There are widely accepted standards for the rule of Law.
These include but are not limited to these:
- Laws are enforced equally and impartially
- No one is above the Law and everyone is equally obligated to obey the law
- Rules are made and enforced according to established procedures, not the rulers arbitrary will
In the face of the realities the above admission of the attorney is just an attempt to detract from the accepted standards for the rule of law .
For example, this is the Article 50 of the Condominium Regime Law. How that relates to equal treatment is up to every bodies guess.
Article 50.- When a contract of sale is concluded with respect to an Exclusive Property Unit, the notary public who prepares the respective deed must require the selling party to provide proof of non-debit, among others, of the payment of the maintenance and administration fees and the reserve fund, duly signed by the Administrator. Additionally, in those Condominium Regimes that have design guides for the construction of the different buildings, they must present a proof of compliance, among others, with the design guides duly signed by the Administrator. The registration of the buyer in the registration book of Condominiums will not proceed as long as these requirements are not exhausted.
Conclusions for #3:
The standards for the rule of law are well known and are the basis for equal treatment. The admissions make no sense. We cannot find how the referenced Article 50 relates to any context in the discussion for exceptions from Design Guidelines. Furthermore “contra sensu” is not a legal term. The correct term is “contrary sensu” and means in the “opposite direction”.
Select the NEXT button to the right to go to the next topic.