Curso 2023-24 para presentar el bar examen a la revalida de la abogacía General Libre en EE. UU (Español & English).

                                                       

louisiana_seal_bl_white

2000px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

photoimg14

La normativa actual para los abogado/as extranjeros sobre la revalida para la practica de la abogacía libre General en Estados Unidos (50 estados -federal) establece el requisito de estudiar en un programa minimo de 14 créditos (4 materias via Estado de Louisiana) o 26 creditos [Maestria LLM otros 6 Estados] programa de 10 meses para obtener el  conocimientos mínimos en el derecho común americano con el fin de garantizar al abogado extranjero en su ejercicio libre al público general.

………… 

AHORA: Es importante que TODOS sepan de los nuevos cambios en las Reglas del Colegio de Abogados del Estado de California incluyen abogados que han sido educados en el extranjero. NAFA LAW te ofrece el programa completo, administrativo, curricular, incluyendo curso Bar Review para poder presentar el examen al bar de California- este programa equivale a un ‘Master en US LAW’.

Con este programa NAFA- No se requiere GRE ni presentar el examen LSAT. Tan poco como en 15 meses. Clases en vivo en línea.

1-. No tienen que ser ciudadanos para ser un abogado con licencia en California, pero sí tienen que completar algunos documentos adicionales.

2-. Si un solicitante desea ejercer la abogacía en California como solicitante con educación extranjera no admitido para ejercer la abogacía en ninguna jurisdicción de los Estados Unidos, solo tienen que seguir las instrucciones en la regla de admisión California Bar Rule- ‘Title 4’.

3-. Abogados que ya están admitidos a la práctica activa de la ley en un país extranjero Y que están en regla y en buena conducta.  Estos abogados están calificados para tomar el Examen al Bar de Abogados de California sin tener que completar ninguna educación legal adicional. Como era antes que se requería hacer una maestría LLM en US Law.

Los requisitos son diferentes para abogados extranjeros y completados sus estudios en una escuela de derecho extranjera. Para los requisitos específicos.

Las reglas del Colegio de Abogados requieren que los solicitantes. NO NECESITAS HACER ESTUDIOS PARA OBTENER EL GRADO ‘LLM EN US LAW’ ver detalles:

Primero- presentar la solicitud presentando una Constancia o Certificada de Buena Conducta del colegio de abogados o ministerio de justicia del país extranjero donde ejerce la abogacía. Gestiones provistas por NAFA.

Segundo. Aprobar el examen del Colegio de Abogados de California. Ver detalles: The State Bar of California

Tercero. Recibir una determinación positiva de carácter moral. Ver detalles: The State Bar of California

Cuarto.  Aprobar el examen de responsabilidad profesional multiestatal. : The State Bar of California

Quinto. Cumplir con cualquier orden judicial de California, si aplica, y que tenga pendiente, incluyendo manutención de menores o familiares en caso de divorcio.

Los solicitantes para admisión abogados extranjeros de también deben proporcionar un número de Seguro Social. Si no tiene un número de Seguro Social, un número de ITIN, o radicar el formulario para solicitar una exención cuando se registre en el Colegio de Abogados del Estado California. The State Bar of California 

Para ver detalles del programa SOLO para California- practica libre general de abogacía sin tener que hacer estudios adicionales del grado master LLM- entrar por este enlace: http://nafalaw.com/blog/2019/08/04/ya-tenemos-el-curso-que-te-garantiza-presentar-el-examen-a-la-revalida-de-la-abogacia-en-ee-uu-ahora-financiamiento-estudiantil-100-disponible/

NAFA y UNPAM unidos para una mejor educación y más reciprocidad para abogados extranjeros. Ahora estamos esperando el resultado de nuestra petición presentado al juez superior Hon. Juez Lee Edmon – Presidente de la Fuerza de Trabajos. RE: La Junta aprueba el comentario público sobre las opciones de reforma regulatoria del Grupo de trabajo técnico bajo consideración. Ver detalles: Humphrey Humberto Pachecker

Para comenzar ver *Primer y **Segundo paso(s) en la parte tres de este articulo.

Practica Libre General para Abogados Extranjeros. Desde Enero 2019 solo tenemos 6 Estados los cúales tienen la oportunidad la cual le permite pedir admisión y tomar el examen al bar una vez ha completado un curso LLM [26 creditos- Master in US law] dos semestres. Y tenemos un 1 Estado adicional el cual solo requiere 14 créditos de estudios en US law, un semestre. Una vez Usted aprueba el examen al bar en alguno de estos Estados- Usted puede ejercer libremente el derecho Estatal y Federal.  Entrar por este enlace y ver estos Estados solo ver el “CHART 4: Foreign Legal Education” http://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2Fassets%2FBarAdmissionGuide%2FNCBE-CompGuide-2019.pdf#page=30

Estos conocimientos se acreditan mediante la superación de uno o dos semestre de estudios teórico en una escuela A.B.A., mediante la realización de un curso y estudios pudiendo ser completados en un semestre o en dos, con la asistencia y asesoramiento de UNPAM y NAFA ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION y, con estudios por medio de Escuela de Derecho y/o Universidad en EE.UU., todo el estudio aprobado por el American Bar Association – A.B.A.

Cualquier escuela de derecho acreditada nacionalmente por la Asociación Americana de Abogados (ABA),  los abogados extranjeros graduados de estas escuelas y con solo algunos estudios adicionales- pueden generalmente sentarse para el examen de la barra en 7 estados. Hay 203 facultades acreditadas por la ABA, divididas entre 200 con acreditación completa y 3 con acreditación provisional. VER LISTADO MAS CERCANA A UD.:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_in_the_United_States

NAFA – UNPAM promueve el Programa Internacional de la Escuela de Derecho “George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law” [ABA] [NAFA no somos parte de la universidad].  Derecho General de 10 meses de estudios- Maestría en Derecho Anglosajón [US LAW] totalmente a distancia en línea, programa el cúal le permitirá a los abogada/os graduados en Universidades – Escuelas de Derecho fuera de Estados Unidos, tomar el examen de admisión al bar- en primer lugar en 7 Estados para ejercer el Derecho Libre estatal- y federal [en toda la nación], en Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.

Entrar por este enlace a: New U.S. Law LL.M. Program.Admissions Team- George Mason Scalia Law. Tph. 703-214-5005. “George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law” Announces Online LL.M. in U.S. Law. Offering Educational Opportunities for Foreign-Trained Lawyers Seeking Knowledge of U.S. Law. ENTER HERE: 1-***https://www.law.gmu.edu/admissions/llm/bar_foreign_trained 

2-***https://www.law.gmu.edu/academics/degrees/llm_uslaw/

VER- todas las escuelas certificadas en Estados Unidos. Ver lista: http://www.lawyeredu.org/aba-accredited-schools.html#florida

************

El programa federal de prestamos estudiantiles [FAFSA]- nos ha contestado que todo colega residente- sí pueden pedir prestamos para estudiar en dicha escuela. Cuando solicite el prestamo estudiantil FAFSA en línea, todo lo que requiere es presentar sus datos personales y el número código federal de dicha escuela en la cual aspira estudiar.

Completar y someter el formulario aplicación gratuita para obtener asistencia financiera Federal (FAFSA) Ver www.fafsa.ed.gov.

Puede Ver más detalles: 

https://fafsa.ed.gov/FAFSA/cycleNeutral/faces/MoreInfo.faces?locale=es_ES&page=view&schoolCode1=G33743&schoolCode2=&schoolCode3=&schoolCode4=&schoolCode5=&schoolCode6=&schoolCode7=&schoolCode8=&schoolCode9=&schoolCode10=

En otro estado- Examen de admisión al Bar vía Estado de Louisiana es el único y más beneficioso estado para el abogado extranjero poder ejercer el derecho general libre, pero también es el examen más extenso en E.U.A., a través de su regla: “Rule XVII. ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. Section 6.” Esta regla de admisión permite a cualquier abogado/a extranjero graduado en el extranjero debe hacer un proceso administrativo y curricular y tomar estudios adicionales de 14 créditos (4 materias especificas) en cualquier escuela de Derecho A.B.A, y así poder tomar dicho examen a la práctica libre general. Law Studies https://www.lascba.org/BarApplications.aspx?tab=foreign  

LOS COSTOS DE ESTUDIOS Y PROCESOS ADMINISTRATIVOS PARA LLEGAR A TOMAR EL EXAMEN AL BAR PRACTICA LIBRE  SON APROXIMADAMENTE LOS SIGUIENTES:

(A)- $1,200.00 MULTIPLICADO POR CADA UN CREDITO DE ESTUDIOS REQUERIDOS [EN LOUISIANA 14 CREDITOS – OTROS ESTADOS 26 CREDITOS].

(B)-  $2,000.00 GASTOS SOLICITUD PARA TOMAR EL EXAMEN CON INVESTIGACION DE CARÁCTER.

(C)- $12,600.00 COSTO CON NAFA LAW, PREPARACION DE EXPEDIENTES, EQUIVALENCIA ACADEMICA, TRADUCCIONES AL INGLES, CURSO DE REPASO AL BAR [BAR REVIEW] Y CURSO DE TERMINOLOGIA LEGAL EN INGLES. NO REQUIERE TOMAR LSAT.

EXAMEN AL BAR SOLO VIA LOUISIANA. ABOGADOS GRADUADOS EN UNIVERSIDADES EXTRAJERAS FUERA DE TERRITORIOS DE EE.UU.

Requirements:

·        Equivalency Application Packet – ($250)

If you attended law school out of the United States, please login to the LASCBA Account Portal to start an equivalency application. A bar exam application cannot be started until an equivalency determination has been made.

Other Documentation:

Along with the Equivalency form, Foreign-Trained Lawyers must also supply:

  • Current mailing address
  • Proof of citizenship or alien status
  • Proof of successful completion of 14 semester hours at an ABA accredited university in certain subjects
  • Certified transcripts of formal legal education (both foreign and US)
  • Documentation which provides a description of courses offered and requirements of the legal education programs attended by the applicant (both foreign and US)
  • Copy of original diplomas
  • Information about the Universities that provided the applicant’s recent legal training
  • Proof of admission, licensing and/or good standing in all legal, professional and/or bar associations
  • Professional resume
  • Two letters of recommendation: applicants must provide letters from two individuals who are licensed to practice in any jurisdiction in which the applicant is currently licensed to practice. Letters must be addressed to the committee.
  • Any other documentation the applicant believes will assist the Committee
  • All foreign documents must be translated to English.

Submit paperwork to:

ENTRAR POR ESTE ENLACE AQUI: https://www.lascba.org/BarApplications.aspx?tab=foreign

NAFA GRADUACION 3En adición, nosotros NAFA ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION establece un programa de conocimientos mínimos de repaso al exámen de admisión (Bar Review) y curso de Terminologia Legal, en linea, con el fin de apoyar con seguridad- que estos abogado/as extranjeros presenten y superen con exito el examen de admisión a la práctica de la abogacía en Estados Unidos via Louisiana u otro de los 17 Estados.

