Vujotić to Bojić: I see you are defending usurpers in RTCG

AUTHOR:M.J. GDNUS

After lawyer Vladan Bojić said that there is no room for any accusations against the president and four members of the Council of the Radio and Television of Montenegro due to the appointment of the general director Boris Raonić, Časlav Vujotić, a journalist at RTCG, reacted.

Lawyer Bojić also said in an interview with RTCG that he believes that it would be reasonable and economical for the state budget and public interest for the court to reject the indictment proposal, but that this will not happen because the atmosphere of a fait accompli has been created.

We are reporting Vujotić's address in full:

As a well-wisher and a reluctant frequent former and future prosecutor in the persecution of the bad from the National Public Broadcaster, jealous of the interview on the Portal with lawyer Vladan Bojić, because he can. I am writing against the spell of this call for polemic in the land, will my house at least publish it for me.

Dear lawyer Bojić,

I see that you are defending usurpers, but despite everything I want everything to be done honorably in court, but as far as the press is concerned, something doesn't add up. Don't be personally affected by the journalist's response to the lawyer's claims, everyone has their own understanding.

If you are protecting the entire RTCG, not just the managers, ask us legal laymen: what if we catch the director in the act, should we sue him or do you prefer some other force? You said that those who sue him are the creators of the "fait accompli" atmosphere. When was it done, where, by whom, and by whom? It is so fait accompli that it seems disgusting to you to weigh the arguments in this, as you still call it, circus. Do you recommend another venue? I see, you don't want to "fairly" and then have a drink later because you promise to lament! And that we will get stuck in mouse holes. There is no mouse hole I can get into. Although I can barely keep up with the salary of workers in a company that pays lawyers more and more and better. Regardless, I don't want you or the defendants to cry, or anyone else.

So you are probably ours, unless the director hired you out of his own pocket. We can't access the documentation, so give it to us. Even if they convict you again. I started looking at your successes on the Internet and came across: "for violating the confidentiality of the proceedings". Luckily, the Bar Association overlooked that, didn't revoke the license, because the Council and their favorite and we would have been deprived of an expert: since you're already using that term, abuse (of the prosecutor's office): can that also be applied to the RTCG media space after the lawyer of the majority of the accused was allowed to influence the work of judges and public opinion?

To whom you are strangely telling that "one cannot abuse one's official position and achieve the essence of any criminal offense by voting". As far as I know, we achieve the essence in one desirable way, and the criminal offense is something else entirely. Lawyer's platitudes don't help: if the court decides that you don't meet the requirements and you elect him as director, it's not an essence but an act. Collectively even. By voting. Thanks to the show of hands of four or five of them, your client has been receiving one of the best salaries in the country for several years and concluding onerous (is that the right term?) deals with non-transparent accounts. There is more. But enough for now.

So, we did not, God forbid, take up arms or pray, but we folded the sheet and became "creators" from the beginning unwillingly because your client and his team fired some from their jobs, transferred others to unworthy or inappropriate jobs, lowered the salary of many, and at the same time doubled their own. Because we are not silent, you call us actors in "this non-normalization of society". I think it is our constitutional obligation to shout "Vuk, vuk" (forgive the wolf). And in the programs that you praise on the eve of the hearing, not even a "V" for a warning. And here is the rebellion spreading because of such "normality". Asking where tomorrow is!

I admit that I understood several of your theses in your presentation:

· That the Public Broadcaster has "installed a monopoly on truth"! I'll reveal to you: there is no good monopoly. You declared all the others liars. Plus, monopoly means the possibility of hiding. It's used a lot.

· "We must stop the self-dumbing down of the Montenegrin judiciary". You're fine with it without the prefix "only"?

· Why is the "Podgorica ODT unhappy", as you say, and how can we console it?

· The prosecutors' goal is to "smother the modernization of the Public Service", you said. The term modern does not mean good! It means that it is something newer. Fascism was once such a social phenomenon.

· "The producers of the project and the fog here are also direct aspirants for the installation of their politics". Please contact me, where can I buy two kilos of fog, is it with Raonić and Drljević, they have no politics. More precisely, criticism of politics. They "installed" that.

· "It is not an unlawful benefit when someone (I think Raonić) receives the contracted equivalent for work - earnings". Even though it was illegally set up, his earnings are "legal", or rather - legal? Are you suggesting that "you cannot return earnings for work performed and return work in general"? If you are in court because of what you earned instead of illegally obtained, I am on your side! Returning work, however, is certainly possible. It has long been known among the people, you have probably heard of the expression "returning the mob".

According to you, "the most serious private interests, strong profits and unbridled ambitions" are at risk. Who are you targeting? If I am in the circle: unbridled ambitions I have, and a private interest (I accept every first, at a miserable coefficient)! You opened the door to suspicions that my colleagues and I have a "profit" beyond the salary. God heard you. But we don't, Boris knows about it since he didn't let us. Defend us with a code of ethics.

That's all I understood from your "missals", I'm not a lawyer, I turned to some lawyers to clarify. They didn't really give me a hard time when I mentioned "actions for counter-actions are mutual, textbook objective limitation of finality, incomplete court jurisdiction from incoherent demands of prosecutors, intention of a (p)sad act with common sense". Especially mystical was "you can't kill a once killed (already dead) man three times." Who is a dead man, wasn't it mentioned?

As a democratic person, I ask you to provide a passage to the Portal for us "ambientalists" in the company for decades and we have never sinned even for a simple work task. While your protégé, we were in disbelief, has recently received a couple of final judgments that he usurped the position from which he hired you. It might help for that purpose: the truth is revealed when in journalism "the other guy also speaks". I assume in the legal profession as well. And remind the interviewer. Bobby (that's your client's nickname, and there are a few better ones) suspects this but he doesn't know how to practice. So he advocates for, media, balancing. Since he misses the mark badly, I'm still waiting for the adjuster to mention it.

Let it be at the end, without bitter qualifications in defeat. Or the association that what clarifies things can be harmful, do you lawyers sometimes speak vaguely? Since you are not an economist and you say that the consequences for society and the budget will be severe: surely your fee is not that high?

Good luck if you win. Good health to everyone. And legal knowledge.