miércoles, 24 de diciembre de 2014


The biblical cinema has always been between devotion and blockbuster between Puritans and devoted followers shocked. Jesus already attracted the pioneers of cinema, as Lumiere and Méliès, and has continued to fascinate producers, since the film emulates religious literature, music and the arts.

Lumière, the first "reporter", produced Life and Passion of Jesus Christ, filmed in Horitz village of Bohemia, where the drama of Calvary, represented by the people reproduced periodically during the days of Easter. The film lasted just over a quarter of an hour.
In 1923 Robert Wiene filmed I.N.R.I. and in 1926 Cecil B. de Mille filmed his King of Kings, as a blockbuster. In 1936 two films were made: La vie de Jesus de Marcel Gibaud and Ecce Homo Walter Rilla.

Two films that became very famous worldwide were shot in Spain although US production: The Mysteries of the Rosary (1957), Father Peyton, and King of Kings (1961) by Nicholas Ray.
Ben-Hur, Fred Niblo and Ben Hur William Wyler, in Richard Fleischer Barabbas and The Robe, Henry Koster, the figure of Christ or passion often have a predominant role in the plot.

Pier Paolo Pasolini, made a film about the life of Jesus nearest to the austerity of the gospel. The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964) is entirely based on the text of Matthew and rolled camera in hand, in the best style of "cinéma vérité". The atmosphere, between medieval, Byzantine and Renaissance, is completely symbolic.

Jesus Christ Superstar, Norman Jewison, musical coming from Broodway. It was made with recreational character and free interpretation of texts, places and situations, but in countries of Christian religious repression became a song of deliverance.


In 1976, promoted by the Catholic Church premiered in Paris in a church, the Messiah, the agnostic Rossellini. The film was very underrated as neorealism of Rosellini takes you to treat Jesus without accentuating the miraculous nor end.

"Jesus of Nazareth" (1977), Zeffirelli, Catholic. The shooting, between Morocco and Tunisia .It was highly praised by the Italian Catholic Church that urged his faithful, as he was rejected by American Puritans, who accused Jesus for showing too human.

In this context the production of Mel Gibson, written by Gibson himself and Benedict Fitzgerald, whose version is set in the last twelve hours of Christ, highlighting their bloody scenes to accommodate the viewer's attention by image torture falls. Draws attention to its denostación of women to present it as representative of Satan on Earth, because in the film only Jesus, Judas and the Virgin could see it, facing up to any challenge to have the alleged support of the Vatican to declare the Pope John Paul II, his now famous "So was" after receiving the principal actor James Caviezel.

"The Last Temptation of Christ" (1983), Scorsese made by a director who tries to get away from the perfect vision of the figure of the Messiah manages to introduce the viewer to the conflict of Jesus, a man suffering. The film shocked the Catholic world, remaining censored many years and so far, it has lifted its ban in some countries.

The Last Temptation of Christ, is a much more free time and also much more rigorous from a Christian point of view, most of the classics of the genre that emerged thanks to the heavy machinery industry of Hollywood.

Scorsese poses a modest almost intimate, story about industrial dimensions of his proposal, which illustrates the humanity of the character through a permanent doubt about his identity, unfinished at no time taking his divine nature, to suggest the prospect of visionary past returns, and successive temptations facing from an initiatory circle in the desert or the surreal image of having her heart with his hands to offer it symbolically and physically to others.  

lunes, 15 de diciembre de 2014


"The Refugee"

MattDehartt not be extradited to the US, according to the facts and legal acts that precede the current situation in Canada and in harmony with the above and should be founded on FREEDOM, but this is not so. However, his stay in prison since he was arrested in Canada, and hopes his legal situation is resolved, presented until now confused, erratic and unjustified, is unclear and therefore causes restlessness and uncertainty in the Matt himself, your family and friends.

What is the real status of MattDehartt in Canada? Refugee? Protected Person? Processed without judgment?

First, not all refugee claimants are entitled to file an appeal if your request is denied shelter. For example, people who come from a designated country of origin and who came through the US when they made their request, have no right of appeal if you have been denied.

In the event that MattDeharttsea a refugee is a person who is outside their country of origin or habitual residence and can not return because he fears being persecuted for reasons related to their profession, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership of a social group.