Vamos a entrar en temario oficial y los contenidos del examen para que se ajusten a las necesidades reales.  En NAFA ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION estamos seguros de nuestro curso de repaso y de nuestra metodología administrativa para la preparación de la documentación requerida con la solicitud de admisión al examen, al grado que si no apruebas el primer intento al examen de admisión a la practica de la abogacía- te damos el crédito total para que lo utilices en un segundo intento y repaso al bar y presentar el examen por segunda vez. Además, el solicitante tendrá la carga de probar que el solicitante ha completado con éxito un mínimo de 14 horas de crédito, o el equivalente, en materias de derecho comun en  una escuela de derecho estadounidense en cualquiera de las siguientes categorías:
Derecho Constitucional, Contratos, Derecho Louisiana Obligaciones, Derecho Penal, Corporaciones o las organizaciones empresariales, Evidencia, Propiedad Intelectual, Procedimiento Civil Federal, Procedimiento Civil Louisiana, Fiscalidad, Código Uniforme Comercial, y Agravios, a condición de que no más de 4 horas de crédito en cualquiera tema será contabilizada para este requisito.

Favor ver abajo seguido la regla oficial de admisión- Regla XVII, sección 6. Para ello, por supuesto, debes haber trabajado lo suficiente en el curso:  75% de dedicación: tendrás que haber dedicado al curso al menos un 75% del tiempo de estudio/trabajo recomendado para el mismo, con una dedicación equilibrada a todos los puntos.

90% en concentración: deberás haber realizado las prácticas para el examen con el simulador de exámenes que te entregamos, siguiendo las pautas indicadas en la metodología del curso.

También, una vez UD esté certificado/a por la Corte Suprema de Louisiana, podrás practicar el Derecho Federal UFL- libremente, en todo el territorio norteamericano (50 estados). Estas condiciones son válidas sólo via el Estado de Louisiana- con cursos que muestren el sello de “Aprobado” en la certificación expedida por la Escuela de Derecho Estatal.

¿Cómo homologar y revalidar con garantía?

Simplemente ponte en contacto con nosotros y registrate con la Escuela de Derecho. Revisaremos y evaluaremos tu expediente en la oficina de admisión de NAFA, seguido te referimos a la Escuela de Derecho local de tu preferencia. 

Debes tomar Curso Ingles con NAFA’s Blue Book: Legal Terminology, Commentaries, Tables and Useful Legal Information: [ordenarlo] http://www.nafalaw.com/store.html

PARA COMPRA INSTANTÁNEA HAZ CLIK AQUÍ: 

Para tomar el examen de ingles- TOEFL (The Test of English as a Foreign Language), debes contactar directamente al Educational Testing Service (www.ets.orgwww.toefl.org, en la sección de preguntas frecuentes “FAQ” hay mucha información detallada sobre este examen del idioma ingles); deben inscribirse y aprobarlo. Para una lista de los centros donde se ofrece el examen TOEFL en Florida conéctese al siguiente enlace: http://etsis4.ets.org/tcenter/cbtdmlst.cfm Para registrarse, encontrar un centro conveniente y hacer una cita para presentar el examen de ingles en Estados Unidos llame al: 1-800-468-6335, atienden de 8:00 am a 8:00 pm.

El costo de este examen TOEFL es de $130.00 en adelante. También puede presentarse en otras localidades y, también en linea “Online.” Estas materias están específicamente detalladas en la Regla de Admisión para abogados extranjeros solo para la PRACTICA LIBRE cual regla esta detallada aquí seguido.  Ver Copia de Regla Oficial de Admisión aquí seguido.

FECHAS LIMITES PARA PRESENTAR EXAMEN DE ADMISION ABOGACIA GENERAL VIA LOUISIANA 2019. VER DETALLES DE FECHAS Y LUGAR: The written examination consists of two parts: the nine-part written examination (Part I) and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (Part II).
Part I consists of separate examinations in the following subjects:
1. Civil Code I
2. Civil Code II
3. Civil Code III
4. Louisiana code of Civil Procedure
5. Torts
6. Business Entities and Negotiable Instruments
7. Constitutional Law
8. Criminal Law, Procedure and Evidence
9. Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure.
What is the examination schedule?
• Monday:
1. Civil Code I: 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
2. Civil Code II: 10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
3. Civil Code III: 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
• Wednesday:
4. La. C.C.P.: 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
5. Torts: 10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
6. Business Entities and Negotiable Instruments: 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
• Friday:
7. Constitutional Law: 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
8. Criminal Law, Procedure & Evidence: 10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
9. Federal Jurisdiction & Procedure: 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Solo para Louisiana leer información oficial entrando al enlace:http://www.lasc.org/la_judicial_entities/bar_admissions.asp

Examination Schedule
Day 1
Monday
1. Civil Code I  8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
2. Civil Code II 10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
3. Civil Code III  2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Day 2
Wednesday
4. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
5. Torts 10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
6. Business Entities and Negotiable Instruments  2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Day 3
Friday
7. Constitutional Law  8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
8. Criminal Law, Procedure & Evidence  10:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
9. Federal Jurisdiction & Procedure  2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Louisiana State Bar Examination
Schedule and Deadline to File Application
Examination Date Deadline Date Late filing deadlines Reapplication Deadline
February 09, 11, 13 November 1, November 2, December 15, December 15,
July 20, 22, 24 February 1, February 2 – May 15, May 15,

Committee On Bar Admissions
2800 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Suite 310
Metairie, LA 70002
Tel: (504) 836-2420
Fax: (504) 834-1449
The Louisiana Supreme Court
400 Royal St.
New Orleans, LA 70112
Tel: (504) 310-2300

Exam Schedule | Application Information | Admission Rules
Exam Resources | The Lawyer’s Oath | Bar Exam Results

Disclaimer:The Committee on Bar Admissions  presents the information on this Web site as a service to Internet users. The Committee on Bar Admissions does not provide legal advice and the information on this Web site should not be construed or interpreted as such. We make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link © 2003-2005 Committee on Bar Admissions.

The February 2017 Louisiana Bar Examination will be administered at the Pontchartrain Center located at 4545 Williams Blvd., Hall C, Kenner, LA 70065 on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, February.

El examen de Revalida de Louisiana, administrado en el Centro Pontchartrain ubicado en: 4545 Williams Blvd., Hall C, Kenner, LA 70065 Lunes, Miércoles y Viernes.

Prime paso:

Registro y afiliación con NAFA ASSOCIATION
1. Asociarse a NAFA ASSOCIATION con un pago inicial para comenzar el programa.
2. Afiliarse al Florida Bar Association solo residentes de FL (ver formulario adjunto-2- ).
3. Presentar su hoja de vida “CV” con dos fotos tamaño carné.
4. Presentar prueba de ejercicio, admisión y/o carta del colegio al cual usted esta inscrito(a).
5. Presentar dos (2) cartas de recomendación de dos colegas.
6. Llenar el cuestionario adjunto. Proveer toda de regreso a NAFA ASSOCIATION vía correo electrónico o correo regular o en persona. NO requiere tomar LSAT.

La primera Forma. Louisiana (y otros 6 estados) aceptan y tienen reciprocidad con abogados(a) graduados en escuelas en el extranjero (mundialmente). Para poder ejercer en esta primera forma, usted debe presentar y tomar el examen de admisión al Bar y Corte Suprema del estado y ser admitido por la corte suprema. El abogado(a) extranjero tiene que tomar un curso en derecho americano (common law) con 14 créditos mínimo- o en su lugar, puede opcional hacer una maestría en derecho (LLM) lo cual requiere de 26 créditos, todo esto tiene que ser estudiado en una escuela de derecho acreditada por al ABA- American Bar Association.

Nosotros en NAFA ASSOCIATION, recomendamos a nuestros colegas quienes aspiran a ejercer la práctica general, que tomen los estudios de 14 créditos (4 materias) requeridos en la Escuela de Derecho de su elección- presentando la Carta de Recomendación, la cual será expedida por NAFA y entregada al/a aspirante:

Detalles – Primera forma: Nosotros en NAFA ASSOCIATION le podemos asistir en todo el proceso administrativo y los estudios de terminología legal ingles- en esta primera forma, pero los estudios de 14 créditos requeridos usted debe de hacerlos en cualquier escuela de derecho universidad en EE.UU., y que dicha escuela este certificada por el ABA (American Bar Association). Nosotros en Florida, para estos estudios referimos a nuestros miembros abogados extranjeros a tomar dicho curso la escuela de derecho Universidad St Thomas de Miami; una vez terminado todo el curso, entonces se presenta la solicitud de presentar examen ante el Bar y poder ejercer; todo en ingles (tomar TOEFL) y debe de tener un estatus migratorio de residente o en proceso de residencia o ciudadanos de EE.UU.

Segundo Paso:

Proveer a NAFA ASSOCIATION la siguiente documentación:

Para completar el proceso de homologación y revalida a su práctica de la abogacía con NAFA necesitamos TODOS los documentos y cumplir con los siguientes requisitos:

Documentación requerida: Los miembros afiliados deben presentar:
a) Para su certificado y carnet de miembro NAFA ASSOCIATION, enviarnos dos (2) fotos tamaño pasaporte.

b) Hoja de Vida – Curriculum Vitae –CV- actual; dirección de correo físico para enviarle correspondencia y material impreso.

c) Firmar el acuerdo de servicio y estudio (anexo) entre Usted y NAFA ASSOCIATION, regresándolo a la oficina de Miami, o también a: NAFA ASSOCIATION, 1621 LAKEVIEW DR. SEBRING, FL 33870 o vía correo electrónico.

e) Leer el Manual de Estudiante (anexo-vía Blog NAFA) para su información. Además, chequear el contenido de las reglas de obligaciones y conducta.

f) Llenar los dos formularios anexos de registro y afiliación con NAFA ASSOCIATION y con el FLA BAR, y regresarlos todos a NAFA ASSOCIATION.

Siguiente ver lista de documentación requerida por la Corte Suprema & Bar para su Revalida a la Abogacía por cualquier estado de EE.UU.

1. Una Aplicación y/o Determinación de Equivalencia [bajar formularios vía NAFA]: Todas las inscripciones deben ser legibles a mano o a máquina en inglés. Todas las preguntas deben ser respondidas en el formulario de solicitud. Una respuesta de “ver adjunto” o “ver documentos adjuntos” no es una respuesta suficiente.

2. Dirección actual: Si los cambios en una dirección del solicitante durante el período de tramitación, es deber del solicitante notificar al Comité de Admisión – BAR por escrito. Toda la correspondencia se enviará por correo a la dirección proporcionada.

3. Prueba de ciudadanía o condición de extranjero: Si el solicitante no es un ciudadano nacido en los Estados Unidos, el solicitante deberá presentar una copia de su certificado de naturalización, o en su lugar tarjeta de residente permanente o visa. Es su carga de la prueba para demostrar un estado aceptable. Si un solicitante está afirmando que es un “extranjero que esta autorizado para trabajar legalmente en los Estados Unidos”, él o ella deben presentar pruebas de que su estatus de visa permite al solicitante para ejercer la abogacía o de otra manera trabajar en la profesión legal en los Estados Unidos

4. Las transcripciones – notas y materias de la educación legal formal de su país.

5. Plan de estudios de su país, catálogos, programa de estudios o documentación similar que proporciona una descripción de los cursos ofrecidos y los requisitos de los programas de educación legal asistido por el solicitante [certificado de grados o acta de notas de su país].

6. Copia de títulos originales [o copias certificadas], licencia o carnet de registro.

7. La información sobre la(s) universidad(es) que proporcionaron la formación jurídica del solicitante (por ejemplo, si las instituciones son privadas o públicas, las fechas de creación, la acreditación de la información).

