web counter
LEXO PA REKLAMA!

SHKARKO APP

App Store
Google Play

E fundit!

x

Director Rakipi must choose: did he add the list of winners for the party or for lek?

2024-04-29 15:12:00, Aktualitet CNA
Director Rakipi must choose: did he add the list of winners for the party or for
Arben Rakipi

The School of Magistrates has been involved for days in the scandal that Director Rakipi tried to bill the device that checks the results of the competitors' tests.

Today, the opposition has requested the summons of Director Rakip to the Law Commission, where he will answer not only for the "competition" of 2024, but probably also for the past periods when the selection was in the hands of the device that I counted and evaluated incorrectly.

On the first day of the scandal, director Rakipi came out and declared that the device had taken away 4 points from the candidates.

After the machine got it wrong by 4 points (according to Principal Rakip of the Magistrate), the principal and his right-hand man at the Magistrate's School adjusted the numbers and added 42 "winners".

But how is it possible that after it was corrected with 42 candidates, the list was added with 10 more?

The director and the right wing of the justice sect at the Magistrate's School didn't know how to add 4 points to each candidate? That's why two days later they took 10 more candidates out of their pockets?

Winners within 4 days increased from 97 to 121 and finally to 131.

So a total of 52 names or 60% of the initial list.

After comparing the 3 lists, below are the 10 names added to the third round of manipulation of the winners of the first round of the Master's School admission competition:

1. Evandro Janka

2. Bani Jazxhi

3. Ervis Bajramaj

4. Fatjon Xhafaj

5. Gladis Hajdini

6. Grisela Broci

7. Julinda Prifti

8. Lorida Abazi

9. Matilda Idrizaj

10. Sonila Morina.

Director Rakipi must choose: did he add the list of winners for the party or for
School of Magistracy

In the list, you can find lawyers who have worked in law firms whose owners have been accused of fraud, you can find lawyers from real estate offices, or lawyers who are not even recognized by Google.

It is not known how many points each of the 131 candidates received. The School of Magistracy withheld this data from the final list.

Director Rakipi said that the device was wrong by 4 points.

But it did not explain how it is possible that the device is wrong by only 4 points and how after each round of manual verifications one time 42 and another 10 are added!

Fatmir Xhafajt's brother-in-law is the responsible person within the School of Magistrates, who deals with drafting theses and supervising the process.

The opposition has asked to call representatives of the School of Magistracy to the Law Commission.

Will he protect his brother-in-law Fatmir Xhafaj?

Director Rakipi must choose: did he add the list of winners for the party or for
Fatmir Xhafaj

The second examination at the School of Magistracy was canceled by the Governing Council of the School of Magistrates and the continuation of the process was delayed by more than 24 hours.

Members of the Governing Council of the School of Magistracy:

- Sokol Sadushi, president of the Supreme Court

- Olsian Çela, Prosecutor General

- Arben Rakipi, director of the School of Magistrates

- Naureda Llagami, president of the High Judicial Council

- Alfred Balla, chairman of the High Prosecution Council

- Ulsi Manja, Minister of Justice

- Odise Moçka, State Attorney General

- Genti Dokollari, judge

- Albert Kulici, prosecutor

- Maksim Haxhia, president of the Chamber of Advocates

- Sokol Berberi, responsible for the Initial Training Program

- Artan Hajdari, internal teacher of the School of Magistrates

- Dashamir Kore, internal teacher of the School of Magistracy

Sokol Berberi is directly responsible for the thesis drafting process and the conduct of the entrance exams.

What will Fatmir Xhafaj do with his brother-in-law?

Mr. Arben Rakipi tried twice in interviews and forced statements to blame the counting device. But even for that equipment, the responsibility falls on director Rakip and Sokol Berberi.

The open positions for this year were for 20 judges, 25 prosecutors and 15 legal assistants.

Of the 79 winning candidates announced in the presence of all, after the candidates left, one found that the device was faulty. And at night the assessment resumed. In the morning, 121 candidates were declared winners!

Arben Rakipi, the director of the famous School of Magistrates, in a first attempt to clarify the admissions scandal in the school he directs, said:

".... scantron announced 79 winners, where the sum of points is one hundred points and *scantron has mistakenly calculated the lists based on 96 points....".

Director Rakipi must choose: did he add the list of winners for the party or for
Arben Rakipi

Arben Rakipi, in the capacity of the director of the School of Magistrates, stated that the scantron (the device without a mouth that should have evaluated the tests in the first phase), had mistakenly calculated the lists based on 96 maximum points and not 100!

No one explained how the device error was fixed.

Simple logic wants the director to have corrected the device error, adding 4 points to everyone!

From dinner to morning, the list was increased by 42 candidates.

But if that was the case as the director clarified, then before the re-evaluation by the director, the admissions "beam" should have been divided among the number of 69 candidates and not 79!

Because if the director has added 4 points to everyone, then those who in the morning list resulted in 64 points, before nightfall, should have had 60 points. So due to the error of the device, the "beam" of admissions to the famous School of Magistrates, should have stopped until the last candidate that the device distinguished as having 60 points earned.

If we observe the list, we will understand that before the addition of 4 points (that the device was stolen from everyone), only up to the number of 69 candidates could be those who were qualified by the device. Because up to number 69, the candidates have 64 points each. Which means that in the first list, only up to number 69 were the candidates who managed to get the minimum of 60 points that ensured their qualification.

Up to number 69, they should have been the ones who secured the minimum number of uncontested points even from the equipment!

The "beam" of admissions should have stopped at number 69. Not at number 79!

On the other hand, candidate number 79 had 63 points, but there were 2 others behind him with 63 points.

The device (which counted wrongly with 4 minus points for everyone as the director said), having skipped to number 79!

Although candidate number 79, according to the equipment, should have had 59 points and not 60!

Director Rakipi must choose: did he add the list of winners for the party or for
School of Magistracy

And if the device qualified candidate number 79, how did it disqualify the next two candidates after candidate number 79 (who have the same number of points as number 79)?

Why did the list the first time, when the device counted minus 4 points, stop at number 79 and not at 81? Because both the candidate with number 80 and the one with number 81 secured 63 points in the end. So as much as candidate number 79 and as many as 9 other candidates before candidate number 79.

To make the matter more interesting, 2 days later the director and the person in charge of the selection process add 10 more candidates!

The director and the person responsible for organizing the admission competition to the School of Magistracy must convincingly explain what happened that the list swelled with 52 candidates.

If they are not convinced, they only have to choose:

Did they add 52 candidates for the party or is it just a matter of money?/ CNA





Lajmet e fundit nga