If that were the case, MattDehartt is a protected person who is in Canada and is afraid to return to their country of origin or habitual residence unao for all and each of the following reasons: 1. Run DANGERelectric torture ; 2. hang over her threats to his life; 3. Has risks of inhumane, cruel or unusual punishment. Citizens who are in such conditions may apply for asylum to the government of Canada; unless it is subject to an expulsion order, in which case they may seek shelter. When a person like Matt, comes to Canada through an airport, port or border crossing with the United States, you can claim asylum in the same port of entry. The immigration officer reviews the case and decides whether the request can be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (Immigration and RefugeeBoard of Canada, IRB) independent tribunal that decides on immigration and refugee matters.

Under an agreement with the United States, (SafeThird Country Agreement) whereby a refugee must seek asylum in the first safe country they reach, if a person comes to Canada through the border with US, you can NOT seek asylum Canada. Some exceptions are possible, as in the case of people with family members already living in Canada. For MattDehartt, Canada SI is the first safe country as above, so this agreement between Canada and US (SafeThird Country Agreement) DO NOT apply to the case of Matt, under him, came from US because it is US and because that he was being suppressed for political reasons and his life was in danger, consequently Canada if the first safe country they reach.

It is important that citizens applying for shelter this all identity documents, including passports, driving licenses and other relevant documents. You will receive a personal information form that must be completed to submit to the examination board.

  Another possibility exists, if the citizen submits an application at an office of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (Citizenschip and Immigration Canada) The federal agency will review the case and contact the relevant person to a personal interview, if deemed necessary.

The refugee claim could NOT be accepted for submission to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, if any of the following conditions are met: A) The person has been recognized as a refugee by another country to which they can return; B) The citizen has been recognized by Canada as a protected person; C) The person came to Canada from US (SafeThird Country Agreement); D) The person has no right to enter Canada for safety, for practical criminal activity or violation of human rights; E) If the person had already made an application for asylum in the past and found it was not eligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada; F) The person had already made an application for asylum and his request was rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

When a request is accepted, the citizen obtains the status of "protected person", meaning they have the right to remain in Canada and apply for permanent residence.

If the request is DENIED, the person receives a notice explaining the reasons for the decision. The person must leave Canada within 30 days. However, the citizen has 15 days from the date you receive the notice, to request a judicial review of his file in Federal Court of Canada. You can also ask to assess the risk to the remission of your case or refer humanitarian and compassionate grounds for re-evaluation of your file. If all else fails, there are still other opportunities for legal successfully to alleviate the situation of genuine refugees and those who really have the need to seek asylum in Canada, with the creation of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD, for short English) for the protection of people fleeing political and social repression in their countries.

The Canadian immigration system is transformed.

Since 2013, the Canadian immigration system was completely transformed and changes will affect all people from that year onwards want or ask for refuge in the country. According to the government, the new rules were imposed to tackle bogus asylum seekers and people smugglers, who enriched themselves at the expense of the need for thousands of people in conflict or extreme poverty countries seeking protection in Canada and to pay thousands of dollars to try to achieve legal status in America.

The two side of the coin of the transformation of the migration system can observe when organizations defending the rights of refugees, consider that the new laws violate human rights; Moreover, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, ensures that new standards are intended to curb abuses and control the lawyers, consultants and organizations living in these processes and benefited the asylum system was open to Canada and that allowed anyone from any country to seek protection ..

Under the new rules, refugee claimants no longer have the guarantee of being able to live between 2 and 3 years with government aid while the legal process is done, because from 2013, the process will be more accelerated depending on the country, the nationality of the person seeking asylum, and in the first months will have aid from the state. Under the new law, people who come to the country illegally to seek shelter, besides being detained, are not entitled to health care, no aid from the government during the months-long legal process.

To achieve accelerate the citizens of the countries that living standards do not require protection of Canada, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stayed with the power to designate which are safe or unsafe countries, something strongly challenged by advocates of refugees, who believe that this decision should NOT be left to one person, but a meeting.

According to the minister, the safest countries are the EU and the process will take 30 to 60 days at most, rather than the 19 to 20 months lasted in the past. One of the most important aspects is that these people do NOT have the right to appeal to the Appellate Division, which shall leave the country if your application is not approved. That is, there is selective and exception process. And when this happens, the reforms to the immigration system are unconstitutional, as discussed below, for violating the general principle of law. "Before the Law are all equal."

