Editor's Comment: This is a confusing case, so I'm going to try to provide some of the background so you can follow along and know what's going in (if you care).

Back in 2004 then Supreme Court Justice César Pereira Burgos walked into the Banco Nacional and purchased a cashier's check for $25,000. He paid for the cashier's check with a personal check that he wrote on his own account, but there was insufficient funds in the account to cover the check.

Then Roosevelt Thayer, who was the Housing Minister under Ernesto "El Toro" Balladares, "loaned" the $25,000 back to Judge Pereira Burgos to cover the check that he floated. Judge Burgos then took the personal check from Thayer to the BNP and endorsed it to cover the personal check that he used to buy the money order.

So far, so good. The BNP gave $25,000 to the judge, and Thayer gave the $25,000 back to the judge to cover the floated check. So, if you're following the money, the obvious question is "what happened to the $25,000?"

When asked if the Judge paid the money back, Thayer refused to answer the question. He said that he "has the proof" and that he will answer that question when the time is right. That, to me, sounds like a non-answer.

Thayer alleges that Roberto Eisenmann from La Prensa found out about the check, and obtained a copy of Thayer's personal check and threatened to print the story if Burgos refused to drop a $2 million dollar civil slander and defamation suit against the paper.

The judge died on 2 May 2007.

La Prensa alleges that the $25,000 payment went to Burgos to buy a judgement that favored Ernesto Balladares in the PECC case.

Which brings us up to today. The Anti Corruption Prosecutor Maribel Cornejo was investigating all of this and called administrative workers in the Supreme Court to make declarations and statements as part of her investigation. In response, the current President of the Supreme Court Graciela Dixon filed a criminal complaint against Prosecutor Cornejo, alleging that she is overstepping her bounds, abusing her power, illegally investigating the Supreme Court, and interfering with the administration of justice.

All of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices, with the exception of Adán Arnulfo Arjona, supported this move by Dixon. Cornejo claims that she was within her rights and the scope of her investigatory authority to call the administrative workers to testify because the only people under the Panamanian Constitution who are protected are the nine sitting Supreme Court justices. What's more, in today's article her lawyer specifies that Cornejo was working under orders of Panama's Attorney General Ana Matilde Gomez to investigate Burgos and the $25,000 check because after having left the court Burgos was no longer protected by the constitution and the case dropped back into normal channels.

"Oh, what a troubled web we weave..." Did somebody pay $25,000 to a sitting Supreme Court judge in order to buy a favorable decision? I dunno. I certainly don't like seeing Supreme Court judges writing bad checks, for starters. And the obvious question remains to be answered - where did the money go? If this thing plays all the way out, then it looks like a Torrijos vs. Balladares play. Remember that under the administration of Ernesto "El Toro" Balladares, Pedro González was able to walk away from the apparent terrorist assassination of US Army soldier Zak Hernandez. The "new" wing of the PRD is doing everything they can to clean up Panama's act, but they can't control the Supreme Court or the "old school" guys who still treat Panama as the wild, wild west.

Old habits die hard, and it will apparently take a generation or two for a new culture to take hold. The one other thing that sticks with me on this whole issue - if anyone wants to investigate Panama's Supreme Court in regards to allegations of supposed corruption, then they should be allowed to do so. As a matter of fact apparently the law favors Cornejo and Gomez in this case. If any of the nine sitting Supreme Cout Justices need to be investigated then that falls to the National Assembly. All of this comes down to political infighting, but in the end of the day they are fighting over some pretty ugly turf - a history and deep-rooted Panamanian culture of officially endorsed corruption at the highest levels of the judicial system. In my opinion, it's time to step up to the big leagues. In this economy $25,000 is practically chump change.

Next Qustion - What does it cost to get a liquor license in Panama City, and who signs off on those? More later...

(Article Continues)

According to Muñoz Pope, his client investigated as far as the draft of Judge Pereira Burgos because she could not investigate a decision by the Supreme Court.

"Her objective was to know if there was corruption in this draft of this case in the check of $25,000,"

The Anti-Corruption prosecutor Cornejo started an investigation under orders from Panama's Attorney General Ana Matilde Gomez as a result of a complaint filed by Alexis Sinclair on the irregularity of the emission of cashier's check from the Banco Nacional de Panama to Supreme Court Justice Pereira Burgos which was unfunded, explained Muñoz Pope explained.

