User talk:FGarcia12

Palejo/FGarcia, I notice you have removed info on the verdict of Schotte 4 times now. I re-instated it last time, as it is IMO well sourced. Please do not remove it again, but -if you have any concerns- please discuss them on the talk page, so they can be addressed at talk:Gerrit Schotte. L.tak (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paleo/FGarcia, under both user names you have now 3 times removed the information. Now is the time to indicate why on the talk page and to provide sources. Re-removal without engaging on the talk page is likely going to result in blocking your access to the page. As you are until now not providing any discussion or source, and have been repeatedly warned, I am going to treat your removal from now on as vandalism. L.tak (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Gerrit Schotte, you may be blocked from editing. L.tak (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear L.tak,

In response to your message, I on the other hand kindly request to you that YOU stop YOUR disruptive editing of information. It is YOU at this moment that is VANDALIZING the said Wiki page of Gerrit Schotte because the information you are posting is misleading and is not based on facts.

To be more specific, within Curaçao Law, once a person appeals a verdict, that verdict becomes non-existent.

Every person under Curaçao Law has the right to 3 trials. 1. Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg (Court in First Instance) 2. Hoger Beroep (Court of Appeal presided by 3 judges) 3. Cassatie (Supreme Court under the Dutch Kingdom presided in The Netherlands)

Once a verdict is giving under the Court of First Instance, the prosecution or the defense (depending on who is the losing party) both have the right to appeal. Once the verdict is appealed, the verdict becomes non-existent and the process is restarted from the beginning in the Court of Appeal. The same rights apply when a verdict from the Court of Appeal is appealed. The verdict becomes non-existent and the process is restarted under the Supreme Court (Cassatie).

Please refer to below Laws.

Wetboek van Strafvordering Curaçao

Artikel 437

1. Het hoger beroep moet worden ingesteld:

a. indien de dagvaarding om ter terechtzitting te verschijnen de verdachte in persoon is betekend of de verdachte ter terechtzitting is verschenen, binnen veertien dagen na de einduitspraak; b. in andere gevallen, uiterlijk veertien dagen nadat zich een omstandigheid heeft voorgedaan, waaruit voortvloeit dat het vonnis de verdachte bekend is.

2. Is in het geval, bedoeld in het eerste lid, onderdeel a, hetonderzoek op de terechtzitting voor onbepaalde tijd geschorst en de oproeping om op de nadere terechtzitting te verschijnen niet aan de verdachte in persoon betekend, dan kan, behoudens het geval dat de verdachte alsnog op de nadere zitting is verschenen, het hoeger beroep worden ingesteld uiterlijk veertien dagen nadat zich een omstandigheid heeft voorgedaan, waaruit voortvloeit dat het vonnis de verdachte bekend is.

Rijkswet Cassatierechtspraak voor Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en voor Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba.

§ 3. Cassatie in strafzaken ingesteld door partijen

Artikel 10

1. Partijen kunnenin strafzaken geen beroep in cassatie instellen tegen beschikkingen. 2. De verdachte kan geen beroep in cassatie instellen tegen bij verstek gewezen vonnissen. 3. Voor het openbaar ministerie wordt een beroep in cassatie ingesteld door een procureur-generaal bij het Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maartenen van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba.

Artikel 11

1. Voor het instellen van hetberoep in cassatie staat deverdachte en een procureur-generaa bij het Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en voor Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba een termijn open van veertien dagen. Bij algemene maatregel van rijksbestuur kan een langere termijn worden vastgesteld voor gevallen, waarin de verdachte geen woonplaats heeft op het eiland waar de beslissing, waartegen beroep in cassatie wordt ingesteld, is uitgesproken. 2. Alvorens de stukken van het geding aan de griffier van de Hoge Raard worden gezonden, wordt aan de raadsman van de verdachte, indien hij dit verzoekt, gelegenheid gegeven de stukken in te zien. 3. Aanzegging en kennisgevingen als voorgeschreven in titel III van het derde Boek van het Wetboek van Strafvordering van het Europese deel van de Koninkrijk geschieden op de in Aruba, Curaçao en Sint Maarten en in de openbare lichamen Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba gebruikelijke wijze, en, voor zover zij moeten uitgaan van de procureur-generaal bij het Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba.

FGarcia12 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gerrit Schotte with this edit. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gerrit Schotte shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]