Another measure, which has caused controversy and anger among refugee advocates, is that people who enter the country irregularly to seek refuge will be arrested if they are over 16 years while the case is investigated. Besides prison and harsher penalties for traffickers in human beings sanctions is established.

With the new rules provide that persons who are denied shelter if may appeal, but for this they must present new evidence if any, will be resolved within 90 days, so it is intended that the petitioners shelter who are rejected not extend their stay in Canada.

People have the right to appeal may be restricted for several reasons: The appeal is not a rehearing, ie they can not present your case again and not be presented for review the evidence that was presented at the hearing. If you want to submit documentary evidence, can only present evidence that was not available at the time of submission of appropriate shelter.

Rejected refugee claimant must file the notice of appeal within 15 days after losing his case to the Refugee Protection Division. Then, the case must be completely submitted within 30 days. How will additional evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing? If one gets new evidence, then one has to prove that these were not available at the time of the presentation of his case in court.

For those whose refugee claim has been denied, no possibility of obtaining aid to return to their home country through a program being executed in the Great Toronto Area and its vicinity (GTA for its acronym in English) . The pilot Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR for its acronym in English), which is being administered through a partnership between the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Canadian Border Services Agency program (CBSA for their acronym) provides financial assistance to eligible individuals whose refugee claim was denied and want to leave Canada voluntarily.

Canada is a young nation in the international arena, the Constitution is 1982, and nevertheless, has a major commitment to human rights both of their nationals, and foreigners seeking refuge from violence, injustice, persecution, death threats, political repression and preservation of personal integrity and that of their families.

All this and more, is defined in the declaration of principles Constituciónde 1982 is the supreme law of the constitution of the State of Canada and is an amalgam of codified acts and incodificadas traditions and conventions. This determines the action lines of the Canadian system of government and civil rights of Canadian citizens.

The composition of the Constitution of Canada is defined in 52 (2) section of the Constitution Act of Canada 1982 as "Canada Act 1982" and all amendments made to this document. This includes all British legislation that confirms or modifies the British North America Acts. Taken together, these documents are called "Constitutional Acts 1867-1982". The Supreme Court of Canada assures that the list is not exhaustive and that this includes unwritten doctrines as well. However, almost all constitutional jurisprudence focuses on the Constitution Act of 1867, the Constitutional Act of 1982 which includes the Canadian Chapter on rights and liberties and the call constitution written not assumed by all provinces except Quebec.

This act of Parliament of Canada determined complete independence from British rule. Part V of the Act created the formula for a constitutional amendment which does not require an act of the British Parliament. Later Part I of the Act is known as the Canadian Chapter on rights and freedoms which clearly defines the rights of Canadian citizens such as freedom of speech, religion and free movement. Part II deals with Canadian indigenous communities and their rights.

With the introduction of the Act in Canada and Chapter accompanying, much of the constitutional laws of Canada changed. The Act of Canada has hosted numerous constitutional conventions and made significant amendments to the points more difficult to interpret. Chapter Constitution has focused on individual and collective rights of Canadians. Before the establishment of the Canadian Chapter on rights and liberties of 1982, civil rights and freedoms they had in Canada a constitutional solidity. When a government establishment had a law that seemed oppressive to civil rights and liberties, Canadian legislative lawyers had to argue creatively and that the law violated federal or provincial divisions or quote technical cases that had nothing to do with the concept civil rights and freedoms. Since 1982, however, the Chapter became the most cited paper of the Constitution and therefore has strengthened protection of the rights of Canadian citizens.

This act of the British Parliament, originally called British North America Acts of 1867, created the Dominion of Canada in three separate provinces of British North America and allowed other provinces and colonies could join in the future. This act was aimed to characterize the Canadian government system, which combines the British Westminster model of parliamentary government with division of powers (Canadian federalism). Although it is only one of numerous constitutional acts of Canada, this document itself remains the most important and fundamental to understanding the Canadian Confederation (ie the union of provinces and colonies of British North America). With the nationalization of the constitution in 1982, this act was renominada "Constitutional Act of 1867". In recent years, this act served as a basis when analyzed the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government.

