What's Wrong If Your Bleeding Before Your Period

FIRST LOW GOVERNMENT DILMA

The first casualty of the government Dilma is felt in the resignation of Peter Abramoway National Secretariat Drug Policy. Abramoway lost his job because he advocated an end to prison for minor drug dealers. The Secretary argued that it was just consecrate, in a bill, the understanding of the Supreme Court in recent judgments that provides for the replacement of the penalty restricting freedom of penalties restricting rights to those accused of drug trafficking that are primary good background, not his / herself to criminal activities or integrate criminal organization.

Not that I am politically, religiously, ethically, or against any criminal activity, among them drug trafficking. But the inconsistencies, the constraints illegal, unconstitutional due to new laws must be discussed and countered primarily by us, the professionals of the area.

As a criminal lawyer I have as a basis for justice, because justice is a society built on fundamental laws imposing rules determining rights and duties that all citizens should orient.

When the legislature is wrong, down laws that violate rules or determining rights violating constitutional requirements or often appeals to meet society's tired of so many excesses and eager to give satisfaction to the same society in relation to any crime in evidence but injuring rights we have to rebel against such attitudes.
this case, as a professional Amabroway, aware of these facts and with the intent of justice only, has been misinterpreted, because society thinks that by defending the rights of criminals, more specifically, drug dealers, are in favor of such illicit activity, which is not true. Thought this

, Dilma also our president, who like his predecessor, runs away from the controversial to not be misunderstood by society.

turn now to the analysis of such controversy.

Paragraph 4 of Article 33 of Law 11.343/06 (Drug Law) provides as follows: In § 4

crimes defined in the introduction and in § 1 of this article, the sentences could be reduced by one sixth to two thirds, sealed conversion to penalties restricting rights, provided that the agent is a primary, a good record, not engaging in criminal activities or to integrate criminal organization.

So the "caput" of article 33 of that Act provides:

Section 33. Import, export, remit, prepare, produce, manufacture, purchase, sell, expose for sale, offer, storing, transporting, carrying, storing, prescribing, administering, delivering the consumption or supply drugs, even for free, without authorization or in violation of legal or regulatory:

Penalty - 5 (five) to 15 (fifteen) years and payment of 500 (five hundred) to 1,500 (one thousand five hundred) fine-days.

Thus a drug dealer who has a good record, is primary (never got involved with crime), and does not engage in criminal activity and criminal organizations do not incorporate it will have a maximum penalty of 1 (one) year and eight (8) months' imprisonment.

The same law forbids verbatim, in Article 44 to replace the penalty restricting freedom in restricting rights and amnesty, grace, pardon and parole:

Article 44 The crimes set forth in arts. 33, caput and § 1 and 34 to 37 of this Act are and insusceptible probation, grace, pardon, amnesty and parole, prohibited the conversion of their sentences in restricting rights. (HERE IS THE ARTICLE 44 OF THE LAW ON DRUGS).

And this is where all this controversy arose because Article Article 44 of the Penal Code is very clear:

Article 44. The penalties restricting rights are autonomous and replace the private of freedom, where:

I - applied imprisonment for not more than four years and crime is not committed with violence or serious threat to person or whatever punishment if the crime is manslaughter; II - Defendant not repeat in a felony, and III - the guilt, the history, social behavior and personality of the offender, as well as the reasons and circumstances indicate that this replacement is sufficient. (HERE IS THE ARTICLE 44 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE).
(Writing amended by Law No. 9714 of 1998)

It is here that you take that as required by art. 44 of the Criminal Code is possible to replace custodial sentences by restricting rights if the offense is not committed with violence or serious threat to the person, the penalty of imprisonment imposed shall not exceed the limit of four years and the agent meet the requirements to receive the subjective benefit . The

the crime of drug trafficking objectively conforms to the provision contained in art. 44 of the Criminal Code, as violence or serious threat to a person not part of the offense.

However, art. 44 of Law 11.343/06 veda, abstractly, the replacement of deprivation of liberty by restricting rights, tarnishing the principles and the need of individualization of punishment.


