the defendant has an equal obligation to prove his innocence to the prosecutions obligation to demonstrate guilt in many european courts
That's simply not true. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the laws of European countries, at least on paper.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 6.2 ECHR (which let's be real, is trash)
They don't have Habeas Corpus
That's because it's a term from common law, and European countries have civil (Roman) law.
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Article 6.1 ECHR
However, the problem is that the judges are nearly all hard-left radicals, who will twist the law as much as they can to persecute their opponents.
If you compare continental (EU) speech persecutions and those in Britain, Perfidious Albion is much the worse for it. The problems that we have clearly do not stem from not having common law rather than Roman law.
Thanks for the correction. No Habeus Corprus is a strong indicator of a shit legal system though. I was once tried and sentenced in an alimony case without even knowing there was a case against me :)
Crossborder alimony, from Poland to Austria. I'm pretty sure everybody on the forum can figure out that I'm in Poland by now, so I don't care.
The lack of Habeas Corpus on the continent is so grindingly ridiculous to me--it's manifestly evident that trial in absentia is a miscarriage of justice, but despite the exemplar being present and freely understandble, no continental country has ever said "hey, this is a good idea, we should write it into our laws!"
Crossborder alimony, from Poland to Austria. I'm pretty sure everybody on the forum can figure out that I'm in Poland by now, so I don't care.
Is the problem that they proceeded with a court case against you even though you were not present? Habeas corpus is about imprisonment. I'm not sure it would prevent that, although other fundamental legal principles certainly do.
The lack of Habeas Corpus on the continent is so grindingly ridiculous to me--it's manifestly evident that trial in absentia is a miscarriage of justice, but despite the exemplar being present and freely understandble, no continental country has ever said "hey, this is a good idea, we should write it into our laws!"
I would find it surprising if there is any country that does not have this written in its laws. It is a different matter if you're actively avoiding being served in order to avoid the suit. If you're served but do not appear, then judgment by default will be issued against you.
Did you actually have competent legal advice on this matter of yours?
That's simply not true. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the laws of European countries, at least on paper.
Article 6.2 ECHR (which let's be real, is trash)
That's because it's a term from common law, and European countries have civil (Roman) law.
Article 6.1 ECHR
However, the problem is that the judges are nearly all hard-left radicals, who will twist the law as much as they can to persecute their opponents.
If you compare continental (EU) speech persecutions and those in Britain, Perfidious Albion is much the worse for it. The problems that we have clearly do not stem from not having common law rather than Roman law.
Thanks for the correction. No Habeus Corprus is a strong indicator of a shit legal system though. I was once tried and sentenced in an alimony case without even knowing there was a case against me :)
Might I ask the approximate or precise location (depending on how doxxing-proof you are) of the country where that happened?
Basically, the only places that have habeas corpus are countries that are based on English common law, and thus magna carta.
Crossborder alimony, from Poland to Austria. I'm pretty sure everybody on the forum can figure out that I'm in Poland by now, so I don't care.
The lack of Habeas Corpus on the continent is so grindingly ridiculous to me--it's manifestly evident that trial in absentia is a miscarriage of justice, but despite the exemplar being present and freely understandble, no continental country has ever said "hey, this is a good idea, we should write it into our laws!"
Is the problem that they proceeded with a court case against you even though you were not present? Habeas corpus is about imprisonment. I'm not sure it would prevent that, although other fundamental legal principles certainly do.
I would find it surprising if there is any country that does not have this written in its laws. It is a different matter if you're actively avoiding being served in order to avoid the suit. If you're served but do not appear, then judgment by default will be issued against you.
Did you actually have competent legal advice on this matter of yours?