WORLD NEWS FOR MONTENEGRO DIASPORA
Choose language:
18-Apr-2025
Home Montenegro

Vujotić: Did you judge us in advance?

SOURCE: PORTAL ANALITIKA- AUTHOR: M.J. GDNUS

Public Service Employee Časlav Vujotić sent a reaction to RTCG and TVCG Portal regarding reporting on Complained "Former Candidates" for Director General from April 15.

We are reporting his reaction in full:

"The candidates are available to everyone. Let alone the editors of the Portal and Dnevnik RTCG. We are in the same building, the company, and you promptly reported on the lawsuit against us - without us. That yesterday's representative of RTCG is, as it were, suffering because we reported her to the Bar Association. You only affirmed the lawsuit, her views. There is no other side. You did not follow the news, about your people, show what we think, what we expect, do we at least apologize. "I don't understand why," commented one misguided colleague, "you are not on Mars." We are denied the right to defend ourselves on our media. According to Boris Raonic's "balanced" editorial policy, only one side is highlighted again. Whenever he needs it. And he needs it more and more often.

Objective journalism in the editorial offices of the mre house, is being manipulated to protect sinful personalities. Although we are longer-serving and more proven workers than the entire management, our service will not help to clarify but affirm the mental pain of the rejected representative. After the lost cases for which Raonic will be remembered as illegitimate. And without special evidence, it is known that at no time did she problematize his inexperience. Therefore, this program gratitude, as before, by publishing only her allegations. The people say "old love is not forgotten".

We do not know the name of the expert (priest), the institution, the scale, and the apparatus (does it have a calibration certificate) with which the mental pain of 25 thousand euros was measured. Which fortune teller predicted that Zorica Đukanović would also - in the future "moan". Which doctor diagnoses that it can be treated with cash. In this trauma, she is ruthless because our salaries are small, they are not like those of her favorite, so we cannot provide what she is used to from the leaders of RTCG. Since we are suffering and, by contrast, conscientious, we are considering whether to appear at the palace of justice at all. Because we see her as very susceptible to our influence. Because ... what if she loses this lawsuit? So that it doesn't get even worse later ...

Clients are leaving her en masse because of us. She alleges in the lawsuit but she didn't list them. It must be a big number. But, in layman's terms, she would probably have to prove it. By bringing in some of that mass as witnesses. To say that it was because of former candidates. I expect at least Boris Raonić and Veselin Drljević to comment on the circumstances why they "kicked her out" before we reported her to the chamber? Or did she want to sue them too, so now they are "softening" her with an exclusive in the news?

We pointed out to the chamber that she only supported a specific individual, by the way, to be the director of the institution. So she charged the institution and not the individual. Well, maybe we are wrong, it is not ethical. It doesn't matter if she lost or won. And she lost. Absolutely everything, processes generated by an individual's illegal and arrogant behavior. If someone got it, we allow them to publicly point it out! We are ready to withdraw our words.

We did not seek any specific disciplinary responsibility. Instead, we reported the behavior. Resulting in a comortative decision without a specific explanation: what exactly did we miss, according to the exhaustively listed violated articles of the Code of Ethics. We pointed out, among other things, Article 29, that "A lawyer may not participate in or assist in the unauthorized acquisition of rights." And explained that she helped abundantly. The Bar Association thus protected its member by concluding in principle "that legal remedies are broad in scope." We did not react because we reconciled ourselves with yet another injustice, the guild interpretation that the disciplinary prosecutor does not have the right to evaluate the legal positions of members. Even if it was illegal? Paraphrased, you can defend the law however you want, regardless of the facts, as long as you defend it, everything is allowed. "Ethically" wow!

It could have been forgotten in a "bona fides" manner (here we are learning Latin from our plaintiff's heirs). However, we are being sued for insult, discredit, non-material damage, violation of personal rights, and untruth. That we are indirectly engaged in painting by creating some kind of image (of her face) and reducing the value in our own eyes and the eyes of others (was an ophthalmologist consulted?)! Thank you for waking us up from the lethargy. In which we fell under the impression that our fight for a legal state increasingly resembles a Cervantes novel.

We realized that we must not doubt. Otherwise, we will be sued. How does the bar association expect someone to tell them something in writing after this? Dilemmas arise: if the Chamber had recognized us, would we also have mental pain as a fighter for the law who treats our address as a false report. Since I see on the Internet that "false reporting" is a criminal offense, then it seems that this also applies to ethics? Or does it only seem that way with her. From now on, I'm afraid to report someone, even by mistake, through poor perception, for stepping on the grass, parking incorrectly, does ... something harmless and outside the regulations. They will hire our expert on regulations and I will pack it up'.

I am attaching excerpts from two documents. Đukanović's presentation from 1.06.2023. and a letter to the RTCG Council to achieve the "passability" of Raonić for another term, August 29, 2024. A colleague, seeing this, got the impression that "heartache" also occurs as a result of jumping into her own mouth. Despite the facts and court decisions, she advised the RTCG Council that Boris could be a candidate again. So it was not a bluff in court, but a suggestion that resulted in years of irregular power in the National Public Broadcaster. She interpreted the court verdict as it suited her, "upside down", to public servants, the body that should elect the general Public Service. They are now claiming exactly that in the process, that they elected not according to the verdict but according to legal advice. And who on earth was their legal advisor? If I say that among others is - our prosecutor, am I lying, on earth?

Maybe no one will really ask her for advice in the future. It's not up to us."

https://i.ibb.co/Y72w2NP8/Izvod-Zapisnik-sa-sjednice-01-06.jpg

German Daily News - All Rights Reserved ©