This is the position of the Supreme Court:

SUMMARY: HABEAS CORPUS. CRIMINAL. TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS. FIXING THE PENALTY. FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. LEVY SCHEME MEETING MORE SEVERE THAN EXPECTED IN LAW. LAW TO REPLACEMENT OF custodial sentence BY OTHER RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Illegal constraint. EXCEPTION TO SUMMARY 691. Narcotics trafficking. The sentencing procedure. Circumstances favorable court. Fixed penalty in an amount which allows replacement of the deprivation of liberty for restriction of rights or the beginning of the sentence in the open. Enforcement, however, the regime closed. Give rise to unlawful constraint exception to 691/STF Precedent. Order granted. (STF, 2nd Class, HC 101 291-SP, rel. Min. Eros Grau, DJE 12/02/2010).

SUMMARY: HABEAS CORPUS. CRIMINAL. TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS. REPLACING THE PEN OF FREEDOM BY ANOTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTED RIGHTS. REQUIREMENTS. CONSTRAINING ILLEGAL EVIDENCE. EXCEPTION TO SUMMARY 691/STF. REDUCING THE PENALTY REFERRED TO IN THE ART § 4. 33 THE LAW N. 11.343/2006, SEALED REPLACEMENT FOR OTHER RESTRICTED RIGHTS. SITUATION most onerous. Inapplicability. 1. Conviction for trafficking narcotics, one year and eight months' imprisonment in a closed regime. Presence of the requirements for replacement of deprivation of liberty for other restriction of rights, as well as the open system. Evidenced illegal constraint, justifying an exception to this Court Precedent 691. 2. Reduction of 1 / 6 to 2 / 3 of the penalty provided for in § 4 of art. 33 of Law No 11.343/2006, sealed replacement by another restriction of rights. Situation more burdensome to the patient. Inapplicability. Order granted in part, ex officio, to ensure the patient to replace the term of imprisonment by another restriction of rights, as well, so that if there reversal, the commencement of the deprivation of freedom takes place under the initial open. (STF, 2nd Class, HC 100 590-DF, Rel. min. Eros Grau, DJE 27/11/2009).

Thus, the intention of the Secretary, as I said, was only to establish a position based on understanding the Supreme Court.

Velicity Von Suit Pants

The FARRA RETIREMENT OF DEFENSE

Early in my career doing what she appeared, I called to ask for pension. At that time, and (in a while .. rsrsrsr), the minimum p / retiring age of 30 (triiiinnttttaaaaa) years, exactly 10,950 days of work and was missing one day, one day only, the case was dismissed. Today, with 10 political days (only DEZZZZZZZZZZZ DAYS) working in a certain position (eg state governor), retire. That's why the fun is bitterly contested in the elections .....

Who Has 192.168.224.1

PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC - ART. 55 LAW 11.343/06 - "FORGED"

APPLICATIONS, FOLLOWING THIS MODEL RECENT


Honorable Judge of the 6 th Criminal COUNTY OF CAPITAL















Case No. 0000/00











PAULISTA LEMON, already qualified in the above case it moves to Justice Public infrastructure signed by his attorney, comes to the presence of Your Excellency, timely, submit your


DEFENCE PRELIMINARY



According to article 55 of Law No. 11.343/06, for reasons of fact and of law set out below:


I - FACTS


The accused was arrested in flagrante delicto, on 00 October 2010, and terminated by penalties incurred in the situation dictates of Article 33, caput of Law 11,343 / 06 and Article 180 of the Penal Code.


According to the complaint, the accused was caught by military police while driving the vehicle for his own benefit brand Ford Model 'Fiesta' boards: GGG 0000, aware of its illicit origin and transported inside the car mentioned above with clear purposes of trade without authorization and in violation of the legal 182 plastic enclosures containing Cannabis Sativa and 54-pin plastics containing cocaine.



Consta, still, in the complaint that the large number and diversity of narcotic drugs and how they put up all the toxic, stupefying denote that were intended for delivery to third parties.