8. La prueba de admisión, concesión de licencias y/o posición en todas las asociaciones legales, profesionales y/o bar [colegios de abogados]: Si el solicitante es admitido para practicar leyes en cualquier jurisdicción, que acrediten su pertenencia y la prueba de buena reputación y conducta debe ser proporcionada por dicho colegio y dirigidas a la corte suprema del estado de EE.UU.

9. Curriculum vitae profesional – hoja de vida.

10. Cartas de recomendación: Los solicitantes deben presentar cartas de cuatro (4) personas o mas que tengan licencia para practicar en cualquier jurisdicción extranjera en el país que se encuentra el solicitante con licencia para ejercer [su país]. Si el solicitante no está autorizado para ejercer, entonces cartas de recomendación de la institución educativa en la que el solicitante recibió su educación legal deben ser presentadas. Las cartas deben ser dirigidas al Comité de Admisión [Committee on Bar Admission]. En este caso dicha institución educativa debe recomendar y expresar los conocimientos y más recientes logros del solicitante. Las cartas deben estar escritas recientemente y no puede parecer ser una carta modelo – genérica [no todas iguales].

11. Cualquier otra documentación que el solicitante considera que ayude al Comité de evaluación y equivalencia [Ej. estudios adicionales, talleres, nombramientos, etc.]

12.- Traducciones: En todos los documentos que estén en un idioma extranjero deben ser traducido al idioma inglés- traducciones notariadas.

NOTA: Como beneficio a nuestros miembros asociados – afiliados, NAFA ASSOCIATION traduce, prepara, certifica- notariza y organiza todo el expediente y todos su documentos academicos- la gestión necesaria ante el Bar y Corte Suprema, además de proveer dos [2] cursos de capacitación necesarios para la práctica de la abogacía- 1)- curso llamado BAR REVIEW. 2)- curso llamado LEGAL TERMINOLOGY.

Estimados colegas, abogados extranjeros y estudiantes.

Recibimos un correo email con un video de una Escuela de Derecho Americana [USA] la cual ofrece programas de Grados JR y LLM para abogados extranjeros y, así puedan tomar el examen al Bar para ejercer la práctica libre general de la abogacía en EE.UU.

Y esta es nuestra contesta la cual publicamos para el beneficio de todos:

“Este video y la explicación son muy buenos, pero, en primer lugar, beneficia a las universidades en primer lugar, y no al 100% a los abogados extranjeros. Ver video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18-mKirQr8g&fbclid=IwAR0hEI8VbPA3_N9nsOLXxF46qUugWn5oIDU0qFnbhM5c4DacZL4gcQqmvB4

Por ejemplo, con la filosofía NAFA LAW- un abogado extranjero no necesita hacer un Grado JD [a un costo de $100 + mil dólares y más 3 años + – de estudios].

Para tomar el examen de la barra y practicar leyes libres generales en los Estados Unidos- en NAFA, somos los únicos que promovemos y tenemos las formas más rápidas y económicas para que los abogados extranjeros tomen el examen de la barra y practiquen leyes libres en todo Estados Unidos sin tener que estudiar la carrera de nuevo y a un costo de decenas de miles de dólares.

En EE. UU. Tenemos 7 estados de EE. UU., que tienen la oportunidad de que abogados extranjeros con solo unos pocos estudios adicionales y solo unos cuantos miles de dólares [menos de $30,000] tomen el examen de la barra y practiquen leyes en todo Estados Unidos.

La primera y mejor oportunidad es con la Corte Suprema de Louisiana, esto solo les pide a los abogados extranjeros que tomen 14 créditos en la Ley de los Estados Unidos [4 temas]. Puede ver los detalles aquí seguidos.

Además, en otros 6 Estados, estos tienen admisión por reciprocidad con otros Estados, esto significa que cuando el abogado extranjero aprueba el examen de la barra y es admitido en cualquier Estado, puede solicitar ser admitido en otro Estado que tenga reciprocidad con el Estado en el que el abogado extranjero aprobó el examen de la barra, entonces este abogado extranjero puede ser admitido en otros Estados por reciprocidad simplemente presentando una moción llamada “Admisión por moción”. Consulte la lista oficial en este enlace: https://www.pabarexam.org/non_bar_exam_admission/reciprocity.htm Estos servicios es lo que hace que NAFA sea diferente y único.

[Artículo XVII de la Corte Suprema de Louisiana, Sección 6-

SECCIÓN 6. Determinaciones de equivalencia.

  • Un solicitante que se haya graduado de una escuela de derecho que no se encuentra en los Estados Unidos o sus territorios debe presentar una solicitud al Comité para una determinación de equivalencia. Dicha solicitud será adicional a todas las demás aplicaciones requeridas por esta Regla.

  • Los solicitantes de equivalencia que deseen presentarse al examen de barra de julio deberán presentar una solicitud de equivalencia al Comité a más tardar el 1 de diciembre del año calendario anterior al examen de barra de julio. Los solicitantes que deseen presentarse al examen de barra de febrero deberán presentar una solicitud de equivalencia a más tardar el 1 de agosto del año calendario anterior al examen de barra de febrero. [Efectivo el 15 de noviembre de 2000].

  • Estándar; Carga de la prueba. El solicitante tendrá la carga de demostrar que la educación legal del solicitante es evaluada con un equivalente a la educación legal ofrecida en los Estados Unidos o sus territorios por una escuela de derecho acreditada por la American Bar Association. Los estándares de la American Bar Association para la acreditación de las facultades de derecho serán relevantes para cualquier determinación de equivalencia.

Además, el solicitante tendrá la carga de demostrar que ha completado con éxito un mínimo de 14 horas de crédito por semestre, en materias profesionales de derecho en cualquiera de las siguientes categorías de una escuela de derecho estadounidense acreditada por la American Bar Association:

Derecho constitucional, contratos, derecho penal, procedimiento penal, corporaciones u organizaciones comerciales, pruebas, jurisdicción federal, procedimiento civil federal, propiedad intelectual, investigación y redacción legales, procedimiento civil de Louisiana, derecho de familia de Louisiana, ley de obligaciones de Louisiana, sucesiones de Louisiana, donaciones y Fideicomisos, responsabilidad profesional, propiedad, venta y arrendamiento, derechos de seguridad, impuestos y agravios, siempre que no se cuenten más de 4 horas de crédito en un tema para este requisito. [Modificado a partir del 22 de enero de 2018]”

USA FLAG

ENGLISH

Now you can prepare for the course of 14 credits-a prerequisite for taking the bar exam at Louisiana State Bar admission.

Very soon UNPAM University and NAFA, your National Association for Foreign Attorneys, will be offering the curriculum and accreditation to validate your foreign law degree for the practice of law from the same state of Louisiana.

This is a program of one (1) year where you may have employment and housing opportunities until you complete the program and take the entrance examination to complete the program and passed the bar exam. Once admitted, you can have your Louisiana certification- Supreme Court and license to practice law in the federal law in any state (50) of the United States that you prefer.

First steps to begin this process of validation in Louisiana:

1 – You must become a member of NAFA ASSOCIATION with your membership, provide you with the answers to all your questions necessary, the annuity with NAFA is priced at $ 195.00. You must fill out the required forms and send them with your payment together with the initial documentation necessary to begin the process.

2 – You have to take the English course and pass an English proficiency exam passing the English language known as TOEFL and receive a minimum score of 79.

3 – You must have graduated with the title of lawyer/ a Bachelor/ a law, or its equivalent, in a foreign country. It is not necessary to have practiced law in your country after graduation; must have maintained a satisfactory record of moral conduct.

4 – Having within the United States, a legal immigration status allows you to work within the U.S. to practice law.

5 – You must be willing to travel and move to Louisiana for a minimum of one (1) year to study the five (5) subjects (14 credits) in common law required by the Louisiana Supreme Court, in compliance with the Admission: Rule XVII-Admission to the Bar of the State of Louisiana–Section 6 – Equivalency Determination.

6 – You can, optionally, request financing facility and scholarships. The process of job search and relocation housing, will be conducted by NAFA staff in Louisiana. Everything after the applicant has been admitted to a law school in Louisiana to take the course to fulfill the prerequisites above mentioned.

Rule XVII. ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

SECTION 6. Equivalency Determinations.

(A) Application. An applicant who has graduated from a law school that is not located in the United States or its territories must submit an application to the Committee for an equivalency determination. Such application shall be in addition to all other applications required by this Rule. Equivalency applicants who wish to sit for the July bar examination shall submit an equivalency application to the Committee no later than December 1 of the calendar year preceding the July bar examination. Applicants who wish to sit for the February bar examination shall submit an equivalency application no later than August 1 of the calendar year preceding the February bar examination. [Effective November 15, 2000]

(B) Standard; Burden of Proof. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving that the legal education of the applicant is equivalent to that of the legal education offered in the United States or its territories by a law school accredited by the American Bar Association. The American Bar Association standards for accreditation of law schools shall be relevant to any equivalency determination.

In addition, the applicant shall bear the burden of proving that the applicant has successfully completed a minimum of 14 semester hours of credit, or the equivalent, in professional law subjects from an American law school in any of the following categories:

Constitutional Law, Contracts, Louisiana Obligations Law, Criminal Law, Corporations or Business Organizations, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Federal Civil Procedure, Louisiana Civil Procedure, Taxation, Uniform Commercial Code, and Torts, provided that no more than 4 credit hours in any one subject shall be counted toward this requirement. [Amended effective January 1, 2009]

(C) Equivalency Determination Panel. Subsequent to receiving recommendations from the dean or chancellor of each ABA accredited law school in this state, the Court shall appoint one faculty member from each law school to serve on the Equivalency Determination Panel. Initial appointments shall be for one, two, three, or four year terms of office. Thereafter, terms of office for panel members shall be for four years. No panel member shall serve more than two consecutive terms.

The Committee shall also appoint one of its own members to the panel. The Committee members shall chair the work of the panel, but shall only vote on equivalency applications in the event of a tie vote among the other equivalency determination panel members as to whether or not the applicant has met the burden of proof.

The panel shall consider all requests for equivalency determinations and make recommendations to the Committee as to whether an applicant has met the burden of proof. The panel may require such information from an applicant as it desires to consider each application.

The panel shall not be required to hold hearings or personally interview any equivalency applicant. However, the panel may in its discretion require an applicant to make a personal appearance in order for the panel to analyze the equivalency application.

The panel shall consider and act upon all pending equivalency applications for the July bar examination no later than January 15. The panel shall consider and act upon all pending equivalency applications for the February bar examination no later than October 15. The Committee shall notify each applicant, in writing, of the recommendation of the panel and the Committee’s decision thereon. [Effective November 15, 2000] 

Enter link – entrar enlace para mas informacion: “BAR BRIEFS – LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION”: http://www.lsba.org/documentindex/publications/Briefs-November-2011.pdf

 

Miembros de NAFA: Trabajos para toda/os. También ofrecemos tus servicios a nivel global.

Colegas:

Trabajos independientes para toda/o miembro de NAFA LAW.

“Agente Paralegal – Representante Autorizado – Preparador de documentos legales – Consultor Legal.” Comenzando el lunes 15 de abril de 2024. Servicios presénciales de oficina y servicios virtuales a distancia, lo mismo servicios locales que servicios internacionales.

Primero: Asistente Legal- Paralegal y Preparador de documentos:

Para el empleador, bien sea una empresa, una firma de abogados o persona privada publica- una oferta de trabajo con NAFA LAW WEBLOG, es gratis. Y cuéntanos qué necesitas.

