Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Exhibits for Indictments: D.O.J. Hate Crimes protected Group: #3704895

Exhibits for Indictments: D.O.J. Hate Crimes protected Group: #3704895

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 libeland 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 Sullivanthe 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. Firestone424 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 Divorcewasnot 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. Proxmire443U.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), gropingchild 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