Place
into Exhibits – The Rene Elizondo Cartel Hate Crimes Investigation
Department
of Justice: Protected Group Fil: #3704895
Web
Address:
The
Infamous Frank Paul Gambino
The
Covert Operative Paul Castellano – The Smooth Gangster
The
Capstone Zulu
Tag:
Paul Castellano
AM
I Going To Hell?
Smooth
Gangster – Paul Castellano
The
Real Paul Castellano – The Capstone Zulu
On
ReverbNation
The Capstone Zulu
Bio Capstone Zulu is under the umbrella of Gambino Records, in a
small town called Avon Park. The Capstone Zulu is from Queensbridge,
New York, who is known by many names to include the infamous Paul
Castellano. The music thing is about the message, and it is what it
is. The Apostle Paul Castellano known as the Capstone Zulu Band
Leader, is star performer, writer and producer of the reality show
Smooth Gangster. Actually Smooth Gangster is a good guy who went into
deep cover into the realm of hell and returned from hell with the
devils riches which he always claimed was his from the beginning.
With performances by Stackz Gotti, Yella, Young Act, DaUzi and many
more, we do not plan on just our wealth in the process but we will
make you rich too if you join the movement faithfully. Sincerely, the
Capstone
For:
Indictments:
In
the Maria Theresa Jones File: #3704895
– The RE-I Files
- Oral Brennan – AKA Rene Elizondo II, Anthony Paine
- Chris Bush AKA Nicky Barnes, Frank Lucas, CISCO, Fat Cat, Boy, Nicky Boy = Dope
- William Billy Jackson – Jermain Jackson + Samuel L. Jackson
- John Westley Adams – John Gotti, John the Baptist, Henry Ford, Harald Melvin, Maurice White, John Westley Adams
A
House is not a home – Luther
Vandross
Zoom
Pepsi
Attempted Murder Video
Proceeded
by Lies – Unsubstantiated crap
Slander
and Libel – Conspiracy
Defamation
(Redirected
from Conspiracy
to libel)
Defamation
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person'sreputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held;or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against aperson.
Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both writtenstatements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.
The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit dependslargely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. Thepublic figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a policeofficial, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times,and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff'sinterest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom ofexpression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libelmust prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that theFirst
Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even whensuch debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on governmentand public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed aposition in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made withknowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they werefalse.
Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the publiceye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatorystatements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invitesclose scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do notrelinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures havegreater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. Forthese reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweighfree speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (SeeGertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).
Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation lawis sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in allsituations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word—forexample, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category ofnotoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarilyinjected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range ofissues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporaryaccess to the means to counteract false statements about them. They alsovoluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some oftheir privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose publicfigures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved arenot considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth inSullivan.
Determining who is a limited-
Purpose public figure can also be problematic. In Time,Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), the Courtheld that the plaintiff, a prominent socialite involved in a scandalous Divorce, wasnot a public figure because her divorce was not a public controversy and becauseshe had not voluntarily involved herself in a public controversy. The Courtrecognized that the divorce was newsworthy, but drew a distinction between mattersof public interest and matters of public controversy. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443U.S. 111, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979), the Court determined that ascientist whose federally supported research was ridiculed as wasteful by SenatorWilliam Proxmire was not a limited-purpose public figure because he had not soughtpublic scrutiny in order to influence others on a matter of public controversy, andwas not otherwise well-known.
Further readings
Collins, Matthew. 2001. The Law of Defamation and the Internet. New York: OxfordUniv. Press.
Friedman, Jessica R. 1995. "Defamation." Fordham Law Review 64 (December).
Jones, William K. 2003. Insult to Injury: Libel, Slander, and Invasions of Privacy.Boulder, Colo.: Univ. Press of Colorado.
Smolla, Rodney A. 1999. Law of Defamation. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group
Stalking
Defined
Stalking is
unwanted or repeated surveillance by an individual or group towards
another person.[1] Stalking
behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and
may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The
term stalking
is used with some differing definitions in psychiatry and psychology,
as well as in some legal jurisdictions as
a term for a criminal
offense.
According
to a 2002 report by the U.S. National
Center for Victims of Crime, "virtually any unwanted contact
between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat
or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking",[2] although
in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.
Duress
Defined
Black's Law Dictionary
(6th ed.) defines
duress as
"any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to
act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or
would]". Duress is
pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an
act they ordinarily would not perform.
Sexual
Assault
Sexual
assault is
an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another
person without that person's consent,
or coerces or
physically forces a person to engage in a sexual
act against
their will.[1] It
is a form of sexual
violence which
includes rape (forced vaginal,
anal or oral penetration or drug
facilitated sexual assault), groping, child
sexual abuse or
the torture of
the person in a sexual manner.[1][2][3]
Kidnapping
The
crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or
Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with
an intent to carry that person away at a later time. The
law of kidnapping is
difficult to define with
precision because it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Kidnapping
v. Abduction
Kidnapping is
the taking away of a person by force, threat, or
deceit,
with intent to cause him or her
to be detained against his or her
will. Kidnapping may
be done for ransom or for
political or other
purposes. Abduction is
the criminal taking away a person by persuasion, by fraud, or by
open force or
violence.
Criminal
Intent defined
Criminal
intent means
the intent to
do something wrong or forbidden by law. Intent
refers
to the state of mind accompanying an act especially a forbidden act.
It is the outline of the mental pattern which is necessary to do
the crime.
DBA
Jesus Christ
No comments:
Post a Comment