El talento y servicio llega al cliente a donde quiera que te encuentres dentro de Estados Unidos y exterior a nivel internacional.

Obtenga personal calificado- asistentes legales, paralegales y abogada/os extranjeros consultores con experiencia y conozca a los candidatos de servicio disponibles- bilingües. Puedes contratarnos tan pronto como el cliente esté listo para su proyecto o necesidad.

Cliente, colabora fácilmente con tu trabajador paralegal para asistencia 100%: Utilice Zoom-Paralegal para chatear o realizar vídeo llamadas, compartir archivos y realizar un seguimiento del progreso del proyecto o caso directamente con la aplicación desde donde quiera que se encuentre a nivel local y a nivel internacional.

Pago simplificado en línea: Recibe facturas y realiza pagos a través de NAFA LAW Bank Card. Pague únicamente por el trabajo que usted autorice con garantía y satisfacción.

Segundo. Cómo contratar los mejores asistentes legales- paralegales- preparadores de documentos y abogados consultores:

Ya sea el cliente un/a abogado, propietario de un negocio, alguien que trabaja para una agencia privada o una persona natural publico en general, los paralegales, asistentes legales, preparadores y consultores legales pueden ayudarlo a realizar investigaciones legales, llenar documentos legales, traducir documentos legales al idioma inglés, preparar formulario, hacer peticiones y querellas en ‘pro se’, asistencia jurídica, representación internacional y mucho mas.

Nuestros servicios “Pro se” significa “en nombre propio” via nuestros asistentes legales- paralegales- preparadores de documentos. En el derecho, leyes federales, permite a una persona comparecer pro se en un caso civil ante un tribunal federal y está definido por el estatuto 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Así, con algunas limitaciones, cualquiera puede comparecer pro se, y se considera pro se quien comparece ante el Tribunal sin abogado.

Pro Se ante un tribunal en derecho estatal significa que el cliente, no tiene un abogado y elige representarse a sí mismo en un procedimiento sin representación legal. Las leyes y normas de Florida pueden ser complejas y, a menudo, confusas si no se tiene experiencia, formación en derecho o asistencia legal. Florida estatuto 28.215. Asistencia pro se. El secretario del tribunal de circuito proporcionará asistencia ministerial a los litigantes pro se. La asistencia no incluirá la prestación de asesoramiento jurídico.

Para abogada/os practicante y para empresarios ayudamos a sus clientes trabajando bajo la supervisión directa del abogado, mientras que un preparador de documentos legales trabaja directamente para los consumidores.

Si bien los asistentes legales independientes,  y preparadores de documentos legales no tienen la autoridad para ejercer la abogacía o representar a clientes como un/a abogado, estos se concentran en tareas específicas dentro de su competencia. Estas tareas a menudo implican la preparación de formularios legales o tareas especializadas, como la formulación preparación de formularios para peticiones de quiebra, divorcios, paternidad, desalojos, declaraciones, trasferencias de propiedad, etc. Todos estos son formularios aprobados por la Corte Suprema Estatal para litigantes Pro Se, son documentos legales sin tener que contratar necesariamente a un abogado.

Tercero: Entonces, ¿cómo se contratan paralegales, asistentes legales? Lo que sigue son algunos consejos para encontrar los mejores asistentes legales en NAFA LAW.

Cómo preseleccionar profesionales asistentes legales, consultores legales, paralegales disponibles, puede resultar útil desarrollar una lista corta de los profesionales que quizás desee entrevistar. Puede seleccionar perfiles según criterios como:

Experiencia en servicios y casos asistidos. Seleccionar perfiles de candidatos para habilidades y experiencia específicas, por ejemplo, investigar precedentes de casos de derecho contractual, derecho de familia, derecho de inquilinato, etc.

Si usted es un abogada/o certificado en ejercicio o un empresario con una imagen clara de su asistente legal ideal en mente, es hora de escribir esa oferta de trabajo.

Aunque no necesita una descripción completa del trabajo como lo haría al contratar a un empleado regular, intente proporcionar suficientes detalles como si fuera para que un contratista sepa si es la persona adecuada para el proyecto y servicio que su firma o empresa necesita

Un puesto de trabajo de asistente legal eficaz debe incluir:

(1)- Alcance del trabajo: desde la investigación jurídica hasta la creación de contenido, enumere todos los servicios entregables que necesitará.

(2)- Duración del proyecto: su publicación y contratación de trabajo debe indicar si se trata de un proyecto más pequeño o más grande.

(3)- Antecedentes: si prefiere tener experiencia en determinadas industrias o prácticas jurídicas, menciónelo siempre.

(4)- Presupuesto: establezca un presupuesto y tenga en cuenta su preferencia por tarifas por hora frente a contratos de servicios por un precio fijo.

Preguntas frecuentes sobre asistentes legales- paralegales.

¿Qué es un asistente legal- Paralegal- preparador de documentos legales?

Un asistente legal- Paralegal es un profesional que puede realizar un trabajo legal sustancial para un abogado, para empresa, y para el publico en general. Si bien los términos asistente legal y paralegal pueden usarse y a menudo se usan indistintamente, la convención popular es reservar el término asistente legal para aquellos que hayan aprobado el examen de certificación y estudios NAFA LAW.

A continuación se ofrece una descripción general rápida de las habilidades que debe buscar el consumidor y/o abogados en ejercicio en los profesionales asistentes legales- paralegales:

Servicios paralegales generales.

Investigación y redacción jurídica.

Preparación de formularios legales y de contratos.

Especialización en derecho por ejemplo, derecho inmobiliario, derecho migratorio, derecho de familia, entre muchos otros.

¿Por qué contratar asistentes legales- paralegales- preparador de documentos?

El camino para encontrar los mejores asistentes legales es identificar sus necesidades del cliente. ¿Es usted un abogada/o que busca un/a asistente profesional que investigue la jurisprudencia para ayudarle a prepararse para la corte? ¿O su empresa necesita un asistente legal para redactar contratos y otros documentos legales?

El costo de su proyecto dependerá en gran medida del alcance de su trabajo y de las habilidades específicas necesarias para darle vida a su proyecto.

¿Cuánto cuesta contratar un asistente legal- paralegal?

Las tarifas pueden variar debido a muchos factores, incluidos los conocimientos y la experiencia, la ubicación y las condiciones del mercado pero comienzan a $45 dólares por hora.

Un asistente legal- paralegal experimentado puede cobrar honorarios más reducidos que el abogado en ejercicio libre, y también trabajar más rápido, tener áreas de especialización más amplias y especializadas y ofrecer un trabajo de mayor calidad.

Un profesional independiente, asistente, paralegal, preparador de documentos que todavía está en el proceso de construir una base de clientes puede fijar precios más competitivos para sus servicios de asistente legal. Cuál es el adecuado para usted dependerá de las características específicas de su proyecto.

Nuestros servicios de asistencia legal y consultaría jurídica internacional. ¿Listo para delegar tareas legales diversas a un asistente legal- paralegal- preparador de documentos legales? Inicie sesión y publique su trabajo de asistente legal en NAFA LAW BLOG hoy.

Cuarto: ¿Qué es un Consultor Legal y consultoría jurídica?

Según la Corte Suprema de Florida, un consultor legal extranjero es una persona admitida como abogada/o, asesor jurídico o equivalente en una jurisdicción extranjera y que está calificada por la corte suprema estatal de EE.UU., para brindar asesoramiento legal sobre las leyes de la jurisdicción extranjera donde está admitida/o.

La Regla de Consultoría Legal Extranjera del Colegio de Abogados de Florida permite que un/a abogado extranjero sea certificado por la Corte Suprema de Florida como Consultor Legal Extranjero (FLC) reconocido para asesorar a los clientes sobre las leyes bajo el cual el abogado está admitido para ejercer. Las Reglas que Regulan el Colegio de Abogados de Florida: El Capítulo 16 del colegio Florida Bar explica los requisitos para la certificación.

¿Por qué contratar consultores legales?

Esta/os consultores tienen el potencial de analizar la capacidad de su caso a nivel local e internacional y pueden defender su caso para su propósito, entienden y ejercen el derecho internacional.

Todas las empresas los necesitan para abordar sus asuntos relacionados con la ley de comercio internacional y comercio local estatal de manera eficiente y oportuna para proporcionar conocimiento experto a una parte, cliente, a cambio de una tarifa de acuerdo a la regla de consultoría del Colegio de Abogados de Florida Capítulo 17.

Es difícil convertirse en abogada/o consultor internacional debido a su naturaleza competitiva, requisitos especializados y la necesidad de educación y experiencia avanzadas a nivel internacional.

Un/a abogado consultor de derecho extranjero es un/a profesional que brinda asesoramiento e investigación legal a clientes que operan en mercados extranjeros, internacionales y locales.

Manejan diversos asuntos legales, incluidos arbitraje, procedimientos de visa, tipos de cambio de jurisdicciones, leyes comerciales y hasta casos penales internacionales.

También asesoran a empresas estatales, a sus ejecutivos, socios y empleados sobre leyes y negociaciones estatales, incluyendo asesoran a sus clientes sobre gobiernos extranjeros y trabajan en estrecha colaboración con los organismos encargados de hacer cumplir la ley.

Se especializan en diversas áreas como comercio internacional, propiedad intelectual,  derecho de empresarial, derecho migratorio y derecho notarial internacional.

Ayudan a incorporar empresas extranjeras, coordinan estrategias de marketing y resuelven problemas de incumplimiento de pagos.

También realizan tareas administrativas como organizar archivos de casos y distribución de acuerdos y contratos. También pueden trabajar en estrecha colaboración con bufetes de abogados locales para iniciar y cerrar contratos de ventas y acuerdos internacionales.

Para consultarnos- postular, solicitar, solamente debes escribirnos al correo- email central es: nafa@nafalaw.com Y te responderemos a la brevedad posible.

LISTA DE BENEFICIOS ADICIONALES:

  • Seminarios de Capacitación para Profesionales y Talleres.

  • Financiamiento disponible a los miembros para la realización de los Seminarios.

  • Consultas telefónicas ilimitadas sobre cualquier asunto Paralegal o de Referencia de Abogados, de Lunes a Viernes.

  • Entrevistas Paralegal para cualquier documento jurídico aprobado por la Corte Suprema de la Florida.

  • Citas con abogados en práctica libre general de nuestro servicio de referencia para cualquier asunto de urgencia o que requiera consejos legales.

  • Llamadas y cartas necesarias por parte de la Asociación para los Miembros.

  • Servicios de Notaría y Formularios para Notarizar.

  • Formularios legales para representarse en las Cortes de Menor Cuantia del Condado. Igualmente para cualquier asunto de Inmigración, Bancarrota, Divorcios Simples, Asuntos Familiares, Adopciones, Desalojos, Bienes Raíces, Contratos Residenciales, Comerciales y asuntos penales (Los costos y gastos de corte son adicionales).

  • Asistencia paralegal para resolver problemas con agencias del gobierno.

  • Afiliación con un 50 % de descuento al sistema médico de descuentos Medicard.

  • Servicio de Referencia para Abogados practicantes [Ver detalles seguido].

  • Precedentes y Jurisprudencia actualizado trimestralmente.

  • Reuniones Sociales y Eventos Deportivos.

  • Feria del Libro y Feria de Trabajo Anual.

  • Oportunidades de empleo a través de Internet todo el año.

  • Seminarios de Educación Legal Continua (C.L.E.) aprobados por el Florida Bar.

  • Identificación Internacional NAFA LAW (Anual)

  • Certificados de miembros anualmente.