It appeared from all over the ground that:



said the militiamen who managed to hold the accused, including the soldier Marcolino Menosgrau he declined: "... on routine patrol was briefed by officials of the company Porto Seguro a vehicle Fiestança product theft and traffic around diligence was faced with the vehicle being given order Stop being that the suspect did not obey the order and has taken flight. The driver Fiestança speeding traffic and Envernada Street hit the rear of the car Fuscolino. Due to mechanical problems and his driver left the vehicle interior and undertakes escape on foot but was caught by the deponent. The detainee was identified as Paulista Lemon who was wanted for justice and that nothing of interest policeman was found with the same ... "And still the police:" ... The car belongs to Fiestança Mariana victim which is not recognized as being Paulista who stole her car and was apprehended in flagrante delicto in Article 180 of the CP . In the courtyard of the Police Unit under review by the trunk of Fiestança 182 shells were found in plastic substance containing greenish-shaped stones appearing in the case of marijuana and 54-pin plastic containing white powder substance seeming to treat cocaine. "



II - THE RIGHT



From the facts narrated above, it is not possible to state that the intent of the accused was make merchandise that has been awarded in the complaint, on the contrary, there were some drugs in that vehicle, in fact, Paul had just received the said vehicle in a matter of a friend, who had stolen the night before the victim Mariana Fernandes, and asked him to take the vehicle to his residence. Paulista, not wanting to contradict the friend, since he had already done various favors for him decided to take their order and was heading to go to his residence when the police made a sign to stop the vehicle. So much so Excellency. that the arrest of the accused took place exactly on the street where you live. Paulista Lemon disregarded the stop sign because he was a fugitive from justice and he knew he would be arrested just for being with a vehicle of dubious origin and never to be involved with trafficking, because it did not take any stupefying substance.



This statement is so concrete, because the police at the time of the approach and the minutes that passed at the scene opened the same doors, hood and trunk of the vehicle and rolled Fiestança throughout the interior and the door bags looking for anything that was not part of the vehicle accessories. This all took place even at the scene, and were witnessed by several people including the witnesses listed below.



If there was stupefying substance, these have been found at that time and the view of eyewitnesses, not only in the precinct, after the vehicle was driven to it. This is what was said by witnesses to police officers among them Marcolino and his fellow soldier in uniform who declined Heverson, or rather confirmed "ipsi literes" speech of his companion.



Porting is the case of rejection of the complaint for the crime capitulated in Article 33 of Law 11.343/06 only do so for the crime of Article 180 "caption of the Penal Code.



There was no significance in money from the accused. Moreover, if the accused was a drug dealer, certainly would be in possession of a large sum at the opportunity and not without a real pocket.



So unfounded assertion in the complaint, when he says that "the aim of merchandise and pass the toxin to third parties, by the condemned, is evident and will be tested during the investigation by reputable witnesses that the accused was not carrying nor led any stupefying substance.



We must remember that the two policemen who made the arrest, and subsequently reported to the police authority, said categorically that the drug only was found in the trunk of the vehicle already in the courtyard of a police station.


The context of evidence designed and ratified by the police on the complaint process by Renowned public prosecutor, is illusory, THERE, underpinned as it is doubtful only in declarations, one can not believe that the vehicle would not have been searched by police in location of the crime where there were several witnesses and only done in the courtyard of the station away from the eyes of onlookers. Who is this procedure?



The principle of non-culpability in the Constitution of the Republic and the principle of innocence set in international conventions give the Defendant safety procedures. The prosecution faces the burden of proving materiality and authorship delinquent with respect to merchandise.



There should be no reversal of the burden of evidence. The accused does not need to prove innocence as to the merchandise or possession of narcotics, because that just was not acting at the time of his arrest, but will prove by testimonials that this is the objective reality, what really happened that day.



Despite finding, through expert advice and term view and concern, the materiality of the crime of trafficking narcotic there but can not be attributed to the accused the author and an alleged conviction for trafficking, since the subjective certainty extracted from the oral test and limited the testimony of the officers later to be contradicted by witnesses during the discovery phase.



Based on the foregoing, it requires the rejection of the complaint by the crime defined in Article 33 of Law 11.343/06, subsisting only the crime defined in Article 180 "caption of the Criminal Code since, at any time the accused was in possession, or any substance brought with overwhelming love, come to protest the dismissal of the complaint is made in the reported initial part, as a measure of justice.



Protests prove the claim by all means of proof admitted in law.



With this defense, you see the list of witnesses to be subpoenaed by Your Excellency.



Valkyrie
RG:
End: - Capital

Vania
RG:
End: - Capital

Robert
RG:
End: - Capital



Terms under which


Calls acceptance.




São Paulo, January 6, 2011