CNN:
On Friday, Judge Bob Wit ruled that Paul Van Der Sloot cannot visit his son in jail, but that the boy's mother may. Wit's reasoning wasn't made public.
I try to find anything i can find about the honorable Judge Bob Wit !
Hello Johan here is all that I have on his butt
Jacob “Bob” Wit was the judge present at the van der Sloot property on June 15, 2005 who reduced the scope of that search to only the apartment occupied by Joran van der Sloot. His actions that day lead us to wonder why he would risk his career by aiding his good friend, Paulus. Why did Justice Wit wait for the prosecutor at the van der Sloot home to limit her search areas? Why didn’t he simply make that ruling from the bench in the courtroom? Why did he feel the need to do that from the van der Sloot home?
Justice Wit is a judge for the Caribbean Court of Justice. As such, he has a stringent Code of Ethics he must follow at all times – both in and outside the courtroom, as you will read below.What could his relationship with Paulus van der Sloot have provided this judge in order for him to put his career on the line?
This is a short list of the Code of Ethics Justice Wit obviously violated.
We wonder if the Caribbean Court of Justice is aware of Justice Wit’s actions?
Propriety
This code was violated by Wit as seen by his presence at the van der Sloot home prior to the searchers arriving. Both Ben (Voc)King and Paulus van der Sloot are members of the legal profession.
1.3 A judge shall avoid close personal association with individual members of the legal profession, particularly those who practice in the judge’s court, where such association might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.
Justice Wit used not his home, but that of a suspect in a criminal investigation as a meeting place for himself, said suspect, and a prosecution official.
1.4 A judge shall avoid the use of the judge’s residence by a member of the legal profession to receive clients or other members of the legal profession in circumstances that might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge.
Was there any official reason given, in writing, for Wit’s verbal order at the van der Sloot home for curbing the areas of the search? Or did he merely do this to help his friend Paulus?
1.9 A judge shall not allow the judge’s family, social or other relationships improperly to influence the judge’s judicial conduct and judgment as a judge.
Was the mere presence of Justice Wit at the van der Sloot property enough to dissuade Karin Janssen from arguing the merits of her search warrant granted by the Joint Court? Did Wit use the prestige of his office to intimidate the searchers?
1.10 A judge shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge, a member of the judge’s family or of anyone else, nor shall a judge permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties.
Integrity
Justice Wit’s conduct here was certainly not above reproach – as even the acting Chief of Police was distraught at the limits set by Wit on their search of the van der Sloot property.
3.1 A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of reasonable, fair-minded and informed persons.
Wit’s actions assured that not only would justice not be done, but failed to even attempt to create the appearance of justice.
3.2 The bahaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
How could Justice Wit ever again require others to uphold this Code of Ethics, when he himself ignored them to aid his friend and colleague, Paulus van der Sloot?
3.3 A judge, in addition to observing personally the standards of this Code, shall encourage and support their observance by others.
Impartiality
By reducing the scope of the search of the property of his friend and colleague, Justice Wit blatantly disregarded all thoughts of bias, favour, and prejudice.
4.1 A judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice.
Not only did Justice Wit lose the confidence of the public with his curtailing of the search, he lost the confidence of the Aruban prosecutor, and law enforcement – as evidenced by the public statements made by Chief Dompig in October 2005.
4.2 A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
Justice Wit should have disqualified and excused himself from making any rulings in this case, as his actions showed he was clearly unable to decide any matters in this case impartially.
4.5 A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which a reasonable, fair-minded and informed person might believe that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially.
Paulus van der Sloot, being an attorney and a substitute Judge, continues to be a member of the same fraternal body as Justice Wit. This fact alone should have caused Justice Wit to disqualify himself from making any decisions in this case. They both served on the Joint Court at the same time.
4.5.1 A judge must be sensitive to the fact that fraternal bodies are shrouded in mystery and clothed with a perception of secrecy and of providing unconditional assistance to members in times of need, trouble and distress. Persons who are not members of such bodies are likely to conclude that a litigant, belonging to the same fraternal body as a judge, enjoys an unfair advantage. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for a judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the impartiality of the judge might reasonably be questioned.
There has been no transparency regarding Justice Wit’s decision to limit the scope of the search. Quite the contrary. His actions even took the Prosecutor by surprise, as this decision by Wit was only made known to Janssen the day of the search, when she arrived to execute the warrant.
4.5.2 A judge should therefore recognize that transparency assists in combating corruption and suspicions, and he or she should encourage judicial colleagues and the court staff to assist in promoting the intrinsic merits of transparent conduct and infusing public confidence in the role, functions and operations of the court.
4.6 A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceedings in which there might be a reasonable perception of a lack of impartiality of the judge including, but not limited to, instances where:
Did Justice Wit become aware that evidence could very well have been obtained through the forensic search of the van der Sloot home and property? Is that the reason he tied the hands of the Prosecutor?
4.6.1 The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
Equality
Did Justice Wit have discussions with Paulus van der Sloot, unbeknownst to the Prosecutor and law enforcement officials, that led him to understand the involvement of his friend in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway?
5.7 Without authority of law and notice to, and consent of, the parties and an opportunity to respond, a judge shall not engage independent, personal investigation of the facts of a case before him or her.
