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.

THERE IS A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IF-ADMINISTRATIVE MATT DeHARTT?

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.

IS THERE A PERSON (MATT DEHARTT) CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF A CRIME UNDER STATE LAW?

  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.

THAT PERSON (Matt DeHartt) WAS DETAINED IN ANOTHER STATE?


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.

  THERE IS A REQUEST FOR RETURN A US to stand trial?

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. "