True independence of the three powers had different highlights, one of which was the creation of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD, for its acronym in English) for the protection of people fleeing political and social repression of their countries. However, people working refugee cases, realized very quickly that as soon as the rules were created, in most cases an appeal to the Appellate Division of Refuge was a waste of time. The procedure in that state was nothing more than a procedure very similar to a previous risk assessment [Pre- RemovalRisk Assesment, PRRA].

At the moment the Refugee Appeal Division was implemented, Immigration Minister said: "I reiterate that the bill will create a new refugee appeal division. The vast majority of applicants who come from countries that normally produce refugees, if they are rejected by the Refugee Protection Division, will have first access to a factual before the appellate division of the IRB haven appeal. "

"This is the first government that has created an appeal completely factual" The Federal Court Judge Michel Voice Phelan ruled: "The Appellate Division of Refuge [RAD] must broaden its scope when reviewing appeals of rejected shelter . The RAD can not simply review the decision of the Refugee Protection Division to determine whether the decision is reasonable or not, but must carry out an independent evaluation of the appeal and must exercise the powers conferred on him.

The Federal Court considers that the Appellate Division of Refugioes an appellate court has the power to review a case in its entirety and may consider any evidence that is credible and trustworthy even if it goes against a decision already made. If not applicable in this way, what the Appellate Division of Refuge is really doing is duplicating the work of the Refugee Protection Division to simply defend their decisions, which also doubles the work of the Federal Court, which only supposed to check the documentation that was presented to the decision maker.

The success of ADR, in this new version, means that the government is forced to hear all appeals were denied since the implementation of the RAD in December 2012. The Federal Court has the duty to nullify any laws again approved issued by the Government's Shelter declare unconstitutional if that is the case. The organizations on behalf of refugees and the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Refugee Refugee Council congratulated the Canadian judiciary to demonstrate its independence from the other two branches.

Proposal and testable hypotheses @ ArtMarius2

Unconstitutional in the case of MattDehartt (IRPA)

For MattDehartt against Canada in certain aspects of the regime that appear in the IRPA for the detention of foreign nationals on grounds of national security flagrantly violate s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow the issuance of a certificate of inadmissibility based on secret material without providing an independent agent at the stage of judicial review to better protect the named persons concerned.

It also concludes that some of the deadlines set by the provisions for continued detention of MattDeharttinfringen ss. IBIDEM 9 and 10 as they are arbitrary.

It is possible that the Government of Canada responds or has already responded by introducing a system of security certificates revised in the IRPA which includes the use of special advocates to review a summary of the evidence without being able to share this information with MattDehartt . The bill to amend the IRPA was passed by Parliament with the support of conservative and liberal caucus and received Royal Assent in 2008.

That is the IRPA?

The Immigration and Refugee Protection, SC 2001, c, 27, is an Act of Parliament of Canada, passed in 2002, which replaced the Immigration Act of 1976 as the primary federal legislation regulating immigration to Canada.

The IRPA creates a framework of highly detailed objectives and guidelines of the Canadian government has set with regard to immigration to Canada by foreign residents. The Immigration and Refugee contains laws designed to fit within the IRPA to specify how the IRPA to apply.

The IRPA, for the most part, came into force on June 28, 2002, controversially, the government did not implement a component of legislation that would have structured a Division of Refugee Appeals as part of Canada's immigration system. Parts of IRPA are administered by the Border Services Agency Canadá.Esto means that the measures implemented by the IRPA, in the case of MattDehartt are unconstitutional and can be sunk into the ground going to the Refugee Appeal Division.

Thus, left exposed here, not only the ways for the pilot to reach heaven, but LIBERTY  of flesh and bone.

"Mutters a prayer / and ends with a smile / The order is given / The moves to line combat / But I left behind / and meditate More blood will not stop / nor erase the hate. / In Both young / move to the battle zone / He feels good / God you'll never be alone / It feels so tired / lying down on her bed / Expects men to find courage / in the words addressed to them /
Pilot Sky / Sky Pilot / "

Sources consulted. Laws and Regulations.
ü Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
ü Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States.
ü Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
ü Refugee Protection. Rules Division.
ü Refugees. Appellate Division Rules.
ü Interim Policy. Federal Health Program.
ü Canadian Constitution Act 1982.
ü Constitutional Acts 1867-1982.

