On April 20, 2020, Net Consulting received a denial from a judge in the Mostar Municipal Court, Ms. Nina Ratkušić, regarding ten articles published by Net Consulting within the series: A Corporate-Judicial Affair in BiH.
In the previous 10 analytical texts, Net Consulting has provided only facts, based on an insight into material documentation, and is guided by the highest ethical standards in its professional work. In any case, in accordance with the principle of democratic and fair treatment of the exchange of arguments in public space, Net Consulting announces the denial of the judge Nina Ratkušić in its entirety.
Read the integral text of Nina Ratkušić’s denial below:
PARTY: NINA RATKUŠIĆ, Judge of the Mostar Municipal Court, represented by Assistant Šemsa Droce, a lawyer from Mostar
Based on the provision of Article 8 of Defamation Law of the FBiH, I submit the following:
R E Q U E S T
TO CORRECT FALSE CONTENT
OR DEMENTI
In your series (10 sequels), last published 05/02/2020, you published false information regarding the work of this judge on file, which you called “local builder” and “international bank”, and repeatedly insisted that this judge does not do the work on file, that she is corrupt, even though you knew and were aware of the actual state of affairs, since you were instructed in detail in connection with the work of the said file, so the question arises regarding your knowledge, for what reasons did you present false content by consciously omitting the actual state.
The denial must be made to both the domestic and international public, bearing in mind the quotations from 1st sequel, first paragraph: “However, since the analysis of this case is also intended for the international public, to whom it is incomprehensible for the courts to be brutally composed to assist in business malpractices, the case needs to be adequately presented to that audience. “
As Judge Nina Ratkušić is on longer sick leave, on which she still was at the time of the publication of your first series on 11/11/2019 published on your website Business Ethics, and on which sick leave she was at the time of writing this request, and her only preoccupation was her health condition, for which she was scared, she was not able to deal with your fabrications, and by which you hindered the course of treatment, especially with the fact that she believed everyone knew the exact facts, and you, because in one of your series you state that she went on vacation, which is her right and the obligation of her employer to allow her vacation, and that after that, she is on sick leave, which is also her right, that is, the obligation to undergo adequate treatment, insinuating that all above are just excuses, or that she is faking her sick leave.
However, the above did not prevent you from continuing to write fabrications precisely because your sole aim was to professionally demolish (destroy) her, and we would not debate the reasons for such a procedure at the moment, because she is familiar with them. Since she addressed the HJPC with a request for media address to deny all allegations made, and that she has not received the said approval to this day, the same addresses the request for denial in a permissible manner without revealing the status of the files and actions on the same, thereby denying her of presenting the facts that deny your allegations, except for the fact that during the indebtedness period with the case file, which was formally assigned but not factually assigned on October 31, 2018 , and the said file was never submitted to her by authorized persons, and by her order it was not submitted to work, for which she cannot be held responsible. It was not until mid-June 2019 that the same was actually put into operation, and which file had to be reviewed and sorted out to which phase what belonged to, given the large number of phases in the file in question, and with which phases were in charge more judges.
All these allegations concerning the work of other state employees, judges and expert associates, according to the description of their job, had to be made public by a public relations officer, not this judge, who was forbidden to comment on ongoing cases and not to say something in this denial that the Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH prescribes as a disciplinary offense, she will only state that your allegations that she was dismissed from work on the said file are also incorrect, but that she was relieved from work for longer sick leave that persists at this time.
Without further comment on the work on the case file, as there are objective limitations prescribed by the Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH (exposure to further disciplinary proceedings), which you should be very aware of and what circumstance you abused while writing the above serials, she declares that all your allegations of alleged misconduct and corruption and keeping the file in the drawer are inaccurate, on the ground that the subject of the court proceeding ordered by this judge on 10/31/2018, was no resolution on the objection to the decision on counter-measure, but on the objection of third parties, the objection to the decision on counter-measure was submitted to this judge only just on 25.04.2019. (evidence on file).
Also, there will be no statement as to who should be found guilty, and it all relates to the formal assignment with the file of this judge, but not the factual one, until June 2019, stating the reasons she would need to reveal data she is not authorized to do, because it refers to comment on pending procedure, as well as the work of other judges and expert associates who acted at the same time with the case file but at other stages of the proceedings, which is a disciplinary offense.
The use of annual leave in the Mostar Municipal Court is regulated as a collective vacation by a written decision of the President of the court. The said vacation was also used by this judge following the decision of the President of the court and the decision issued. That is the right of the judge and the obligation of the employer.
After a vacation, she goes on sick leave because the first symptoms of the disease appeared in June, when is the beginning of treatment, and she uses her vacation for treatment after which she continues on sick leave. When the symptoms stopped, she begins to work briefly, and again visits doctors while working to go back to longer sick leave on which she is today. You, as the authors of these series, have been aware of this, but it also does not prevent you from making it even more difficult and wanting to put pressure on her and the HJPC to discontinue her treatment in order to cause even greater harm or even death, because you are posting your first series while the judge is on treatment 11/11/2019. You continue the series while she is undergoing treatment, making it difficult for the patient to undergo treatment and using her illness preventing her from giving denials, because the treatment cannot be achieved in BiH but in the Republic of Croatia, and you are familiar with the above.
In the course of her brief work from June 2019, a judge’s assistant (typist) was taken away from her due to her collective vacation and sick leave, and she was allowed a second judicial assistant part-time, which further complicates her work. President of the Court organizes the work and the same was informed that this judge would be on longer sick leave in view of the course of treatment, and he did not distribute urgent files to other judges.
Taking into account your allegations that the motion and objection to the Decision on the enforcement of the home builder was acted expressly, this judge cannot or does not want to comment, because she did not act on it, and the up-to-date work of each judge is assessed according to the promptness and the flow of documents and delays in work with respect to the promptness of the complete court, emphasizing that she had expressly done any case and acted in any case in such a manner, had she ingored the order of receipt, she would also be subject to disciplinary prosecution, as evidenced by the material documentation, and whether that judge acted in the order in which she was received, she did not wish to make any statement, nor were the circumstances known to her.
For these reasons, the entire allegations regarding the work of this judge in the case file are denied:
– The first series called A Corporate-Judicial Affair in BiH, published on 11/11/2019;
– The second series called “The Drawer” Model Of Obstruction Of The Rule Of Law, published on 11/26/2019;
– The third series called Family Ties in the Case published on 12/3/2019;
– The fourth series called Birds Of a Feather Stick Together released on 12/10/2019;
– The fifth series called The Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor as envisioned by Alena Kurspahić Nadarević, published on 12/17/2019;
– The sixth series called The Golden Key Opens All Doors released on 12/23/2019;
– The seventh series called Divna Bošnjak and her confirmed acts of corruption Released on 12/29/2019;
– The eighth series called Deep justice phenomenon in the BiH judiciary! published on 01/11/2020;
– The ninth series A word is enough to the wise on 01/26/2020;
– The tenth series called There is a hope: the wheels of justice in BiH have started turning, released on 05/02/2020;
The denial deadlines did not expire because the defamation was being carried out continuously and there were interruptions.
With respect!
04/08/2020 Applicant, by attorney
NOTE: Net Consulting firmly rejects Judge Ratkušić’s insinuation that Net Consulting’s intention was to provoke her death through texts, and once again it should be noted that every public servant must conscientiously perform his / her function and take care of his / her professional duties independently, which gives rise to everyones public reputation. Telling the truth and facts to the public that Net Consulting addresses in its texts is a public interest of the first order, and for this reason Net Consulting will not consent to emotional blackmail, but will continue its analysis in the future.
