citizensagainstcorruptjudges: Why would a Magistrate Consider Belinda Ramirez "A Danger to the Community"?
citizensagainstcorruptjudges: Why would a Magistrate Consider Belinda Ramirez "A Danger to the Community"?
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Yes sir ocifer we were trying to buy a baby and we paid for it, but she did not produce the product and we want our money back
""The judge denied bond for 24-year-old Belinda Ramirez saying she's a flight risk, and a danger to the community".
=====================================================================================
"Packages were found at the defendants house with addresses matching the victims who sent her money and gifts...I saw video surveillance of her using the gift cards at Wal-Mart""
Now, a few red flags pop up in my mind.
First of all if something sounds too good to be true then.......
Secondly and more so this reminds ME of an illegal transaction (like say human trafficking) gone bad and one of the parties reports it to the authorities.
"However, there are some basic elements of trafficking that are widely agreed upon, such as violence, deception, coercion, deprivations of freedom of movement, abuse of authority, debt bondage, forced labour and slavery-like practices, and other forms of exploitation or use of force.
The above elements are largely and commonly agreed upon, and trafficking is considered to be a violation of the basic rights of women and girls. The issue however, gets mired in controversy and confusion when prostitution too is considered as a violation of the basic human rights of both adult women and minors, and equal to sexual exploitation per se. From this standpoint then, trafficking and prostitution become conflated with each other. This conflation is also historically grounded. It is important to remember that the historical understanding of trafficking in international law has been focussed primarily on the movement of women and girls across borders for the purpose of prostitution. This is indeed the key aspect of the 1949 Convention on the Suppression of Traffic in Person and the Exploitation of Others which declares that the very entry of a woman into prostitution with or without her consent, and third party involvement is an offence.
"there is a growing agreement that the problem of 'trafficking in human beings' involves two key elements: recruitment/transport and forced labor or slavery-like practices (actual or attempted) ... Moreover, most experts agree that trafficking should be defined as involving deception or coercion of some kind."
Yes sir ocifer we were trying to buy a baby and we paid for it, but she did not produce the product and we want our money back.
Deception is common in the black market and when attorneys and adoption agencies are circumvented; the players (now illegally conspiring to traffic or sell a human being) become dealers and consumers in the Black Market. High risks and lucrative returns but most of all any contract is void when it violates Statutory Law.
Basically, the courts will not get involved in any suit that involves illegality or immorality.
Therefore, fraud would be based on a legal agreement between two parties. In this case the agreement involved an illegal transaction since it is illegal to buy sell or trade human beings. In the Belinda Ramirez case, she was not obligated to produce a baby in return unless there is a contract agreement in which Laura Valois' Attorney and Adoption Agency would have required. Undoubtedly, the gifts and such were outside of the agreement if there was one.
It amazes ME how a Media Entity such as KRIS TV (NBC) would take the word of a New Yorker without any requirement of documentation or investigation. It is highly irresponsible and unprofessional to advocate for a YUPPIE who was obviously was conspiring to purchase and traffic a human being (a newborn baby).
Now if the girl knew she was not pregnant WATT then?
It is possible she knew all along while she was defrauding those conspiring to commit a criminal act.
Does that make the YUPPIES victims?
Or Criminals?
Another issue would be the entering into a contract with a party of diminished mental capacity.
Hypothetically, if the girl was selling heroin and the Yuppies were giving her "gifts" in good faith as consideration, does her not providing the illegal and illicit drug make the buyers victims?
Bottom Line: If the transaction was illegal the both parties committed felonius acts against the human race.
Of course, according to KRIS TV the mentally diminished Texan victimized the New Yorker YUPPIES.
posted by Jaime Kenedeño at 11:21 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Yes sir ocifer we were trying to buy a baby and we paid for it, but she did not produce the product and we want our money back
""The judge denied bond for 24-year-old Belinda Ramirez saying she's a flight risk, and a danger to the community".
=====================================================================================
"Packages were found at the defendants house with addresses matching the victims who sent her money and gifts...I saw video surveillance of her using the gift cards at Wal-Mart""
Now, a few red flags pop up in my mind.
First of all if something sounds too good to be true then.......
Secondly and more so this reminds ME of an illegal transaction (like say human trafficking) gone bad and one of the parties reports it to the authorities.
"However, there are some basic elements of trafficking that are widely agreed upon, such as violence, deception, coercion, deprivations of freedom of movement, abuse of authority, debt bondage, forced labour and slavery-like practices, and other forms of exploitation or use of force.
The above elements are largely and commonly agreed upon, and trafficking is considered to be a violation of the basic rights of women and girls. The issue however, gets mired in controversy and confusion when prostitution too is considered as a violation of the basic human rights of both adult women and minors, and equal to sexual exploitation per se. From this standpoint then, trafficking and prostitution become conflated with each other. This conflation is also historically grounded. It is important to remember that the historical understanding of trafficking in international law has been focussed primarily on the movement of women and girls across borders for the purpose of prostitution. This is indeed the key aspect of the 1949 Convention on the Suppression of Traffic in Person and the Exploitation of Others which declares that the very entry of a woman into prostitution with or without her consent, and third party involvement is an offence.
"there is a growing agreement that the problem of 'trafficking in human beings' involves two key elements: recruitment/transport and forced labor or slavery-like practices (actual or attempted) ... Moreover, most experts agree that trafficking should be defined as involving deception or coercion of some kind."
Yes sir ocifer we were trying to buy a baby and we paid for it, but she did not produce the product and we want our money back.
Deception is common in the black market and when attorneys and adoption agencies are circumvented; the players (now illegally conspiring to traffic or sell a human being) become dealers and consumers in the Black Market. High risks and lucrative returns but most of all any contract is void when it violates Statutory Law.
Basically, the courts will not get involved in any suit that involves illegality or immorality.
Therefore, fraud would be based on a legal agreement between two parties. In this case the agreement involved an illegal transaction since it is illegal to buy sell or trade human beings. In the Belinda Ramirez case, she was not obligated to produce a baby in return unless there is a contract agreement in which Laura Valois' Attorney and Adoption Agency would have required. Undoubtedly, the gifts and such were outside of the agreement if there was one.
It amazes ME how a Media Entity such as KRIS TV (NBC) would take the word of a New Yorker without any requirement of documentation or investigation. It is highly irresponsible and unprofessional to advocate for a YUPPIE who was obviously was conspiring to purchase and traffic a human being (a newborn baby).
Now if the girl knew she was not pregnant WATT then?
It is possible she knew all along while she was defrauding those conspiring to commit a criminal act.
Does that make the YUPPIES victims?
Or Criminals?
Another issue would be the entering into a contract with a party of diminished mental capacity.
Hypothetically, if the girl was selling heroin and the Yuppies were giving her "gifts" in good faith as consideration, does her not providing the illegal and illicit drug make the buyers victims?
Bottom Line: If the transaction was illegal the both parties committed felonius acts against the human race.
Of course, according to KRIS TV the mentally diminished Texan victimized the New Yorker YUPPIES.
posted by Jaime Kenedeño at 11:21 PM 0 comments
posted by Jaime Kenedeño @ 1:38 AM
<< Home