ü SkyPilot. Eric Burdon and the Animals.

miércoles, 3 de diciembre de 2014

                  SKY PILOT

“He blesses  the boys / formed in line / the aroma of weapons oiled / and brightness of bayonets / He is there to help the most / to convince  / He is a holy man /  Sky Pilot /  Sky Pilot  / How high can you fly?

Do not extraditing former pilot Matt DeHartt to US, if it proves that the extradition request has been made in order to try or punish him for an offense of a political character. Extradition for political offenses is not granted, because these cease to be to cross a border, at the discretion of the signed international treaties on mutual agreement among nations with Western democracies, including countries like Canada and the US.

Home is important to note this because in the case of Matt DeHartt, we have a citizen 30 years of age, of American nationality, a former aviator with debugging top secret granted in his favor by the US government, who was arrested on the US border with Canada, around 8 am on August 6, 2010 on the basis of an alert espionage.

While there is a very active international cooperation for the suppression of crime, having the rule that a State is obliged to extradite a foreign criminal only if there is an international treaty with the requesting State or International Convention on ex tradition continues, of both states are signatories. When there is no international treaty or convention, the requested State is authorized to decide extradition, but is not obliged to grant it. However with the obligation is not absolute because the required state always retains the sovereign right not to grant extradition if according to its domestic law the requirements specified for such purpose are met. The latter may be the situation facing Matt DeHartt.

To verify this, review the EXTRADITION TREATY SIGNED THAT EXISTS BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and began to meet on 22 March 1976. There, we found that each contracting party agrees to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and under the conditions described in this Agreement.
This means that any person who is in its territory that has been accused of any offense punishable under Article 2 of this Agreement committed in the territory of another, or out of, or convicted of any of them, according to Article 3 (3) (Article 1). ibid

Extradition will remember for conduct constituting an offense punishable by the laws of both contracting parties, however in that Article 4 contains an EXCEPTION follows: No extradition is agreed that the offense underlying the request for extradition is political, or the person whose extradition is sought proof that the extradition request has been made in order to try or punish him for an offense of a political character, Article 2 (1) and Article 4 (1) (iii) (2) (i) Ibid.

Besides the existence of a treaty on extradition as an indispensable requirement to be granted. The extradition has several elements that are necessary for your application, and are as follows: a) Is there a penalty administrative procedure; b) There is an accused or convicted of an offense under the law of a State person; c) Such person is arrested in another State d) return the first to stand trial or to serve the sentence already imposed was requested.

You need to analyze each of the items shown here to have a testable hypothesis of the legal status of Matt DeHartt because most extradition treaties requires that the State which requests showing of cause to prosecute or punish the required; It is also necessary that the alleged offense is punishable as such both in the criminal law of the requested State as in the requesting State.


The answer is no, for two reasons. The first is the origin and reason for his detention and trial in US, the second, the time taken in the territory of Canada held in jail pending his refugee situation is resolved.

Since the year two thousand and ten in which it was held at the US border with Canada, to date, has been more than three years, therefore, with the lapse of time tested, it is indisputable that has legal consequences that benefit Matt DeHartt. In principle we can see that in this case for extradition exists NOT an extradition request by the VIA DIPLOMATIC, if any, having spent more than 60 days after being arrested, and in accordance with the extradition request, if not it has received the request for extradition and the documents referred to in Article 9, as stated, Matt DeHartt should have been released to 60 have passed that mark the items mentioned (Article 11. 3. From extradition Treaty Canada and US)

This results in the following: In addition to the extradition request must be made through diplomatic channels, the request must be accompanied by a description of the person; a statement of the facts of the case, the text of the laws of the requesting State describing the offense and prescribing the punishment thereof; and a statement of the governing law on limitation of legal proceedings.

In the case of Matt DeHartt, ie when the request relates to a person who has been convicted yet, must be accompanied by a warrant issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting State and all evidence that, under the laws of the requested State, would justify his arrest and sent to trial criminal proceedings if the offense had been committed in this State, including the documents certifying that the person whose extradition is sought is the person who refers the warrant. The previously mentioned is based on what is provided for in Article 9 (1) (2) (3) Ibid.