"But in the course of the investigation a new player emerged, if $25,000 check (with which Pereira Burgos paid the Banco Nacional de Panama), is not an indication of an act of corruption, which ties the person who emitted the check, Mr. Thayer, and to the ex-President Pérez Balladares," said the lawyer.

With regards to the separation of Prosecutor Cornejo from her position, Muñoz Pope said the Attorney General does not have the authority, and that corresponds to him the Penal Room of the Supreme Court, but the magistrates of this Room were part of the denunciation and must disqualify themselves

Cornejo no cometió abuso de autoridad

Gloria Leiva Gaitán

A las 10:30 de la mañana de ayer se presentó la fiscal Segunda Anticorrupción, Maribel Cornejo, a la Procuraduría General de la Nación para hacer sus descargos en una declaración indagatoria, luego que le formularan cargos por abuso de autoridad, tras una denuncia penal que presentó el Pleno de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (CSJ).

Su abogado, Carlos Muñoz Pope, señaló que no existe abuso de autoridad, pues la fiscal no investigó el fallo, sólo investigó los supuestos hechos que vinculan al ex magistrado César Pereira Burgos en actos que ocurrieron en el 2004, pero la investigación inicia en octubre el 2006, cuando Pereira Burgos ya no era parte de la CSJ y este caso pasaba a la jurisdicción ordinaria.

Según Muñoz Pope, su cliente investigó hasta el proyecto del magistrado Pereira Burgos porque no podía investigar un fallo de la Corte. “El objetivo de ella era saber si en el proyecto de ese caso había corrupción en el cheque de 25 mil dólares”.

La fiscal Cornejo inicia la investigación por órdenes de la Procuradora a raíz de una denuncia que interpone Alexis Sinclair, sobre la irregularidad de la emisión de un cheque de gerencia del Banco Nacional de Panamá (BNP) al magistrado Pereira Burgos, el cual no tenía fondos, explicó Muñoz Pope.

“Pero en el curso de la investigación salió una arista distinta, si el cheque de 25 mil dólares (con la cual Pereira Burgos pagó al BNP) no es un indicio de un acto de corrupción, que vincule a quien emitió el cheque, el señor Thayer y al ex presidente Pérez Balladares”, manifestó el jurista.

En cuanto a su separación del cargo, Muñoz Pope asegura que la Procuradora no tiene esa facultad y esto le corresponde a la Sala Penal de la CSJ, pero los magistrados de esta Sala fueron parte de la denuncia y tienen que declararse impedidos.
1 Comment   Add this link to...  Bury
Add to:      So far, so good. The BNP gave $25,000 to the judge, and Thayer gave the $25,000 back to the judge to cover the floated check. So, if you're following the money, the obvious question is "what happened to the $25,000?"

When asked if the Judge paid the money back, Thayer refused to answer the question. He said that he "has the proof" and that he will answer that question when the time is right. That, to me, sounds like a non-answer.

Thayer alleges that Roberto Eisenmann from La Prensa found out about the check, and obtained a copy of Thayer's personal check and threatened to print the story if Burgos refused to drop a $2 million dollar civil slander and defamation suit against the paper.

The judge died on 2 May 2007.

La Prensa alleges that the $25,000 payment went to Burgos to buy a judgement that favored Ernesto Balladares in the PECC case.

Which brings us up to today. The Anti Corruption Prosecutor Maribel Cornejo was investigating all of this and called administrative workers in the Supreme Court to make declarations and statements as part of her investigation. In response, the current President of the Supreme Court Graciela Dixon filed a criminal complaint against Prosecutor Cornejo, alleging that she is overstepping her bounds, abusing her power, illegally investigating the Supreme Court, and interfering with the administration of justice.

All of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices, with the exception of Adán Arnulfo Arjona, supported this move by Dixon. Cornejo claims that she was within her rights and the scope of her investigatory authority to call the administrative workers to testify because the only people under the Panamanian Constitution who are protected are the nine sitting Supreme Court justices. What's more, in today's article her lawyer specifies that Cornejo was working under orders of Panama's Attorney General Ana Matilde Gomez to investigate Burgos and the $25,000 check because after having left the court Burgos was no longer protected by the constitution and the case dropped back into normal channels.

