negative pregnant is pregnant with the truth. Romy Neri  has unwittingly demolished all the demolition job and efforts of the Macapagal-Arroyo minions (his fellow minions) against Mr. Lozada.       

       I like that rule negative pregnant. It’s positive.

lawyers

 

Photo taken by Marco Paolo Z. Lambino

From Danielle:

Atty. Marichu,

     Jun Lozada says that he told Atty. Bautista that he had some reservations about the accuracy of the affadavit he prepared for him to sign. But the lawyer said for him to sign it anyway so that the Palace would be happy (or words to that effect). Can the courts censure him for this. Thank you  – Danielle         

  Dear Danielle,      

      Usually, lawyers try not to comment on other lawyer’s behaviour or practice of the profession unless they’re public officials or unless they’re opposing counsel and it has something to do with the case.  Maybe a general statement would do: the captors of Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada that day and all those who helped the captors hold the witness or make him do certain acts under duress can,  upon probable cause, be charged  as principals and accomplices with either kidnapping or arbitrary detention, grave coercion, obstruction of justice (in connection with the Senate warrant of arrest); and for making him sign untruthful affidavits: grave coercion, maybe falsification, maybe subornation of perjury (if notarized); in addition, hypothetically any lawyer who engages in what may be considered criminal behaviour may, in addition to criminal charges,  be the subject of discipline  by the Supreme Court  with notice and hearing,  for violation of the following: Canon  1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: “Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Etc. If the person is not a lawyer but pretending to be a lawyer, it’s indirect contempt. And on top of all those criminal charges that could be filed against the captors and accomplices; in the future if any plunder case is filed arising from the payoffs and commissions in the ZTE deal, all those who engaged in cover-up operations can, on probable cause, be charged too as accessories in the plunder case.  Thanks for writing! -marichu