Accountability
7.1 Institutions and procedures for the implementation of this Code shall provide a publicly credible means for considering and determining complaints against judges. This is to be pursued without prejudice or hindrance to the universally recognized and hallowed principle of judicial independence.
7.2 By the very nature of their judicial office, judges are not, except in accordance with the law, accountable for their decisions to any organ or entity within the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice or elsewhere, but are accountable for their conduct to institutions that are specifically established to implement and administer this Code.
7.3 The implementation of this Code shall take into account the legitimate needs of a judge, by reason of the nature of the judicial office, to be afforded protection from vexatious or unsubstantiated accusations and due process of law in the resolution of complaints against the judge.
We can’t help but wonder what the Caribbean Court of Justice would have to say about Justice Wit’s actions in the Holloway case.
Has the institution charged with implementing this Code been made aware of Justice Wit’s conduct?
BRON: nataleesfreebirds.
_________________
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Honourable Mr. Justice Wit is married to Sheila Wit-Thodé, a native of Curaçao.
So i think he lives not on Aruba
The Honourable Mr. Justice Jacob Wit (Netherlands Antilles) was born on 24 December 1952 in Haarlemmermeer, The Netherlands. He graduated from the Pius X Lyceum (Amsterdam) in 1971, entering in that same year the Vrije Universiteit (Free University) of Amsterdam, from which he took the degree of Master of Laws with honours in 1977. After completing his military service (1976-1978) as a Second Lieutenant in the Royal Dutch Navy, Mr. Justice Wit was admitted in March 1978 as a Judicial Trainee at the Studiecentrum Rechtspleging (Training and Study Centre for the Judiciary) in Zutphen, where he remained enrolled until 1984. During this period, he held the posts of Law Clerk in the Rotterdam District Court, Rotterdam, (1978-1980) and Deputy Prosecutor at the Amsterdam District Court (1980-1982) and worked as an attorney-at-law with the Law Firm of Van Doorne & Sjollema in Rotterdam.
Mr. Justice Wit was appointed by Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands as Deputy Judge of the Rotterdam District Court in January 1984, Judge of the Rotterdam District Court in March 1985 and Judge of the Joint Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba on 1 October 1988. This Court consists of two Courts of First Instance (Netherlands Antilles, Aruba) and a Court of Appeal. Resident in Curaçao since 1986, from then to the present, Mr. Justice Wit has presided over or sat in the Court of Appeal, but mainly presided in the Courts of First Instance over a wide range of cases, involving: civil law (contract, tort, property, succession), commercial and admiralty law, insurance, bankruptcy and (cross border) insolvency, company law and intellectual property, criminal law (serious crime, government corruption, international fraud, money laundering), military law, administrative law, constitutional law and international human rights law.
Over this period, he has acquired significant expertise in various posts within the Joint Court of Justice system: as Coordinating Judge, Court of First Instance, Curacao (1993-1996); Coordinator Judge of Instruction, Netherlands Antilles (1994-1997); Coordinating Judge for the Dutch Windward Islands of Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius and Saba (1997-2001) and from 2001 to the present as Senior Justice and Acting Chief Justice. The Honourable Mr. Justice Jacob Wit took the Oath of Office as a Judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) at The President's House Port of Spain, on Wednesday 1 June 2005. The oath was administered by His Excellency Professor George Maxwell Richards, President of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago.
Off the Bench, Mr. Justice Wit has served as Chairman of the Committee of Supervision of the Netherlands Antilles' Prisons and Houses of Detention (1987-1991); Chairman of the Board of Discipline for Medical Doctors (1992-1995); President of the Military Court of the Netherlands Antilles (1992-present); Chairman of the Judicial Working Groups on (a) Videoconferencing in Court and (b) Code of Ethics for the Judiciary (2003-present); and Chairman of the Committee of Supervision of the Security Service of Aruba (2004-present). He has also been a member of the National Committee On Revising the Codes of Criminal Procedure of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba (1987-1998); and Vice-President of the National Committee On Revising the Criminal Code of the Netherlands Antilles (2002-present).
The Honourable Judge has earned an international reputation as organiser of or presenter at important international legal conferences in various territories of the Dutch, French and Commonwealth Caribbean, one highlight of these activities being as Judicial panellist (together with the Hon. Burton Lifland, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York) in London in 2000 with a contribution on "Cross Border Insolvencies: A Judicial Perspective of the Cooperation and Coordination Between Civil and Common Law Jurisdictions".
Some of Mr. Justice Wit's assignments in recent times have brought him into close contact with Judiciaries of the English, French and Spanish speaking Caribbean. He has led judicial delegations to Antigua & Barbuda (1997) and Cuba (2002) for the purpose of obtaining evidence in high profile criminal cases in those territories. In his role as judicial educator, the Honourable Judge has been involved in conducting training workshops and seminars for judicial trainees and Judges from Suriname, Haiti, and the Commonwealth Caribbean. He speaks English, French, German, Dutch and Papiamento, with a passive knowledge of Spanish.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Wit is married to Sheila Wit-Thodé, a native of Curaçao. They have 4 children: Demseys, Taciana, Eurydice, and Nausicaä, all born in Curaçao
_________________