Membresia anual regular $195.00 primer año.

Estos planes de servicios adicionales son opcionales solo para miembros quienes ejercen la abogacia en EE.UU., y a nivel internacional.

Plan A

 $95.00 por membresía anual (renovación) y pagos de $150.00 por mes incluyen:

 Investigación juridica y/o visita 4 horas por mes

 Investigación Legal Computarizada 5 horas por mes

 Servicio de Procesamiento juridico 2 casos por mes

Consulta de Formas de Practica Legal en la Florida Ilimitada

Servicio Notarial Ilimitado

Plan B

 $95.00 por membresía anual (1) y pagos de $250.00 por mes incluyen:

Reporte a Corte 2 horas por mes

 Investigación y/o visita 8 horas por mes

 Investigación Legal Computarizada 8 horas por mes

 Servicio de Procesamiento 3 casos por mes

Consulta de Formas de Practica Legal en la Florida Ilimitada

Servicio Notarial Ilimitado

  Plan C

 $95.00 por membresía anual (1) y pagos de $350.00 por mes incluyen:

Reporte a las Cortes 3 horas por mes

 Investigación y/o visita 10 horas por mes

 Investigación Legal Computarizada 10 horas por mes

 Servicio de Procesamiento 4 casos por mes

Consulta de Formas de Practica Legal en la Florida Ilimitada

Servicio Notarial Ilimitado 

LISTA DE FORMULARIOS DISPONIBLES A LOS MIEMBROS:

                ADOPTION AND PATERNITY

               BUSINESS AGREEMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS

               BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

               CIVIL LITIGATION

               COMPUTER LAW

               CORPORATIONS

               CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHECK LIST

               CRIMINAL LAW

               ESTATE PLANNING AND GUARDIANSHIP

               FAMILY PRACTICE

               FLORIDA DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

               HOTEL, RESTAURANT, AND TRAVEL

               IMMIGRATION LAW AND PROCEDURE

               INSURANCE LITIGATION

               REAL ESTATE

               SLIP AND FALL PRACTICE

               S.CORPORATION PLANNING AND OPERATION

               WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

               BANKRUPTCY KIT

               INCORPORATION KIT

               CREDIT REPAIR KIT

               POWER OF ATTORNEY KIT

               LIVING TRUST KIT

               LIVING WILL KIT

               LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT KIT

               PRE-MARRIAGE AGREEMENT KIT

               AGREEMENT TO SELL REAL ESTATE

               BILL OF SALE

               DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY/HEALTH CARE

               HOUSEHOLD/INSURANCE INVENTORY

               LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY

               MONTHLY RENTAL AGREEMENT

               NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT

               OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE

               PROMISSORY NOTE

               RENTAL APPLICATION

               RESIDENTIAL LEASE/APT./CONDO/HOUSE

               APPEALS

               AFFIDAVITS

               AUCTIONS

               AUTOMOBILES

               AVIATION

               CREDITORS’ BILLS

               LABOR RELATIONS

               EXEMPTIONS

               GUARANTY, ETC.

                COMPUTER DISK AVAILABLE

Ahora puedes anunciar tus servicios a nivel global con el nuevo directorio de servicios de las Instituciones siguientes:

NAFA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR FOREIGN ATTORNEYS CORP

AICAC-HR, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION & COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

BAR- BUREAU OF ATTORNEY RESOLUTION – ATTORNEY SERVICE BUREAU.

Llamado: “N.A.B.A. FREELANCERS PROFESSIONALS”.

Los mejores calificados ‘freelancers.’ Servicios Especializados realizados por Profesionales que trabajan de forma independiente:

Abogada/os Consultores Internacionales.

Árbitros Comerciales.

Defensores Derechos Humanos.

Paralegales-Asistentes Legal.

Notarios Públicos- Agentes de Cierre.

Traductores Públicos.

Los servicios están abiertos a miembros y no miembros, y al público en general. Son una excelente manera de promover a nivel global tus servicios “freelancers”.

Los anuncios internacionales serán promovidos de la siguiente forma y vocabulario:

Encuentra los mejores profesionales y asesores legales en N.A.F.A.

Póngase en contacto con los mejores consultores legales en minutos a través de nuestra red global de profesionales y agencias calificadas en tres idiomas: Español- Inglés- Portugués.

Encuentre los profesionales y asesores legales perfectos para su proyecto.  Abogada/os Consultores Internacionales. Árbitros Comerciales. Defensores Derechos Humanos. Paralegales-Asistentes Legal. Notarios Públicos- Agentes de Cierre. Traductores Públicos- mejor calificados.

Cómo funcionan nuestros servicios:

Publicar una solicitud oferta de trabajo (es gratis).

Cuéntanos qué habilidades necesitas.

N.A.F.A. te conecta con los mejores profesionales y consultores legales a nivel mundial o cercano a Usted.

Obtenga propuestas calificadas de profesionales y consultores legales dentro de las 24 horas. Entreviste a los favoritos y contrate a los mejores.

Colaboran fácilmente.

Use los contactos N.A.B.A., para chatear o realizar video llamadas, compartir archivos y realizar un seguimiento de los hitos del proyecto o de su caso desde su escritorio o dispositivo móvil.

Pago simplificado.

Pague por hora o precio fijo y reciba facturas directamente del profesional y Usted. Paga directamente al profesional por el trabajo que autorizas.

N.A.B.A., es creada por NAFA LAW que es la organización más importante para profesionales hispanos del derecho internacional, asociaciones de abogados y sociedades de abogados, miles de miembros individuales en 21 países.

Establecido en 1993, poco después de la creación de la Regla de Admisión a la abogacía Internacional en Florida, llamada regla “Chapter 16 Foreign Legal Consultant.”

NAFA LAW nació de la convicción de que podría contribuir a la reciprocidad entre abogados extranjeros y locales mundialmente para promover el ejercicio y la protección del estado de derecho.

Abogada/os Consultores Internacionales. Árbitros Comerciales. Defensores Derechos Humanos. Paralegales-Asistentes Legal. Notarios Públicos- Agentes de Cierre.

Traductores Públicos- mejor calificados.

Tareas a corto plazo:

Cree un grupo de expertos diversos para tareas puntuales.

Proyectos recurrentes:

Tener un equipo con habilidades especializadas.

Trabajo por contrato a tiempo completo:

Amplíe su personal con un equipo dedicado.

Nuestro directorio de Profesionales Virtuales tiene un mínimo de 10 años de experiencia en la industria legal, poseen una ética de trabajo sólida, habilidades excepcionales para resolver problemas y se sienten cómodos trabajando en entornos dinámicos y de ritmo rápido.

Los proyectos típicos involucran alegatos y redacción de documentos legales, mociones, formularios, investigación legal, arbitraje, traducciones, derechos humanos, asistencia con asuntos de debida diligencia y el apoyo general de abogados certificados y miembros del personal.

La/os secretaria/os legales brindan apoyo legal y administrativo a abogados y equipos legales. Con varios años de experiencia en la industria legal, son extremadamente organizados, agudos, agradables y disciplinados. Asisten con la organización de la firma de abogados, enlace público, calendario, redacción de correspondencia, gestión de marketing y cualquier otro proyecto auxiliar o deberes que pueda necesitar.

¿Alguna vez has deseado que haya alguien en tu esquina que pueda asegurarse de que tu negocio funcione sin problemas y que te permita concentrarte en lo que haces mejor y aumentar los ingresos? Como propietario de un negocio, es casi imposible satisfacer todas las demandas de su negocio. Cuando se lance, probablemente usará muchos deberes, pero en algún momento deberá pasar estos deberes y delegar. ¡Aquí es donde estos profesionales “freelancers” pueden ayudar!

COLEGAS. Si quieren participar en este directorio global ofreciendo tus servicios este año 2020 es gratuito solamente debes tener tu membresía anual pagada [$195.00]. O si tu membresía anual está vencida solo tienes que pagar $195.00 sin importar el tiempo que tengas sin renovar la membresía anual. Entra por el siguiente enlace y envíanos la siguiente información con su foto para comenzar a desplegar tus servicios en el Directorio N.A.B.A., de servicios y trabajos:

Firma / Nombre de la empresa: Persona de contacto: Número de teléfono: Número de fax: Correo electrónico: Dirección postal: Ciudad / Estado / País / Código postal: ¿Qué áreas de derecho son de interés para ofrecer o para su empresa?

Envíanos todo por este enlace de contacto: nafa@nafalaw.com

Si no estás inscrito con la Sección del Derecho Internacional del Florida Bar, ahora lo puedes hacer, ‘es opcional’ para todos: Profesor de derecho- Abogado de otro Estado- Abogado de otro país- Estudiantes de derecho.

Solo debes entrar por este enlace, llenar el formularios y enviarlos directamente a la Sección del Derecho Internacional del Florida Bar con tu cheque o tarjeta de crédito: Haz clic aquí: http://internationallawsection.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/International-Membership-Application-LAW-PROF-OUT-O-FSTATE-OUT-OF-COUNTRY-STUDENTS-ADA-2.pdf

Año 30- de análisis de la Asociación Nacional para Abogados Extranjeros- NAFA LAW

Año 30- de análisis de la Asociación Nacional para Abogados Extranjeros- NAFA LAW para el Programa de Admisión a la abogacía internacional en Florida para abogada/os extranjeros. Mentaría de abogada/os de habla español y portuguesa.

ANTECEDENTES:

Los programas NAFA de homologación y revalida para la abogacía en Florida bajo la Regla de admisión del colegio Florida Bar- “Chapter 16” comenzaron en el mes de noviembre año 1993.

NAFA LAW ha cumplido sus objetivos de fomentar el crecimiento académico y personal en la/os abogada/os extranjeros en Florida. Esta regla de admisión tomó fuerza real cuando se publicó por primera vez en febrero 1990, publicación “THE FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL”, bajo el titulo: “Why we need foreign legal consultants in Florida” escrito por el abogado David S. Willig. Este movimiento finalmente logró que la Corte Suprema de Florida aprobara permanentemente en 1992 la admisión de abogada/os extranjeros dándole vida a la regla “Chapter 16”. Desde entonces se ha avanzado mucho; los avances más recientes fueron aprobados por la Corte Suprema de Florida en diciembre 2018 y entraron en vigor en febrero 2019. Aunque debemos señalar que el colegio Florida Bar está muy retrazado en la implementación de algunas de estas enmiendas todas favoreciendo al abogada/o extranjero.

Hasta ahora, la mejora más significativa para abogada/os extranjeros bajo estas enmiendas- es la regla “Chapter 17” llamado Abogada/o Interno Autorizado. Es un abogada/o que:

(1) tiene licencia para practicar leyes en una jurisdicción de los Estados Unidos o está admitido o autorizado para ejercer como abogado o consejero de derecho o equivalente en una jurisdicción extranjera [abogados extranjeros certificados] y sujeto a una regulación y disciplina efectiva por parte de un organismo profesional o autoridad pública debidamente constituido o sujeto a reconocida legalidad obligaciones relacionadas con su condición de abogada/os;

(2) es empleado representa exclusivamente una organización empresarial ubicada en Florida y que reside en Florida o se traslada a Florida para trabajar dentro de los 6 meses posteriores a la solicitud bajo este capítulo “Chapter 17” y recibe o recibirá compensación por actividades legales realizadas para esa organización empresarial. Esta regla de antes del año 2019 en Florida solo estaba disponible para abogados licenciados a la práctica libre en otros estados de EE.UU. Esta regla Chapter 17, permite al abogada/o extranjero representar a compañías dentro de Florida [y en algunos casos a sus ejecutivos] en la practica del Derecho Estatal Mercantil, y sin tener que presentar examen al Bar. Si precisa demostrar la capacitación en esta rama del derecho corporativo (también conocido como derecho comercial o derecho empresarial). Este derecho es el conjunto de leyes que rigen los derechos, las relaciones y la conducta de personas, empresas, organizaciones y negocios. El término se refiere a la práctica legal de la ley relacionada con las corporaciones, o a la teoría de las corporaciones en derecho estatal. Debemos señalar que otros estados bar de abogada/os y cortes supremas tienen procesos mucho más expeditos de admisión, aunque igualmente, debemos señalar que algunos de estos estados tienen menos solicitudes de admisión de abogada/os extranjeros anualmente.

