sábado, 8 de noviembre de 2014

                  JEREMY HAMMOND, INNOCENT

"Could he have achieved the same goals through legal means?".

We have here the story of a young American valuable for having the courage to take to the end, which acts as its political consciousness are in favor of justice and a better life for all its citizens, even though he knew that the Status Quo is laws that say, what he did is a crime like fraud. I mean the young Jeremy Hammond last month of the year two thousand and thirteen was sentenced to 10 years in prison unjustly and illegally.

The prelude is important because Jeremy was not aware at the time of sentencing hearing that he is innocent of the charges against him. Jeremy is innocent, based on what was stated in the preface, where it is clear that he acted according to the dictates of his righteous conscience, and that conscience has foundations in political ideology: "My introduction to politics was when George W. Bush stole the presidential election in 2000, then took advantage of the waves of racism and patriotism after 9/11 to launch unprovoked imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I took to the streets in protest naively believing that our voices are heard in Washington and could stop the war. Instead, they were labeled as traitors, beaten and arrested "

Jeremy Hammond stated by the Court and the jury is crucial to demonstrate that the international legal technique called Exclusions crime [Treaties signed by US] and in this case, it is undisputed that the accused and now convicted Jeremy Hammond commits such acts because he created his conduct is justified, it is unfortunate that the jurors and Judge Preska, never given the legal value as the statements to them, Jeremy Hammond issued under oath when he says: "I been arrested for numerous acts of civil disobedience in the streets of Chicago, but it was not until 2005 that used my computer skills to break the law in political protest. I was arrested by the FBI for hacking into the computer systems of a right-wing, pro-war group called Protest Warrior, an organization selling racist t-shirts on their website and the anti-war groups harassed. I was charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Could he have achieved the same goals through legal means? "

This question throws Jeremy, hotter than firing a missile, had no answer in the judicial forum, but they realized that the defendant was innocent and punish the only way I was pressuring him to self incriminate.

However, this self-incrimination under which he ruled in Jeremy Hammond is NULL in the light of the constitutional protection of the Fifth Amendment ordains: "No person shall be held to answer for a crime punishable by death or other disgraceful if a grand jury or indictment, (...) nor shall be compelled to testify against himself in any criminal case; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. "

And the crime of fraud has four elements that must be proved at trial that the defendant is convicted. These four elements are: Deception; induced error, damage and the benefit obtained by deception. And there are these four elements Jeremy had to be linked directly with the owners of the right-wing pro-war group called Protest Warrior, an organization selling racist t-shirts on their website. And, besides, it was necessary that Jeremy has concluded an agreement or contract of any kind, where you have given deception or error in Jeremy's been held for, as a result, would have benefited directly with them with this deception, or I have kept them in error. This is a conditio sine cua non for in this case, have given evidence of fraud, but that never happened because Jeremy never had direct contact with them or made any agreement or contract of any kind, why evidence of fraud which does not apply to conduct activist Jeremy Hammond.

That's not all, the third element to be tested is the damage caused; and to be proven at trial damage is necessary for the prosecutor to offer expert testimony on economic matters equity- administratively. This means that the owners of the right-wing pro-war group called Protest Warrior, an organization selling racist t-shirts on their website must show that your income, sales and prestige were better before political action activist Jeremy Hammond and that as a result of this action politically activist, the sales of the pro- war group, were affected and now your income is lower than before and its prestige was also destroyed and therefore duly proved the damage caused by Jeremy Hammond behavior.


An expert evidence in accounting and management and large minimum reveal details of the legality or otherwise to the owners of the right-wing pro-war group called Protest Warrior, an organization selling racist t-shirts on their website are handled. This expert testimony would also reveal possible links with government officials, with some of its departments or certain of its officers as it is groups that publicly [coram populo] expressed his sympathy for the policies for war [casus belli] US government. Therefore, it is certain that the then prosecuted and sentenced Jeremy Hammond was now unfavorable and unequal to be charged by a company "friend" and demonstrating their sympathy to the US government in an open and public manner to support its war policy conditions. This means that this is a criminal case in which NO due process was respected because it was not considered to EQUITY sentenced the accused and now Jeremy Hammond. For this serious OMISSION, is considered a definitive obstacle to prove in criminal proceedings that the conduct of political activism was neither Jeremy Hammond is punished and therefore unimpeachable, for the simple reason that the political activism of young Hammond NOT fit elements defining the offense of fraud is imputed to the accused and now convicted Jeremy Hammond. [Not vehementi]