It is possible that none of the requirements mentioned in previous lines had been fulfilled in the case of Matt DeHartt, this is corroborated by the length of time in prison as a refugee. Therefore, it does not explain why the detainee DeHartt Matt has not requested his immediate release after 60 days in jail without being notified formal extradition request from the US government to the Canadian government, diplomatic channels. This provision does not prevent the proceedings leading to the extradition of the person sought will start if the request and documents are subsequently received.

In this case, we know that there is no criminal and administrative proceedings in the case Matt DeHartt, because if the competent authority has issued an extradition order and NO has been brought to Matt DeHartt the territory of Canada within the time prescribed by the laws of State, that person shall be released and Canada may subsequently refuse to extradite Matt DeHartt for the same offense.

The first element was not met fully in harmony with the provisions of Article 14 (1) (2) of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the US. This means that when it comes to extradition between the two countries, the decision regarding the request for extradition from Canada should have communicated without delay to the requesting State (US) and had not, means that the first element Extradition law was not met fully, and from a legal point of view, it is sufficient that one of the elements of the law on extradition between Canada and the US are not satisfied for the detained in prison (MattDeHartt) requesting his immediate release however, always in favor of completeness analyze this second element and the other remaining two to clear all doubts about the legal status of former pilot Matt DeHartt.


  The answer is NO there is a person charged with an offense under the law of a State. In this case DeHartt Matt has not been charged with a crime in US, which exists in Canada.

From the August 6, 2010 when Matt DeHart was arrested by the FBI on the US border with Canada on the basis of an alert spy who met computers Border Patrol United States, all their human rights were violated and due process that should protect it according to the Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth US Constitution.

  This is because the FBI has no legal authority to make accusations in a formal trial, and the case of offenses under federal jurisdiction or offenses under state jurisdiction, the only ones who can fincar criminal charges in US is the grand jury or jury accusation ("Grand jury"), and the regular jury. The right to trial by jury of your peers is founded on the system of jurisprudence of the United States. Three of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights of the US specifically address this issue, namely: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury located in the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," (6th Amendment) ; "In civil cases, when controversial than twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," (7th Amendment); and "Nobody is obliged to respond on a capital crime or otherwise infamous crime, unless on filing an indictment of a Grand Jury," (5th Amendment).

In based on the common law as the US system, the grand jury is a type of jury determined only if there is enough evidence to start a trial. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, an impartial panel of ordinary citizens, that there is reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or prima facie case that a crime has been done. The grand juries, their use remains binding in federal criminal proceedings in the United States as well as in criminal proceedings in more than 40% of state systems in the US

It is noted that in American jurisdictions have abandoned statewide grand jury system, has been replaced by a system of preliminary hearings and accusations based on a document called "INFORMATION OF THE PROSECUTOR ." The latter could be the case Matt DeHartt.

Most state level jurisdictions have abolished the grand jury, replacing them with a system in which a prosecutor may initiate an accusation by a document called a '  "INFORMATION OF THE PROSECUTOR "and if the applicant wants to question or doubt the basis for the accusation, then be a preliminary hearing at which a judge hears the evidence related to the alleged offenses and makes a judgment on whether the prosecution can proceed.

  However, FBI agents asked anything about these charges and continued to interrogate him without an attorney in connection with the file server the basis that it was a matter of national security. Published reports, however, suggest that the file in question contains information relating to an FBI investigation of domestic criminal activity by the CIA.

On August 7, 2010, as a result of the FBI interrogations, Matt ended up in the emergency room of a nearby hospital. He told emergency room doctors that FBI agents questioned him about a matter of national security. Emergency physicians dismissed this talk and was diagnosed as delusional as having an acute psychotic break down. He was returned to the custody of the FBI that followed questioning without a lawyer. He did not appear in front of a federal magistrate for a detention hearing until August 9, 2010, when there was a brief detention hearing. On August 11, 2010 he again appeared before a federal magistrate who referred back to the custody of the FBI. According to published reports he collapsed in the courtroom after his appearance. After being taken back into custody by the FBI was interrogated without a lawyer until August 20 although the Court had appointed one for him.

The focus of the interview was not child pornography - none of which can be found in any of the computer files of Matt, but the alleged national security file on the server it controls. The FBI was forced to sign consent forms that give their identities online.