MÉTODOS:

NAFA LAW.  Realizamos una evaluación sistemática del abogada/o de los últimos 3 años [antes de 2019 5 años] del ejercicio de la abogacía en el país de origen del abogada/o.

Simultáneamente comenzamos el programa de Homologación y Revalida con capacitación y el proceso administrativo y académico. La información que se recopiló del solicitante abogada/o se traduce y certifica al idioma inglés con todos los registros y documentos académicos autenticados y los enviamos a la Universidad de Homologaciones UNPAM. Revisamos las evaluaciones de UNPAM, todos los documentos traducidos al inglés, anexamos los formularios con los pagos de tarifas- planes de desarrollo profesional [CV] y radicamos las solicitudes- formularios con todos los documentos de soporte ante las autoridades, estas son: Corte Suprema de Florida vía Florida Bar. Comité [colegio] Nacional de Admisión al Bar- este último promueve hacer este servicio llamado Investigación de Carácter, en 180 días. El Florida Bar promueve hacer todo el programa en 12 meses de haber recibido la solicitud. Servicio que no se está cumpliendo en este tiempo anunciado por el Bar.

RESULTADOS:

Durante estos 27 años hemos podido ver con satisfacción un gran crecimiento en las admisiones a la abogacía internacional extranjera, [FLC] Foreign Legal Consultant. Estas se destacan bajo el Comité de Derechos Internacional del Florida Bar. En la actualidad año 2020 podemos ver que el Florida Bar tiene un directorio de 136 abogada/os extranjeros admitidos para ejercer esta abogacía FLC.

En esta lista del directorio podemos ver 39 abogada/os de Venezuela-; 24 abogada/os de Brasil-; 11 abogada/os de Colombia-; 7 abogada/os de Argentina-; 7 abogada/os de España-; 4 abogada/os de Perú-; 3 abogada/os de México-; 3 abogada/os de Republica Dominicana-; 2 abogada/os de Panamá-; 1 abogada/o de El Salvador-; 1 abogada/o de Guatemala-; 1 abogada/o de Honduras-; 1 abogada/o de Costa Rica-; 1 abogada/o de Paraguay-; 1 abogada/o de Chile-; 1 abogada/os de Cuba.

El resto son abogada/os de otros continentes alrededor del mundo. Para ver este Consultorio oficial completo- haz clic entrando por este enlace bajo “Search”: https://www.floridabar.org/directories/find-aflc/?lName=&sdx=N&fName=&eligible=&deceased=&firm=&locValue=&locType=C&pracAreas=&lawSchool=&services=&langs=&certValue=&pageNumber=1&pageSize=10

CRITICA CONSTUCTIVA:

Podemos ver en esta lista directorio de abogada/os extranjeros varios errores, omisiones. Estos son auto infligidos. Lo llamamos fallas de auto corrección es un error que ocurre de parte del abogada/o. Primero- de estos 136 abogados extranjeros certificados por la corte suprema en este Directorio del Florida Bar- solo 15 abogada/os han puesto o han pedido que pongan su fotografía personal, estas son 121 omisiones que no las vemos en el Directorio de abogados en la practica general en este mismo Bar.

Otra omisión grave es que 131 abogada/os extranjeros ha omitido poner la información de sus firmas y servicios jurídicos en su país de origen, información de sus firmas o de algún asociado- esto disminuye en un 90% la posibilidad de captar clientes internacionales, y esto es evidente aquí seguido:

El alegato principal presentado en la Corte Suprema de Florida en 1990 para lograr la aprobación de esta regla de admisión para abogada/os extranjeros, fue el siguiente alegato, y citamos:

“Al evaluar el tema de los consultores legales abogados extranjeros aquí en Florida, la primera pregunta podría ser, ¿por qué necesitamos abogados aquí en cualquier caso? La respuesta a esta pregunta requirió un examen de la situación económica de nuestro Estado y la práctica del derecho que lo guía en su desarrollo.

A medida que la población y la economía de Florida continúen ampliando los horizontes del estado, la necesidad de servicios de abogados extranjeros también aumentará. Los inversores de Florida con proyectos comerciales en el extranjero, así como los inversores extranjeros e internacionales que buscan oportunidades de negocios en Florida, a menudo necesitan y, por lo tanto, se beneficiarían de la conveniencia de tener consultores legales extranjeros disponibles para asesorar sobre tales preguntas en Florida.

En lugar de solaparse o incluso entrar en conflicto, la actividad de los abogados extranjeros consultores legales complementa el trabajo de los abogados locales llamados a anticipar los efectos de una transacción internacional negociada en Florida o que involucra a una parte de Florida. El abogado local de Florida que examina un asunto desde la perspectiva del cliente no siempre puede estar preparado para planificar adecuadamente todas las consecuencias legales que surjan de una transacción que se realizará, en su totalidad o en parte, en la jurisdicción de un país extranjero. La necesidad de abogados extranjeros también se siente en el campo de los litigios … “

CONCLUSIÓN:

La satisfacción de los abogada/os extranjeros con el programa de Homologación y Revalida NAFA LAW es alta- solo afectada por la falta de pronta acción del FLORIDA BAR en despachar, remitir y dar curso a las solicitudes con más prontitud lo cúal es una herramienta beneficiosa para promover el éxito entre los miembros de la comunidad jurídica internacional de abogada/os extranjeros y su tremenda influencia en la inversión y el comercio internacional en Florida.

“It is a great honor for me and to my family today February 15, 2020 that “The National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution”

NAFA LAW, The National Association for Foreign Attorneys, with the UNPAM University and AICAC-HR Court celebrate this recognition to our president and founder Humphrey Humberto Pachecker.

“It is a great honor for me and to my family today February 15, 2020 that “The National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution” granted me with the honor of the “Commendation Certificate” to HUMPHREY H. PACHECKER, in Recognition of Exemplary Patriotism in the display of our beloved Flag of the United States of America. I consider this Commendation Certificate the highest award that a citizen can receive for proudly displaying the United States Flag 365 days a year- granted.”

“Highlands Chapter “Sons of the American Revolution” Sebring, Florida. Society Sons of the American Revolution SAR. Thank you- President Mr. London, Flag Chairman Mr. Dean, wifes and sister for this honor.” HHP

Today my father Humberto Pacheco León Roque would be very proud of this Recognition. My father a Military of the Corps of Engineers – Army of Cuba during World War II, this photo from 1934. The Republic of Cuba together with the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. Due to the geographical position of Cuba at the entrance of the Gulf of Mexico, the role of Havana as the main commercial port in the West Indies and the natural resources of the country, Cuba was the main important participant in the ‘American Theater of World War II’ , and later Cuba was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the “Lending and Leasing Program of the United States”. In addition, Cuba declared war on the powers of the Nazi Axis in December 1941, becoming the one or one of the first Latin American countries to enter into conflict in the Second World War. By the end of the war in 1945, its Cuban military had developed the reputation in the United States of being the most efficient and cooperative of all of the Caribbean nations.

The National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR or NSSAR) is an American congressionally chartered organization, founded in 1889 and headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. A non-profit corporation, it has described its purpose as maintaining and extending “the institutions of American freedom, an appreciation for true patriotism, a respect for our national symbols, the value of American citizenship, [and] the unifying force of ‘e pluribus unum’ that has created, from the people of many nations, one nation and one people.”

The members of the society are male descendants of people who served in the American Revolutionary War or who contributed to establishing the independence of the United States. It is dedicated to perpetuating American ideals and traditions, and to protecting the Constitution of the United States; the official recognition of Constitution Day, Flag Day, and Bill of Rights Day were established through its efforts. It has members in the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The organization is distinct from the Sons of the Revolution, a separate descendants heritage organization founded on February 22, 1876 by businessman John Austin Stevens and members of The Society of the Cincinnati.  SAR Founder William Osborn McDowell disagreed with the Sons of the Revolution requirement at that time that all state societies were to be subordinate to the New York society.

Illustrious and Honorable members: The governance of the Sons of the American Revolution is made up of 10 National (General) Officers, 15 Vice-Presidents that preside over separate geographical regions and a Trustee elected from each state and international society. These officers meet several times over the year to discuss business pertaining to the society. The National Officers meet at least four times during their term of office, unless special meetings are called. The Trustees meet twice each year at the Society’s Headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky. These meetings, known as the Fall and Spring Leadership Meetings, are normally held in late September and early March. During the Leadership Meetings committee recommendations and the society’s budget are approved. While only the National Officers, Vice-Presidents and Trustees have the right to vote on the floor, all SAR members are welcome to attend and may request appointment to committees. President Theodore Roosevelt, was a member of the organization, who signed its Congressional Charter in 1906.

The cross’s vertical bar represents the commandment “You Shall Love Your God”; the horizontal bar represents the commandment “You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.” The four limbs are a reminder of the four cardinal virtues; its eight points represent eight spiritual injunctions:

To have spiritual contentment

To live without malice

To weep over your sins

To humble yourself at insults

To love justice

To be merciful

To be sincere and open-hearted

To suffer persecution Surrounding the relief of Washington in the center are the words “LIBERTAS ET PATRIA,” a reminder of the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

The insignia is normally worn suspended by a ribbon of blue, white and gold (buff) on the wearer’s left breast. National officers and former state and chapter presidents wear the insignia suspended from a neck ribbon of the Society’s colors. On other occasions a rosette in the Society’s colors is worn on the wearers left lapel.

Presidents of the United States: To date, 17 presidents of the United States have been members of the SAR. President Grant was admitted posthumously in recognition of his being a member of the Sons of Revolutionary Sires, whose members were later admitted to membership in the SAR:

Ulysses S. Grant (posthumous) 18th

Rutherford B. Hayes 19th

Benjamin Harrison 23rd

William McKinley 25th

Theodore Roosevelt 26th

William Howard Taft 27th

Warren G. Harding 29th

Calvin Coolidge 30th

Herbert Hoover 31st

Franklin D. Roosevelt 32nd

Harry S. Truman 33rd

Dwight D. Eisenhower 34th

Lyndon B. Johnson 36th

Gerald D. “Jerry” Ford 38th

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter 39th

George H. W. Bush 41st

George W. Bush 43rd

Of the presidents who lived since the SAR’s founding in 1889 and are not listed above, presidents Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all had patriot ancestors but did not join the SAR. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump did not have patriot ancestors.

Of the presidents who served prior to the founding of the SAR, six qualify as patriot ancestors – George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson.

Vice presidents of the United States.

Charles G. Dawes

Levi P. Morton

Nelson Rockefeller

In addition to the above, the following vice presidents were SAR compatriots and later became President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.