"Oh, what a troubled web we weave..." Did somebody pay $25,000 to a sitting Supreme Court judge in order to buy a favorable decision? I dunno. I certainly don't like seeing Supreme Court judges writing bad checks, for starters. And the obvious question remains to be answered - where did the money go? If this thing plays all the way out, then it looks like a Torrijos vs. Balladares play. Remember that under the administration of Ernesto "El Toro" Balladares, Pedro González was able to walk away from the apparent terrorist assassination of US Army soldier Zak Hernandez. The "new" wing of the PRD is doing everything they can to clean up Panama's act, but they can't control the Supreme Court or the "old school" guys who still treat Panama as the wild, wild west.

Old habits die hard, and it will apparently take a generation or two for a new culture to take hold. The one other thing that sticks with me on this whole issue - if anyone wants to investigate Panama's Supreme Court in regards to allegations of supposed corruption, then they should be allowed to do so. As a matter of fact apparently the law favors Cornejo and Gomez in this case. If any of the nine sitting Supreme Cout Justices need to be investigated then that falls to the National Assembly. All of this comes down to political infighting, but in the end of the day they are fighting over some pretty ugly turf - a history and deep-rooted Panamanian culture of officially endorsed corruption at the highest levels of the judicial system. In my opinion, it's time to step up to the big leagues. In this economy $25,000 is practically chump change.

Next Qustion - What does it cost to get a liquor license in Panama City, and who signs off on those? More later...

(Article Continues)

According to Muñoz Pope, his client investigated as far as the draft of Judge Pereira Burgos because she could not investigate a decision by the Supreme Court.

"Her objective was to know if there was corruption in this draft of this case in the check of $25,000,"

The Anti-Corruption prosecutor Cornejo started an investigation under orders from Panama's Attorney General Ana Matilde Gomez as a result of a complaint filed by Alexis Sinclair on the irregularity of the emission of cashier's check from the Banco Nacional de Panama to Supreme Court Justice Pereira Burgos which was unfunded, explained Muñoz Pope explained.

"But in the course of the investigation a new player emerged, if $25,000 check (with which Pereira Burgos paid the Banco Nacional de Panama), is not an indication of an act of corruption, which ties the person who emitted the check, Mr. Thayer, and to the ex-President Pérez Balladares," said the lawyer.

With regards to the separation of Prosecutor Cornejo from her position, Muñoz Pope said the Attorney General does not have the authority, and that corresponds to him the Penal Room of the Supreme Court, but the magistrates of this Room were part of the denunciation and must disqualify themselves

Cornejo no cometió abuso de autoridad

Gloria Leiva Gaitán

A las 10:30 de la mañana de ayer se presentó la fiscal Segunda Anticorrupción, Maribel Cornejo, a la Procuraduría General de la Nación para hacer sus descargos en una declaración indagatoria, luego que le formularan cargos por abuso de autoridad, tras una denuncia penal que presentó el Pleno de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (CSJ).

Su abogado, Carlos Muñoz Pope, señaló que no existe abuso de autoridad, pues la fiscal no investigó el fallo, sólo investigó los supuestos hechos que vinculan al ex magistrado César Pereira Burgos en actos que ocurrieron en el 2004, pero la investigación inicia en octubre el 2006, cuando Pereira Burgos ya no era parte de la CSJ y este caso pasaba a la jurisdicción ordinaria.

Según Muñoz Pope, su cliente investigó hasta el proyecto del magistrado Pereira Burgos porque no podía investigar un fallo de la Corte. “El objetivo de ella era saber si en el proyecto de ese caso había corrupción en el cheque de 25 mil dólares”.

La fiscal Cornejo inicia la investigación por órdenes de la Procuradora a raíz de una denuncia que interpone Alexis Sinclair, sobre la irregularidad de la emisión de un cheque de gerencia del Banco Nacional de Panamá (BNP) al magistrado Pereira Burgos, el cual no tenía fondos, explicó Muñoz Pope.

“Pero en el curso de la investigación salió una arista distinta, si el cheque de 25 mil dólares (con la cual Pereira Burgos pagó al BNP) no es un indicio de un acto de corrupción, que vincule a quien emitió el cheque, el señor Thayer y al ex presidente Pérez Balladares”, manifestó el jurista.

En cuanto a su separación del cargo, Muñoz Pope asegura que la Procuradora no tiene esa facultad y esto le corresponde a la Sala Penal de la CSJ, pero los magistrados de esta Sala fueron parte de la denuncia y tienen que declararse impedidos.">            |   Bookmarks