In either case, the second element of extradition under analysis, even if in Tennessee, as in most jurisdictions state level, which have abolished the grand jury, replacing them with a system is NOT compliant which a prosecutor may initiate an accusation by a document called a ' "INFORMATION OF THE PROSECUTOR "

This explains the sarcastic comments arraigning judge, who said that if the FBI did not seem as strong as they pretended it was. No espionage charges were ever filed in this case. In the end, Matt DeHartt was arraigned in the Middle District of Tennessee on child pornography charges.


Yes, almost a year after his release on bail, DeHartt Matt and his family fled to Canada to seek refugee status because of the actions of the government of the United States. He was arrested by the Canadian government and is currently in jail in Canada, where he and his family refugee status is pending.


The answer is NO. This fourth and final element of extradition was already sufficiently answered when we examine the possible existence of criminal proceedings - Administrative which is the first element of extradition, when the request relates to a person who has been convicted yet, should accompanied by a warrant issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting State and by all evidence, under the laws of the requested State, would justify his arrest and sent to trial criminal proceedings if the offense had been committed in this state, including the documents certifying that the person whose extradition is sought is the person to whom the warrant relates. The previously mentioned is based on what is provided for in Article 9 (1) (2) (3) Ibid.

It is a fact that in this case THERE ARE BASED TESTS. During his detention he was given Thorazine IV without your consent and repeatedly interrogated about Anonymous, Wikileaks, and a file supposedly detailing an FBI investigation of post-9/11 the domestic criminal activity by a US intelligence agency appearing on a server it was an admin. That same day, the government hastened drafted and filed a criminal complaint, on the evening of August 6, against Matt supposedly in an investigation into allegations that he had requested child pornography in 2008. This is very unusual, especially when dealing with complaints relating to child pornography.

The said Article 4 (2) of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the US, contains provisions that benefit or saved in any way the legal status of Matt DeHart when litteram ad states: "For the purposes of this Treaty, the following offenses NOT considered as crimes framed in subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (1) of this article (ii) murder, manslaughter or other culpable homicide, malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm act; (Iii) offenses involving kidnapping, abduction, or any form of unlawful detention, including taking of hostages; (Iv) Offences involving the placement or use of explosives, incendiaries or destructive devices or substances capable of endangering life or to acknowledge serious personal injury or substantial property damage; and (V) The attempt to commit any of these offenses, or conspiracy to commit, or the fact that they advise comet or aiding or abetting a person who commits or attempts to commit such crimes. "

Clearly, none of the above mentioned crimes are part of the charges, and the charges that once fincaron proceedings against him. And they are not, because Matt DeHartt was instructed in the Middle District of Tennessee on charges of child pornography, crimes other than the aforementioned Article 4 (2) of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the US. In consequence, there is no question that comes DeHARTT Matt's extradition to US, because in fact the refugee in Canada now is political persecution. Strengthens the previous legal argument, Judge arraigning comment when litteram ad said: "The case of the FBI did not seem as strong as they pretended it was. No espionage charges have never been presented in this case. "

lunes, 10 de noviembre de 2014


Many Mexicans today, go to the candy stores and grocery stores in search of a good chocolate to serve at your table, ask or look for the "French" chocolate "Swiss style" or or "Spanish" and if candy is thinking about buying a good chocolate "Hersey". Success as enjoyable and energizing chocolate drink listed, desired and tasted worldwide is a demonstration of the lack of knowledge we have about ourselves. In the Mesoamerican region in Mexico, cacao seeds were so prized by the Aztecs that were used as currency for trade at the time.
Chocolate originates from the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao) in the southeast of Mexico where its use and consumption in semi-liquid and liquid form as "beer" was popularized by the Toltec culture, and then spread entire plateau of Mexico and south, the Maya culture. Its rapid spread reached the tropical regions of South America, the Orinoco River to the Amazon.

