MÉXICO: EL BOTÍN

       ASSANGE: ILLEGAL processing in USA.

              [Hypothetical third scenario]

Every crime committed in US, by law, criminal suspects before a Grand Jury and a predetermined judge, exercising its jurisdiction on the site or place where the crime was committed is processed. As stipulated in Article 3 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the US, literally commands: "All offenses will be tried by a jury (...) judgment spoken of took place in the State where the offense was committed; but when it has not committed within the limits of any State, the Trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by a law. "

In recent months, the news was circulating that a grand jury investigating journalist and creator of Wikileaks Julian Assange. At the time that kind of buzz created uncertainty and damage to the affected computer and its nearest person, but immediately brings serenity that gives the intelligence and courage foolproof, steps were taken to deal with the news.

Subsequently, the government of US, filtered indirectly information to the press (WP) to recognize that if Julian Assange was processed, the same fate he would be the most important day of US who had published the WikiLeaks cables, and in these circumstances not considered a viable project or success. In no time, the government of US, referred to respect for human rights Julian Assange or American journalists and freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights Declaration (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution that protects the media and American citizens and anyone who is in American territory with the right to freely express their political opinions and any material. The person who spoke on behalf of the government of US did not address this important point, the issue of human rights established and protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, remained untouchable. And one must wonder why this omission and censorship on this?

  THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.

For if such a statement were true, this would be a Grand apocryphal Jury false corrupter of law on behalf of which he speaks, and the Grand Jury of dark origins, investigative acts lack legal force and therefore their legal consequences are VOID oF ORIGIN not having Congress issued a law to locate the place or state where Julian Assange should be prosecuted and therefore the place where the State must act to straighten a grand jury indictment against journalist Julian Assange.

And in the opposite case, that today the law has already been adopted by Congress, would result in a flagrant violation of article 3 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the US by legal arguments that explain in the following lines. If Julian Assange be extradited to stand trial in any State or part of the territory of the US, the Constitution provides that Congress must discuss and approve a bill to pinpoint the place, or the State within the US in where it will process the creator of Wikileaks. If that law had dictated the Congress of US, journalist and activist Julian Assange would be in a situation of emergency and therefore defenseless, under which, the place where it would be processed, would result in the creation of a Grand Jury from that place to bring in exclusive the new law and therefore the establishment of a court ad -hoc that have discussed and approved by Congress to apply it exclusively to Mr. Julian Assange, ie, would be processed in an arbitrary manner by a court and a grand jury in a place ordained by law "with dedication against" no more than any other citizen would apply to him, in violation of the general principle of law which says, “Before the Law, all citizens are equal.” This contradicts and violates flagrantly so mandated by Article 1, Section Nine, paragraph 3 of the Constitution which clearly states: “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall apply”. This means that it is prohibited to issue decrees or laws that preclude, proscribe and discriminate against people, whether American citizens or people who are in US territory. Likewise, it is prohibited by Article invoked, make laws to be applied after the events occurred, ie with both retroactivo. Por effect is indisputable that the law had been passed Congress, is nothing else than a prosaic illegal decree of attainder and ex post facto law pedestrian light that invoked Article inapplicable journalist and creator of Wikileaks, JulianAssange.

This arrest and process also violates the right of Julian Assange and his papers [corpus delicti course], against unreasonable searches and seizures of, being inviolable until there is an order or warrant issued and supported a cause plausible, and supported by Oath or affirmation [4th Amendment]

This means that from the beginning, Mr. Julian Assange would be discriminated against and would be denied access to impartial justice, where it is processed by a predetermined judge, with full autonomy to respect the rules of due process where given an opportunity provide evidence to be heard in court and won. [5th Amendment] In conclusion, from the beginning, human and fundamental rights that benefit Julian Assange to claim the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights Declaration would cancel US.

Why? Mr. Julian Assange does not live in US, non-US works. Mr. Assange did not commit any crime in the territory of the US, did not commit any crime outside the US only developed his professional activity that is investigative journalism in Australia and several European countries. However, the government believes that US journalism develops Mr Assange is not legal, but a terrorist activity that threatens the security of the government and US territory, therefore, according to them, the research newspaper that denounces war crimes against the civilian population considered against humanity, threatening the safety of US, without the US government exhibits a clear legal argument and established by evidence showing, what is "put into risk and danger the safety of US ".

The truth of the matter is that investigative journalism that develops Julian Assange has won numerous awards and prizes at the international level where he does a recognition of his work as an international journalist, a situation that contradicts and debunks accusations of government policies US against. This means that the judiciary US has limits in the so called "The Bill of Rights" of the Constitution of US, and therefore should not be extended to an investigation and future trial without due process against Julian Assange is citizen of Australia, for alleged crimes committed outside the territory of the US, because reaching this hypothetical case would be before a totally illegal and contrary to all equity proceedings implemented by a spurious and false Grand Jury investigations, actions and determinations without legal force ORIGIN being NULL. but

What is the Grand Jury?