Nobel Peace Prize recipients.

President Theodore Roosevelt

President Jimmy Carter

Vice President Charles G. Dawes

Secretary of State Elihu Root

Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg

Nobel Prize for Literature recipient:

Sir Winston Churchill

Medal of Honor recipients

The following 38 SAR Compatriots are known to have received the Medal of Honor. It is possible that there are other Medal of Honor recipients who were SAR Compatriots.

(The rank indicated is the highest held by the individual and not necessarily that held at the time the Medal of Honor was earned or awarded.)

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, USA – Legendary general

General Jonathan Wainwright, USA – Commanded the defense of the Philippines.

Admiral Frank F. Fletcher – Commander of the Vera Cruz intervention.

Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles, USA – U.S. Army Commanding General, 1895–1903.

Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale, USN – Prisoner of War in Vietnam.

Major General Patrick Brady, USA – Vietnam War helicopter pilot.

Major General Adolphus Greely, USA – Civil War veteran and Arctic explorer.

Major General David S. Stanley, USV

Brevet Major General Lewis Addison Grant, USV – Assistant Secretary of War.

Brevet Major General Rufus Saxton, USV

Brevet Major General Orlando Willcox, USA

Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd Jr., USN – aviator and Antarctic explorer.

Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., AUS – Landed at Utah Beach on D-Day.

Brigadier General John B. Babcock, USA

Brigadier General Robert H. Dunlap, USMC

Brigadier General Joseph Foss, SDANG – Marine fighter pilot and Governor of South Dakota.

Brigadier General Oscar F. Long, USA

Brigadier General Edmund Rice, USV

Brevet Brigadier General Byron Mac Cutcheon, USV

Brevet Brigadier General Horace Porter, USV – President General of the SAR from 1892 to 1897.

Brevet Brigadier General Philip S. Post, USV – U.S. Representative.

Brevet Brigadier General Edward W. Whitaker, USV

Colonel John C. Gresham, USA

Colonel Charles H. Heyl, USA

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, USV – Hero of the Battle of San Juan Hill.

Brevet Colonel Clinton A. Cilley, USV

Brevet Colonel Horatio Collins King, USV

Lieutenant Colonel Bernard A. Byrne, USV

Brevet Lieutenant Colonel George G. Benedict, USV

Major Ira H. Evans, USV

Major John Alexander Logan Jr., USV

Brevet Major Ira H. Evans, USV

Surgeon John O. Skinner, USA

Captain George Washington Brush, USV

First Lieutenant Powhatan H. Clarke, USA

Chief Warrant Officer Hershel W. Williams, USMCR

Technical Sergeant Charles H. Coolidge, USA

Sergeant John D. Hawk, USA

Military and naval officers:

Admiral of the Navy George Dewey – Hero of the Battle of Manila Bay

General of the Armies John J. Pershing – U.S. Army Chief of Staff and commander of the American Expeditionary Force in the First World War

General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower – Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe

General of the Air Force Henry H. Arnold, USAF – Commander of the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II

Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey – Commander of the 3rd Fleet in World War II

General Joseph E. Johnston, CSA – Confederate general

General Frederick Kroesen – Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army

General Charles P. Summerall – U.S. Army Chief of Staff

General William C. Westmoreland – Commander of Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV)

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Admiral David Dixon Porter – Senior admiral of the U.S. Navy

Admiral Harry D. Train II – NATO Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic

Lieutenant General Joseph Wheeler, CSA – Veteran of the Civil War and the Spanish–American War

Lieutenant General Theodore G. Stroup, USA – Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel

Lieutenant General Guy Swan, USA – Commanding General, 5th US Army

Lieutenant General David Ohle, USA – Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel

Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale, USN – President of the Naval War College

Major General Thomas M. Anderson – Veteran of the Civil War, Spanish–American War and the Philippine Insurrection

Major General Joseph Cabell Breckinridge Sr., USV – Veteran of the Civil War and the Spanish–American War

Major General Donald Burdick, USA – Director, Army National Guard

Major General Darius N. Couch, USV – Union Army general during the Civil War

Major General Frederick D. Grant, USV – Son of President Ulysses S. Grant

Major General Ulysses S. Grant III – Grandson of President Ulysses S. Grant

Major General Curtis Guild Jr., MVM – Governor of Massachusetts

Major General William Henry Fitzhugh Lee, CSA – Son of General Robert E. Lee

Major General William R. Shafter – Commanded U.S. Army V Corps in Cuba in the Spanish–American War

Rear Admiral Charles Johnston Badger – Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy

Rear Admiral John R. Bartlett – Oceanographer

Rear Admiral George Belknap

Rear Admiral Walter S. Crosley – Navy Cross recipient

Rear Admiral Lewis A. Kimberly

Rear Admiral Winfield Scott Schley – Hero of the Battle of Santiago de Cuba

Rear Admiral John L. Worden – Commander of the USS Monitor

Brigadier General James Devereux, USMC – Recipient of the Navy Cross and congressman

Brigadier General Charles Wheaton Abbot Jr., RING – Adjutant General of Rhode Island

Brigadier General George Andrews – Adjutant General of the United States Army

Brigadier General George Lippitt Andrews

Brigadier General William H. Bisbee – Veteran of the Civil War and Spanish–American War (lived to age 102)

Brigadier General Charles A. Coolidge – Veteran of the Civil War and Spanish–American War.

Brigadier General Charles Duke, USAF – Apollo 16 lunar module pilot.

Brigadier General Winfield Scott Edgerly – Veteran of the Indian Wars and the Spanish–American War.

Brigadier General James Roosevelt, USMCR – Recipient of the Navy Cross and the Silver Star.

Brigadier General George Miller Sternberg – U.S. Army Surgeon General.

Brigadier General Charles Foster Tillinghast Sr., RING – Veteran of the Spanish–American War and World War I

Brevet Brigadier General Edwin S. Greeley – Union Veteran of the Civil War

Captain Charles V. Gridley, USN – Captain of the USS Olympia at the Battle of Manila Bay.

Colonel Ashley Chadbourne McKinley, USAF – Photographer on first flight over the South Pole.

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, USV – Spanish–American War veteran and leader of the Rough Riders

Lieutenant Colonel Russell Benjamin Harrison, USV – Veteran of the Spanish–American War and son of President Benjamin Harrison.

Lieutenant Colonel Archibald Roosevelt, AUS – Veteran of both world wars and four time recipient of the Silver Star.

Commander Franklin Roosevelt Jr., USN – Recipient of the Silver Star and Congressman.

Major Washington Irving Lincoln Adams, NA – Politician, banker and veteran of World War I, descendant of President John Adams and president general of the SAR from 1922 to 1923.

Major Archibald Butt – Presidential aide who died on the RMS Titanic.

Major Kermit Roosevelt, AUS – Served in the British and American armies in both world wars and recipient of the Military Cross.

Brevet Major Augustus P. Davis, USV – Founder of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.

Captain Shelby Stanton, USA – Historian and author.

Public officials.

Foreign national leaders:

HM Juan Carlos I – King of Spain

Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS – Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Cabinet officers

Charles F. Adams III – Secretary of the Navy

Joseph W. Barr – Secretary of the Treasury

Herbert Hoover – Secretary of Commerce

Charles Evans Hughes (honorary) – Supreme Court Chief Justice, Secretary of State and Governor of New York

Frank B. Kellogg – Secretary of State

Franklin Roosevelt – Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Theodore Roosevelt – Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Elihu Root – Secretary of War and Secretary of State

Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense

John Sherman – Secretary of the Treasury and United States Senator, author of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Henry L. Stimson – Secretary of War during World War II

Diplomats.

Angier Biddle Duke – Ambassador to Denmark

David J. Hill – Ambassador to Germany

John Langeloth Loeb Jr. – Ambassador to Denmark

Horace Porter – Ambassador to France

Henry L. Wilson – Diplomat and Ambassador to Mexico 1909–1913

Governors.

Sherman Adams – Governor of New Hampshire and chief of staff to President Eisenhower

Augustus O. Bourn – Governor of Rhode Island

Morgan Bulkeley – Governor of Connecticut, United States Senator, Mayor of Hartford and longtime president of Aetna Insurance

Harry F. Byrd – Governor and United States senator from Virginia

Lawton Chiles – U.S. Senator and Governor of Florida

Owen Vincent Coffin – Governor of Connecticut

Channing H. Cox – Governor of Massachusetts

Thomas E. Dewey – Governor of New York and presidential candidate

Elisha Dyer Jr. – Governor of Rhode Island

Charles Edison – Governor of New Jersey and son of Thomas Edison

Bob Ehrlich – Governor of Maryland

Phillips Lee Goldsborough – Governor of Maryland

Robert S. Green – Governor of New Jersey

Curtis Guild Jr. – Governor of Massachusetts

Lucius F. Hubbard – Governor of Minnesota and brigadier general during the Spanish–American War

Robert Floyd Kennon – Governor of Louisiana

Charles D. Kimball – Governor of Rhode Island

Charles W. Lippitt – Governor of Rhode Island

Arch A. Moore Jr. – Governor of West Virginia

Levi P. Morton – Vice President of the U.S. and Governor of New York

Franklin Murphy – Governor of New Jersey

Martin O’Malley – Governor of Maryland and presidential candidate

Rick Perry – Governor of Texas

Henry Roberts – Governor of Connecticut

Nelson A. Rockefeller – Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States

Winthrop Rockefeller – Governor of Arkansas

Theodore Roosevelt – Governor of New York

John G. Rowland – Governor of Connecticut

Leverett Saltonstall – Governor of Massachusetts

Royal C. Taft – Governor of Rhode Island

Edwin Warfield – Governor of Maryland

Charles S. Whitman – Governor of New York

Rollin S. Woodruff – Governor of Connecticut

United States senators.

Lamar Alexander – United States senator from Tennessee

Scott Brown – United States senator from Massachusetts

Quentin N. Burdick – United States senator from North Dakota

Harry F. Byrd Jr. – United States senator from Virginia

Chauncey M. Depew – United States Senator, member of the Skull and Bones Society and President of the Empire State Society of the SAR from 1890 to 1899

Sam Ervin – United States Senator and Distinguished Service Cross recipient

Barry M. Goldwater – United States senator from Arizona and presidential candidate

Marcus A. Hanna – United States senator from New York

Hamilton Fish Kean – United States senator from New Jersey

Kenneth B. Keating – United States senator from New York and Ambassador to India and Israel

Henry F. Lippitt – United States senator from Rhode Island

Henry Cabot Lodge – United States Senator from Massachusetts.

John S. McCain, III – United States senator from Arizona

Mitch McConnell – United States senator from Kentucky and United States Senate Majority Leader

Jesse H. Metcalf – United States senator from Rhode Island

John Holmes Overton – United States senator from Louisiana.

Gary Peters – United States senator from Michigan

Orville H. Platt – United States senator from Connecticut

Leverett Saltonstall – United States Senator and Governor of Massachusetts

Robert Taft Jr. – United States senator from Ohio

Herman Talmadge – United States senator from Georgia

Strom Thurmond – United States senator from South Carolina

John Tower – United States senator from Texas

Roger Wicker – United States senator from Mississippi

U.S. representatives

Richard S. Aldrich – U.S. representative from Rhode Island

Hale Boggs – Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives.