When expert evidence mentioned failure to produce the judge admitted only the incriminating evidence presented by the prosecutor. What were the tests? The only data submitted as evidence, were those that suited the company "aggrieved" and the time of sentencing, was only an "arbitrary" elementary mathematical calculation according to the words of Jeremy Hammond. "(...) In my case" intended loss "was calculated by multiplying arbitrary credit cards in 5000 based on data Protest Warrior for $ 500, resulting in a total of $ 2.5 million. My sentencing guidelines were calculated on the basis of this "loss" even though not a single credit card was used or distributed - by me or anybody else. I was sentenced to two years in prison. "It is clear that the only "intent" Jeremy Hammond behavior is motivated and funded by political ideology. However, to incriminate the defendant Jeremy Hammond, both the prosecutor and the company "aggrieved", the jury and the judge probably saw a great opportunity to jump on him; it running over a brutal way to put the sentence of 10 years more to punish him like a common criminal, when in fact he was trying a political dissident, a man who threatens their integrity and personal liberty judged by defending his free expression and political ideology. A social activist who seeks justice and equality among men of his country.


What really happened is that when such a sentence, the State, through Judge Preska, jury and prosecutor, a direct message to the community that appear to be sent is interpreted as: "We will publicly lynch our political enemies so that others do not dare do the same. "It was so Jeremy Hammond was sentenced as guilty of causing damage and get benefits nonexistent because of criminal conduct that never existed because the prosecutor did not make the expert evidence in this matter equity- economic administratively, and not having practiced accounting expert laprueba there is no way to prove the fourth element of the crime of fraud alleged against Jeremy Hammond. The prosecutor and jury to realize that Jeremy Hammond is actually politically persecuted for being in favor of a righteous policy for all Americans to live better, and therefore is guilty of the crime of fraud because their behavior conforms to what legal technique called Exclusions crime or exclusive cause of jeopardy for the defendant and sentenced today Jeremy Hammond, who testified under oath before the jury and Judge Preska, who committed such acts because he believes that his conduct is justified as a political activist [gratis et amore] not finding answers to their need for justice for the American people, but so far has not received any personal benefit neither desires nor seeks it.


I base my argument on the constitutional principle of EQUITY you should save all the parties due process. The constitutional principle that before the law and all are equal in the great wide latitude and discretion with prosecutors. In these terms, we find that the grand jury is very powerful [sensu lato] and can compel witnesses to testify before them. Its deliberations are secret, even to the accused himself. And since their role is only to determine whether there is probable cause, reasonable suspicion usually only the prosecutor presents enough evidence to make this preliminary determination. And while a defendant has an absolute right under the Fifth Amendment not to give self-incriminating testimony, the prosecutor can still call a potential defendant to testify, and force some testimony under a total or partial granting of immunity. Although formally commissioned by a federal judge, the judge is generally absent for all grand jury proceedings and the federal prosecutor who interacts with the grand jury. While the grand jury is theoretically independent instructions and charges are supposed to be somewhat codified and standardized, in fact, prosecutors have a wide latitude and discretion.

Ergo defending Jeremy Hammond should have the same right [ex aequo] have the same latitude to implement strategies and broad discretion to interpret and argue the US and international law [treaties signed by US] in favor of a strong legal defense to protect human rights and the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution in favor of Jeremy Hammond who is actually politically persecuted for being in favor of a righteous policy for all Americans to live better, and against "security companies information, working in secret to protect the government and corporate interests at the expense of individual rights, undermine and discredit activists, journalists and other truth seekers, and spreading misinformation "; It is therefore guilty of the offense of fraud because their behavior conforms to what the legal technique called Exclusions crime or exclusive cause of jeopardy for the defendant and today sentenced Jeremy Hammond, who testified under oath before the jury and the judge Preska, who committed such acts because he believes that his conduct is justified as a political activist not finding answers to their need for justice for the American people. Therefore, the prosecutor could ever prove the crime of fraud [concilium fraudis] against Jeremy Hammond. Consequently, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction within the protection of the laws, equal for all. [Fourteenth Amendment]


The sentencing of Jeremy Hammond is based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The latter was applied by simple analogy to punish and punish the accused for the offense of Fraud and Abuse which is prohibited by international treaties signed by the US, in criminal matters, considering that in trials of criminal order is prohibited from imposing by mere analogy, and yet most reason penalty must be decreed by a law exactly applicable to the crime in question. Especially because during and after the process was judged to violate due process when you push them self incriminate not only for the crime of fraud, but was forced to accept the sanctions and penalties established LAW REPEAL unconstitutional as it is Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (Atomic Energy Act Amendments) of 1954, which was replaced by the Reorganization Act of 1974 Energy [NRC] which began operations on January 19, 1975.

The Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (Atomic Energy Act Amendments) of 1954, in addition to the light INAPPLICABLE PRINCIPLE AND STARE DECISIS international treaties involving the United States, is an incongruous and infamous law to the moral stature and the honor of a person like Jeremy Hammond, social activist and patriot foolproof that under no circumstances should you apply, under the background of the Act. For purposes of the principle of stare decisis, a court applies an unconstitutional law, and the decision of any court Doing so would be reversed by the Supreme Court. Similarly, a court refuses to enforce a rule previously considered constitutional, as contrary to the constitution, would be facing a possible reversal of the judgment by the Supreme Court.


They though the prosecutor, the jury and Judge Preska, were aware that the Atomic Energy Act (Atomic Energy Act Amendments) was repealed and unconstitutional law NOT attended the PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS by contrast, agreed to press the defendant Jeremy Hammond. Act to which the State gave an effect that limited the privileges and immunities enjoyed by Jeremy Hammond as a US citizen, in violation of the protection of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

The Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (Atomic Energy Act Amendments) of 1954, has its immediate predecessor in the Atomic Energy Act of August 1, 1946, which transferred control of atomic energy for military to civilian hands, being enacted on January 1, 1947. This action reflected the optimism of the United States after the war, with the declaration of Congress that nuclear power should be used not only in the manufacture of nuclear weapons for the defense of the nation, but also to promote world peace, improve public welfare and strengthen free competition among private companies. President Truman chose David Lilienthal as the first president of the ACS.


The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC for its acronym in English Atomic Energy Commission) was an agency of the US government established after World War II by the United States Congress to foster and control the development of science and atomic technology.

Congress gave the Commission new extraordinary power and independence to carry out its mission. To provide the Committee to hire an exceptional scientific and professional freedom, Commission employees were exempt from civil service system. Due to its need for a high level of security, all production facilities and nuclear reactors were the government, while all technical information and research results were under the control of the Commission. The Department of Energy National Laboratories US was established thanks to the facilities under the Manhattan Project.

Before the creation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission US (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC), nuclear regulation was the responsibility of the ACS, established by Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Eight years later, Congress replaced that law Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act (Atomic energy Act Amendments) of 1954, which were, for the first time, enabled the development of commercial nuclear power. The law assigned the AEC the functions of both encouraging the use of nuclear energy and to regulate safety. The regulatory programs of the AEC sought to preserve public health and safety from the dangers of nuclear energy without imposing excessive requirements that impeded the growth of the industry. This was a difficult goal to achieve, especially in a new industry, and before long these programs sparked considerable controversy. A growing number of critics during the 1960s qualified to AEC regulations lax in several important areas, including standards for radiation protection, nuclear reactor safety, the status of plants and environmental protection .

  You need to make a parenthesis to make clear that the so-called federal law has been codified in the United States Code. Many of the laws passed by Congress to provide agencies of the executive branch the power to create regulations that are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, and that gives fuel to challenge them unconstitutional under this action breaks the balance and separation of powers, because in fact both the executive branch and the legislative branch would be issuing laws and regulations when we already know that the sole power to initiate and pass laws on any subject or matter is the exclusive power of the US Congress according to Section Eight of Article 18 of the US Constitution. This means that one of the two powers is invading areas of exclusive power of another power. Importantly, the regulations created by the executive branch that are published in the Code of Federal Regulations and which charge compulsory under Chevron doctrine unconstitutional by the arguments. Ergo, any law or regulation may contradict the provisions of the United States Constitution and, if Congress ratified a bill whose contents were in conflict with the Constitution, the Supreme Court may require that this law is unconstitutional and declare it invalid.


The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, is a federal law of the United States which according to the above arguments, it is unconstitutional, mainly because it was issued directly by President Eisenhower and, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Authority nuclear regulatory), is "the fundamental law of the United States in terms of both civil and military uses of nuclear materials. it covers the laws in regard to the development, regulation, and management of nuclear materials and nuclear power plant sites in United States. It amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and considerably refined certain aspects of the law, including a very significant to enable the development of a civil nuclear industry support.

