Captain who planted 'flag' in Syria operation on trial: Standoff between judge and lawyers

We have written several times about what happened to Gendarmerie Captain C.H.—who prevented the bodies of our 9 soldiers martyred in the 2018 Olive Branch Operation in Syria from falling into the hands of terrorists and planted our flag on Keltepe—after he called Vahdettin a "traitor."

In an incident that took place at the Gendarmerie Commando Special Public Security Command in November 2021, it was alleged that C.H. insulted Erdoğan through fabricated reports filed following an Atatürk-Vahdettin argument between Captain C.H. and a sergeant major. Subsequently, while various disciplinary penalties were imposed on C.H. and his dismissal from the Gendarmerie was brought to the agenda, a lawsuit was filed against him on charges of insulting the President. While this case was ongoing, the Ministry of Interior's High Disciplinary Board, which was reviewing C.H.'s dismissal, concluded that C.H. "did not insult the President" and saw no reason for his dismissal, but imposed a 16-month rank suspension on the grounds that he "created the environment that led to this slander being cast upon him."

According to Captain C.H. and his lawyers, all these setups were carried out by the Menzil organization within the Gendarmerie.

Stating that C.H., whose administrative actions have all been canceled except for one, is counting the days to return to duty and that the lawsuit filed on charges of "insulting the President" is still ongoing, let us explain the developments in another case where C.H. is being tried on the same subject.

STANDOFF BETWEEN JUDGE AND LAWYERS

C.D., one of the non-commissioned officers with whom Captain C.H. had an argument, also filed a lawsuit against C.H. for "insult and attempted simple assault," claiming that C.H. had sworn at him and attempted to beat him, and demanded 5,000 liras in compensation.

In the first hearing of this case, held at the Ankara West 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance on March 7, the hearing was adjourned to June 6 after C.H.'s lawyers requested the recusal of the judge because the defenses were not recorded via SEGBİS and their statements were interrupted.

Meanwhile, the Ankara West 3rd High Criminal Court, which reviewed the recusal request, rejected the request but decided that the file should be sent to the 10th Criminal Court of First Instance instead of the 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance.

Since this was just another one of the usual "copy-paste" or "inadvertent" incidents, C.H.'s lawyers did not dwell on this detail; however, arguments broke out again during yesterday's second hearing.

Specifically:

At the start of the hearing, the judge, without asking the defendant Captain C.H. anything, had the phrase "I reiterate my previous statements" entered into the record as if spoken by him, and after telling him to sit down, gave the floor to his lawyer, Serdar Öztürk.

When Attorney Öztürk began his remarks by saying, "My client has not yet presented his defense," the following dialogue ensued:

Judge: He already provided a detailed defense.

Attorney Öztürk: You cut his defense short.

Judge: No, when you cut your defense short, you filed a motion for the judge's recusal. Come on, if you have something to say, let's hear it; otherwise, let's move on to the other side.

Following this exchange, Attorney Öztürk began his defense and explained the following:

"While my client was serving in the Gendarmerie Special Operations Command (JÖAK), he was subjected to organized slander. Subsequently, documents contrary to the truth were retroactively created to cover up these slanders, and when this was uncovered, an explanation was made claiming it was a 'clerical error.' All these unlawful acts were carried out in an organized manner. Due to the existence of facts suggesting that those involved in the incident and some individuals in command positions were members of the same religious sect, legal action was taken against the relevant parties. Cancellation lawsuits were filed in administrative courts against all these unlawfully established actions, and all but one of these actions were cancelled. The Armed Forces and the Gendarmerie organization are institutions that act according to a body of laws."

The judge intervened and asked, "Have you ever seen a procedure where everything is recorded one by one?" Upon the answer of "Yes" from Captain C.H.'s lawyers, the judge warned, "I have not seen it. Please do not explain things one by one, get to the merits of the case." Attorney Öztürk continued as follows:

"This coherence was only disrupted during the period when the Fetullahist structure dominated the Armed Forces. Although the court has issued a warning, because this is an organized activity of the Menzil sect structured within the Gendarmerie organization, the entire history of the case must be explained so that the material truth can be fully revealed."

The judge intervened once again, warning that defenses not related to the merits of the case would no longer be recorded in the minutes and would not be heard by the court, and requested that the defense be made regarding the incident that caused hostility between the defendant and the complainant. When Attorney Öztürk continued his defense within the same framework, the judge announced that his subsequent statements would not be taken, on the grounds that it was "understood that he would not continue within the scope of the defense on the merits."

İbrahim Yılmaz, one of Captain C.H.'s lawyers, limited himself to directing the following accusation at the judge: 

"Just now, this honorable court has committed the crime of forgery in an official document. Even though the defendant did not say a word, did not speak a single syllable, it was written in the minutes that he said, 'I repeat my previous statements.' The defendant currently has a request to make a defense; I demand that his defense be taken."

Following these accusations by Attorney Yılmaz, the judge had the following statement recorded in the minutes, which amounted to an admission that he had ordered that phrase to be written:

“It was warned that the hearing is a whole, divided into sessions, the defendant made his detailed defense in the previous session, repeating the same statements in every session is contrary to procedure, the phrase ‘Asked of the defendant’ in the record was written by the court judge by having it said verbally as ‘I reiterate my defenses,’ all parties heard and saw what was written in the record, and that the defendant was not given and would not be given the floor again for his defense at this stage.”

While Attorney Yılmaz concluded his remarks by saying, “We have no further defense at this stage. We will make a detailed defense after the statements of the complainant and witnesses,” C.H.’s other lawyer, Süleyman Demirel İlbak, also stated the following:

“THE PERSON SITTING BEFORE YOU IS A TURKISH OFFICER”

“Not all statements of our senior colleagues have been entered into the record. If the trial is to be conducted and a sentence is to be handed down in this manner, we should not come here; it is a waste of effort. Although the case being heard in your court may appear to be a simple defamation case, it appears this way because you are not paying attention to our statements and the evidence submitted to the file. However, the essence of the matter is not just the indictment reflected in your court. We are in an effort to uncover a conspiracy set up against our client, but it is seen that no results have been obtained. The person sitting before you is a Turkish officer; he has been slandered and continues to be slandered. We have been seeking justice for nearly 3 years.”

After all this, the judge, who ended the hearing without asking for the statements of the complainant and his lawyers or the prosecutor, announced that he would file a criminal complaint against C.H.’s lawyers due to their aforementioned expressions, and therefore decided to withdraw from the case, adjourning the hearing to October 22.

News Source: 12punto