The word chocolate is adapted from the Nahuatl word xocolātl, which referred to a "frothy drink made from cacao" and literally meaning bitter water. This is the result of adding to the word of Nahuatl origin (the central-western part of Mexico) atl ("water") Xococ word ("sour"), the word xocolia ("sour")

Other versions contradict, Michael Coe, professor emeritus of anthropology at Yale, says that the word xocolātl "does not appear in any ancient source text or (prior to the conquest), in the Nahuatl language, the language of the Aztec culture." Mexican philologist Ignacio Davila proposed that "Spaniards created the word by taking the Maya word chocol and then replaced the Mayan term for water haa, with the Aztec atl."

Many consumers today have no idea that the chocolate they love is of Mexican origin and that, after the conquest of Mexico was brought to Europe where production and consumption industrialized, with both economic success, countries Germany, Spain, Switzerland, France, Holland, England and America paternity fight, because each one of them, printing them was his particular way of preparing before marketing their sale with large palms.

In the sixteenth century, introduced Hernán Cortés in the Spanish court the Aztecs drank chocolate. The chocolate drink was popular with the religious of Mexico, and when they returned to Spain brought cocoa him to have that drink. With time was introduced in the upper echelons of European society.

The addition of sugar, vanilla and spices such as cinnamon, rum, gave him a certificate of naturalization from the nuns in a convent in Oaxaca, Mexico who added sugar to cocoa and Monasterio de Piedra, in Zaragoza Spain, are the two places, in America and Europe respectively, which seem to have been the first to put into practice for the first time that combination.
In 1606 the manufacture of chocolate to Italy by Francesco Carletti after a trip to the Spanish colonies in America. Others say it was Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, general of the Spanish armies true introducer.

In 1615 the cocoa arrives in France through marriage to the daughter of Philip III, Anne, King Louis XIII of France. In 1646 comes to Germany from Italy. For years, the Germans saw it as a medicine, and is only sold in drugstores and pharmacies. More important is the date of 1746, for a club of chocolate aficionados a great innovation occurs: the water, the only employee until then to mix with cocoa, is replaced by milk, adding him sometimes eggs, alcohol and old wine .

The industrialization of chocolate took a big jump from 1777 in Barcelona where mechanical processing replaced craft production of chocolate. In the early nineteenth century, with the development of cocoa plantations around the world, mainly in Africa, the chocolate industry was established and perfected in multiple countries.
The Italian Doret pioneered the solidification of chocolate for the tablet. Doret, was the first solidified chocolate in Turin. Shortly thereafter, the first chocolate factory moved to Switzerland in 1819. In England the first tablet was the Fry and Son. Here was a mixture of liquor, cocoa and sugar commercially in Birmingham in 1849 under the name of Chocolat Delicieux a Manger.

For 1828 a Dutchman, Conrad Van Houten invented a hydraulic press to squeeze the crushed cocoa beans and separate the butter from the new product could be obtained by the scouring: cocoa powder. The machine could extract up to 50% cocoa butter. Along with the development of the process known as dutching, achieve that cocoa is more easily dissolved in milk or water, the Dutch were placed at the head of chocolate production.
The great Swiss time was the invention of milk chocolate in 1875 by Daniel Peter by leveraging flour milk (milk powder) created by Henri Nestlé. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Swiss invented a process to further refine the chocolate called conching or homogenized, is to spend the dough between discs of porcelain for several hours, resulting in a smooth chocolate that melts in the mouth. Says that everyone better quality chocolate is subjected to conching treatment for a minimum of seventy-two hours.

Because entrepreneurs like Hershey, Kohler, Lindt, Nestlé, Peter, Suchard and-names Tobler who brought fame to certain brands of chocolate today - contributed much to this industry, and invented more efficient equipment, improving formulas - why is the chocolate one in the world considered Mexican.

Today the sale, export and consumption of chocolate generates huge amount of foreign exchange to Switzerland, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Italy, United States and England, without these benefits reach Mexico as the country said the original generator tree. It originated 500 years ago. Since then to date, we have never drawn conclusions to reverse that situation. That is we are still living in the same mistake as being a country with enormous potential, we are still in the export of raw materials in areas such as oil, silver, gas, uranium, along with the most important pre-Hispanic cultural heritage world, and an eco system by which we could exploit ecotourism attracts 9% of the 1,000 million tourists visiting each year around the world and generate 400 billion dollars a year. No, our leaders do big business with the eco system and the Treasury receives in exchange, mirrors and glass beads as 500 years ago, the exploitation and exportation of our wealth.