In particular enabled the government to allow private companies access to technical information (Restricted Data) on the production of nuclear energy and the production of fissile materials, allowing greater exchange of information with other countries through the program Eisenhower Atoms for Peace reversed and limitations of the law of 1946 had made it impossible to patent processes to generate nuclear energy or fissile materials.


Finally, the law does not go away simply by being declared unconstitutional, but must be repealed by a subsequent law, as happened in this case. Many federal and state laws have remained officially in force for decades after being judged as unconstitutional. However, the principle of stare decisis, a court applies an unconstitutional law. The decision of any court Doing so would be reversed by the Supreme Court.

In 1974, the regulatory programs of the AEC had been so strong attack that Congress decided to abolish the agency. Both supporters and critics of nuclear power agreed that the promotional and regulatory duties of the AEC should be assigned to different agencies. The Reorganization Act of 1974 gave the Energy regulatory functions of the AEC to the new NRC, which began operations on January 19, 1975 and awarded to promotional and Development Administration Energy Research (Energy Research and Development functions Administration, ERDA), which was later incorporated into the Department of Energy

  Presidents of the BCE. SAMPLE A BUTTON. [Confer]

James Rodney Schlesinger (New York, February 15, 1929 - Baltimore, March 27, 2014) 1 was an economist and politician. CIA Director in 1973 and United States Secretary of Defense from 1973 to 1975. In 1971 he was appointed chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. In the year and a half he was in office there was a substantial performance improvement of the regulatory commission. In January 1969 the newly released Nixon Administration he joined as deputy director of the Office of Budget, dedicated to the area of the defense budget. In February 1973, President Nixon named James Schlesinger director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), after he fired Richard Helms, former CIA chief for refusing to block investigations of the Watergate scandal.

The first words of Schlesinger as CIA director were significant about what their mission was. "I'm here to make sure no one fuck to Richard Nixon," he said. The president appointed him to conduct a purge among the staff of the Agency that could be inimical to the interests of the White House. He was only six months in office, that were sufficient to fulfill its mission.

lunes, 3 de noviembre de 2014

     Published for the first time November 24, 2010

Nothing unnatural, that serve a social revolution that emerged from 1910 as the company and elect the representative of the company, and the vigilant enforcement of the law, openly copying a figure that has historically represented the interests of the monarchy, attorney and personal representative of the king, and the rights of the Crown of all time.

What has in common the Mexican working class, the middle class and business class European nobility?
However, the public prosecutor as an institution in Mexico, originated, according to the doctrine, an ordinance of Philip the Handsome issued in 1303, which for the first time clearly speaks of the attorneys of the King, as his representatives in court.

These attorneys to later advocates King joined, were in charge of representing the crown court, with the same duties of judicial officers, so they took the name of "parquet" to distinguish magistrates "Siege", who were the judges, terminology still exists; it being understood that the prosecutors acted primarily in criminal proceedings and lawyers in civil.

By winning the French Revolution, suppressed these officials and replaced by legislation enacted in 1790 by the "Commissioner of the King" as a body of the crown to monitor the enforcement and execution of judgments and "The Public Prosecutor "popularly elected and function conduct the prosecution in the criminal courts.
In Russia exisitía "the Prokuratura" which dates back to a decree of Czar March 5, 1711, in which officials were set to defend Corona Heritage, headed by a senior prosecutor who should monitor the legal interests who was interested the Crown itself.

The "Attorney General Angloamericano" official representative of the interests of the Crown and government adviser, emerged in England from the year 1277, as an official appointed by the king among the most distinguished jurists of the kingdom, and since then known business relating to the royal prerogative and legal consultant to the legal issues of government; at least so you are given the exercise of criminal action with respect to certain tax offenses and those involving state security.

In the US the "Attorney General" in English tradition, which immediately leads to "Solicitor General" (Judicial Attorney) who represents the federal government before the Supreme Federal Court operates. The Attorney General is appointed by the President of the Nation with Senate approval, but may be removed by the Chief Executive.

In each and every one of them, ingredients were taken to shape the institution of the public ministry in Mexico, which has resulted in the lack of uncertainty in the nature and functions of federal prosecution according to the principles outlined in our Bill Magna, have revealed its inability to defend the increasingly complex social, which are what matter in the end the majority of this country.