The judicial system or Court of the United States is founded on the right to a trial by jury of their peers. "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);

and "No one shall be compelled to respond to a capital crime or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentation to a grand jury indictment," (5th Amendment).

In the grand jury determines whether there is sufficient evidence to begin a trial, after an examination of the evidence presented to them by a prosecutor in weighing the sufficiency thereof and when there is "reasonable suspicion", probable cause, or prima facie case that a crime has been committed. In the grand jury a "true bill" means that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or "no true bill" means that there is insufficient evidence to continue the trial. Because the role of the grand jury is to determine only whether there is probable cause, no need jury hearing all the evidence, to conflicting testimony. "It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence."

It is in these circumstances jure and de facto [in fact and law] the government of US lacks legal, clear and reasoned argument to support with evidence, why investigative journalism that develops Julian Assange, "threatening and threatening US security "or in your case, if there is" reasonable suspicion "or probable cause, which was committed the crime of terrorism or the investigative journalism is an offense that puts US security at risk.

If so, is flagrantly violate the provisions of the Fifth Amendment and DecimoCatorce that verbatim commands: Fourteenth Amendment (July 9, 1868) (...) "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 límitesjurisdiccionales within the protection of the laws, equal for all. "

These same conditions of rape and illegality of their human rights, is the journalist and creator of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, so in the unlikely event it was placed on trial may invoke the 5th Amendment commands, "(...) nor to any person (...) be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law (...) "

What is due process?

Due process is a legal principle that the state must respect all legal rights possessed by a person under the law. The procedural due process is a legal principle that everyone is entitled to certain, aimed at ensuring a fair and equitable outcome in the process to allow him an opportunity to be heard to assert their legitimate claims against the judge minimum guarantees. Due process requires that the government is subject to the laws of the country to protect the people of the state. When the government harms a person without following the exact course of the law incurs a violation of due process which violates the rule of law. In the due process, judges define and guarantee the fundamental principles of fairness, justice and freedom.

For JulianAssange, it is shown that for more than a thousand private days of their liberty obsolete and cruel conditions that affect your health without due process, until today. Illegally beyond doubt that violates the provisions of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights Declaration US.

Do not forget that in the United States, the Bill of Rights [The Bill of Rights "] are the border that limits the constitutional control, is the great foundation of the city to enforce the Habeas Corpus, is the term for the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States that have subsequently been extended to 27 These amendments explicitly limit the powers of the federal government, they assert the protection of the rights of the people through prevention, to prevent it from abridging from Congress and government freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship and the right to bear arms, preventing unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and self-incrimination, and guaranteeing due process and a speedy public trial with a jury.

All of this is substantiated with ordering article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution and laws of the United States which shall be made ​​in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, notwithstanding anything to the contrary that is in the Constitution or laws of any State.

OBSERVATION AND PROPOSAL

After the foregoing analysis is necessary to launch this reflection and proposal team Assange's lawyers in situ, following the principle that "the best defense is offense."

1 Based on the above, it is feasible to propose to the US Supreme Court by way of "CLAIM" to consider whether the powers of Congress must repeal US, to pass a law to locate the place or State must establish where the grand jury and the court to judge an American citizen or a foreigner, they did not commit any crime within the territory of US, under this measure provides ad hoc tribunals and dedication to Grand Jury one person in particular, which contradicts the Constitution prohibiting the bill of attainder and ex post facto courts, as well as violating the provisions of constitutional control of "The Bill of Rights".

2 Based on the above, it is feasible to propose to the US Supreme Court by way of "CLAIM" to study why investigative journalism that develops JulianAssange "puts safety at risk and danger US ".

My two suggestions are fundadasen the "CLAIM" to the Supreme Court in 1919, when he was called to study whether to repeal a law violated freedom of expression in the case of a man, Charles Schenck, who had published pamphlets that challenged the system of compulsory military service. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the violation of Schenck in Schenck vs. EspionageAct USA. However, this experience proved that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, advised that "the question in every case is that if the words are of some kind to create a clear and present danger man cause objectives and substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent. "

New proposals were accepted by the Court in 1971, in the casoCohen vs California ruled that a person can not be punished for wearing in the corridors of the courts of Los Angeles County, a jacket that says "Draft Fuckthe" .403 US 15 (1971).

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression extended to students to Tinker v school. Des Moines US Independent Community School District 393 503 (1969). The case concerned himself to many students who were punished because they wear black armbands to protest the fabric Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not cause excessive disruption of school activities. Judge Abe Fortas wrote, "The school can not be totalitarian enclave. School officials have no authority over their students. Estudiantes tienen fundamental rights which the State must respect."

In the next installment: "SNOWDEN AND MANNING: ILLEGAL declare traitors".