Colonel William Campbell Preston Breckinridge, CSA – U.S. representative from Kentucky

Brigadier General James P. S. Devereux, USMC – U.S. representative and Navy Cross recipient

Charles H. Grosvenor – U.S. representative

Gilbert Gude – U.S. representative

Jefferson M. Levy – U.S. representative and owner of Monticello

John J. Rhodes – U.S. representative for 30 years

Franklin Roosevelt Jr. – U.S. representative

Henry Stockbridge – U.S. representative

David Jenkins Ward – U.S. representative

Bog Wilson– U.S. representative from California

Judges:

William Howard Taft – Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

David Josiah Brewer – Associate justice of the Supreme Court

Other public officials:

Colonel Louis R. Cheney – Mayor of Hartford, Connecticut

Arthur W. Coolidge – Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts

George P. Cronk – Los Angeles City Council member, 1945–52

Arthur W. Dennis – Lieutenant Governor of Rhode Island

Seymour Lowman – Lieutenant Governor of New York

Wallace McCamant – Federal judge

Winthrop Paul Rockefeller – Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas

Theodore Roosevelt – Police commissioner of New York City

Ernest E. Rogers – Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut

George L. Shepley – Lieutenant Governor of Rhode Island

Jon T. Rymer – Inspector General US Department of Defense

Other notable members:

Henry L. P. Beckwith Jr. – Genealogist and historian

Thomas W. Bicknell – Educator and anti-segregationist

Luther Blount – Inventor and shipyard owner

George Madison Bodge – Author, historian, and genealogist

John Nicholas Brown II – Philanthropist

Charles W. Burpee – Newspaper editor

Edward Miner Gallaudet – Founder of the Columbia Institution for the Deaf

Henry Louis Gates, Jr – Professor and chairman of the African American Studies Program at Harvard University

Elbridge Thomas Gerry – Social reformer and commodore of the New York Yacht Club

Howard B. Gist Sr. – attorney and civic figure in Alexandria, Louisiana

Benjamin Apthorp Gould – astronomer

John B. Hattendorf – Naval historian and professor at the United States Naval War College

William Randolph Hearst – Newspaper publisher and U.S. Representative

William Randolph Hearst Jr. – Newspaper editor

Benjamin Newhall Johnson – Attorney and historian

William Osborn McDowell – Founder of the SAR

Frederick Law Olmsted – Landscape architect and designer of Central Park

Norman Vincent Peale – Author and minister

  1. Paul Pressler – Texas appeals court justice and leader of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention

John D. Rockefeller – Oil refiner

Theodore Roosevelt – Author and conservationist

Elliott Fitch Shepard – lawyer and newspaper owner

George Albert Smith – President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

John Spencer-Churchill – Artist and nephew of Winston Churchill

Lowell Thomas – Author and news reporter

George Washington Vanderbilt II – Owner of the Biltmore estate

Edgar Williamson Jr. – Insurance executive

List of Presidents General of the Sons of the American Revolution

This is an incomplete list of the presidents-general of the Sons of the American Revolution. The first President General was Lucius Deming. There have been three Honorary President Generals named. Four President Generals have died in office.

President General

Term in office

State Society

Lucius Parmenias Deming

1889–1890

Connecticut

William Seward Webb

1890–1892

Empire State (NY)

Horace Porter

1892–1897

Empire State (NY)

Edward Shepard Barrett

(died in office)

1897–1898

Massachusetts

Franklin Murphy

1898–1900

New Jersey

Joseph Cabell Breckinridge

1900–1901

Kentucky

Walter S. Logan

1901–1902

Empire State (NY)

Edwin Warfield

1902–1903

Maryland

Edwin S. Greeley

1903–1905

Connecticut

James Denton Hancock

1904-1905

Pennsylvania

Francis Henry Appleton

1905-1906

Massachusetts

Cornelius Amory Pugsley

1906-1907

Empire State (NY)

Nelson Alvin McClary

1907-1908

Illinois

Henry W. Stockbridge Jr

1908-1909

Maryland

Morris Beach Beardsley

1909-1910

Connecticut

William Allen Marble

1910-1911

Empire State (NY)

Moses Greeley Parker

1911-1912

Massachusetts

James McElroy Richardson

1912-1913

Ohio

Rogers Clark Ballard Thruston

1913-1915

Kentucky

Newell Bertram Woodworth

1915-1916

Empire State (NY)

Elmer Marston Wentworth

1916-1918

Iowa

Louis Annin Ames

1918-1919

Empire State (NY)

Chancellor Livingston Jenks Jr

1919-1920

Illinois

J. Henry Preston

1920-1921

Maryland

Wallace McCamant

1921-1922

Oregon

W. I. Lincoln Adams

1922–1923

New Jersey

Arthur Preston Sumner

1923-1924

Rhode Island

Marvin Harrison Lewis

1924-1925

Kentucky

Harvey Foote Remington

1925-1926

Empire State (NY)

Wilbert Hamilton Barrett

1926-1927

Michigan

Ernest E. Rogers

1927–1928

Connecticut

Ganson Depew

1928–1929

Empire State (NY)

Howard Rowley

1929–1930

California

Josiah Alexander Van Orsdel

1930–1931

District of Columbia

Benjamin Newhall Johnson
(died in office)

1931–1932

Massachusetts

Frederick William Millspaugh

1932-1933

Tennessee

Arthur Milton McGrillis

1933–1935

Rhode Island

Henry Fennimore Baker

1935–1936

Maryland

Messmore Kendall

1936–1940

Empire State (NY)

Smith Lewis Multer

1943–1946

New Jersey

Allen Laws Oliver

1946-1947

Missouri

A. Herbert Foreman

1947-1948

Virginia

Charles Bunn Shaler

(died in office)

1948

Pennsylvania

Benjamin Harrison Powell III

1948-1949

Texas

John Whelchel Finger

1949-1950

Empire State (NY)

Wallace Clare Hall

1950-1952

Michigan

Ray Omer Edwards

1952-1953

Florida

A. Alexander le Pelletier de la Houssaye

1953-1954

Louisiana

Milton Miles Lory

1954-1955

Iowa

Edgar Williamson Jr

1955-1956

New Jersey

Eugene Pendleton Carver Jr

1956-1957

Massachusetts

George Edward Tarbox Jr

1957-1958

Colorado

Walter Allerton Wentworth

1958-1959

Empire State (NY)

Charles Aubrey Jones

1959-1960

Ohio

Herschel Stratton Murphy

1960-1961

New Jersey

Horace Yeargin Kitchell

1961-1962

Mississippi

Charles Arner Anderson

1962-1963

Ohio

Robert Leon Sonfield

1963-1964

Texas

Harry Thomas Burn

1964-1965

Tennessee

Howard Emerson Coe

1965-1966

Connecticut

Kenneth Godfrey Smith

1966-1967

Pennsylvania

Len Young Smith

1967-1968

Illinois

Walter Gage Sterling

1968-1969

Texas

James Bronson Gardiner II

1969-1970

Empire State (NY)

Walter Reville Martin

1970-1971

Rhode Island

Eugene Clifford McGuire

1971-1972

Ohio

Ryall Stapleton Morgan

1972-1973

Alabama

Marion Howard Crawmer

1973-1974

Michigan

M. Graham Clark

1974–1975

Missouri

Robert Duval Savage

1975-1976

Pennsylvania

Matthew Bacon Sellers III

1976-1977

Florida

Wilson King Barnes Sr

1977-1978

Maryland

Calvin Ellsworth Chunn

1978-1980

California

Arthur Mansfield King

1980-1981

Kansas

Richard Henry Thompson Jr

1981-1982

Florida

Howard Laverne Hamilton

1982-1983

Virginia

Warren Griffin Hayes Jr

1983-1984

Pennsylvania

Carl Francis Bessent

1984-1985

Maryland

Benjamin Hume Morris

1985-1986

Kentucky

Clovis Hunter Brakebill

1986-1987

Texas

Nolan Wendell Carson

1987-1988

Ohio

Charles Francis Printz

1988-1989

West Virginia

James Roger Westlake

1989-1990

Georgia

James Robert Calhoun

1990-1991

New Mexico

George Henry Brandau

1991-1992

Texas

Paul Howard Walker

1992-1993

Massachusetts

Robert Bell Vance Sr

1993-1994

Georgia

Stewart Boone McCarty Jr

1994–1995

District of Columbia

William C. Gist Jr

1995-1996

Kentucky

Reon Glessner Hillegass Jr

1996-1997

Virginia

Carl K. Hoffman II

1997-1998

Florida

Russell Duff Page

1998-1999

Illinois

Howard F. Horne Jr.

1999–2000

Delaware

Bruce Baird Butler

(died in office)

2000-2001

Louisiana

Larry D. McClanahan

2001-2002

Tennessee

B. Rice Aston

2002–2003

Texas

Raymond G. Musgrave

2003-2004

West Virginia

Henry N. McCarl

2004-2005

Massachusetts

Roland G. Downing

2005–2006

Delaware

Nathan E. White Jr

2006–2007

Texas

Bruce A. Wilcox

2007–2008

Virginia

David N. Appleby

2008–2009

Missouri

Edward F. Butler

2009–2010

Texas

J. David Sympson

2010–2011

Kentucky

Larry J. Magerkurth

2011–2012

California

Stephen Arthur Leishman

2012–2013

Delaware

Joseph W. Dooley

2013–2014

Virginia

Lindsay C. Brock

2014–2015

Florida

Thomas E. Lawrence

2015–2016

Texas

J. Michael Tomme Sr.

2016–2017

Georgia

Larry T. Guzy

2017–2018

Georgia

Warren M. Alter

2018–2019

Arizona

John T. Manning

2019-2020

New Hampshire

Adolphus Skinner Hubbard

Honorary

California

Albert Maver Winn

Honorary

California

Harold Lee Putnam

Honorary

California

NAFALAW.COM is honored to present our brief with our total support for our 2020 “Thurgood Marshall” Award nominee- Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh

Preamble:

“Honor to honor.” This National Association for Attorneys, NAFALAW.COM is honored to present our brief with our total support for our 2020 “Thurgood Marshall” Award nominee- Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh.

The word honor derives from the Latin honorare or honoris that specifically indicates public glorification through the exercise of public office. In this sense, it is associated with pride in the social relevance it means. Hence the term “a lot of honor.” For this reason, it is an honor for us at NAFALAW to have as our nominee the Honorable Justice Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh in the United States Supreme Court. It is our way of showing support, respect and consideration towards our support of our 2020 “Thurgood Marshall” nominee.

“The Bible tells us in one of the ten commandments that we must honor our parents at all times.” We added, to honoring our citizens role models. In ancient Rome, during the celebration of the games, they honored said role models and were totally forbidden disputes.

TO:

A.B.A. Civil Rights and Social Justice – AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.

FROM:

“N.A.F.A.”National Association for Foreign Attorneys” Florida USA. Presenting this its 2020 Thurgood Marshall Award Nominations in favor of Honorable Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh.

In compliance with the requirements attached hereto please find the following:

NAFALAW.COM files this RESUME is support of the nomination of Honorable Judge Brett Michael Kavanaugh, our nominee.

This package includes a photograph, resume type curriculum vitae, describing the following:

  • The nominee’s professional background;

  • The nominee’s educational background;

  • The nominee’s principal areas of practice, including the number of years of practice; and

  • The nominee’s professional achievements.

Our nominee- Honorable Brett Michael Kavanaugh; born February 12, 1965) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump to succeed Anthony Kennedy and took the oath of office on October 6, 2018. He previously served as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and as a staff lawyer for various offices of the federal government.

Judge Kavanaugh graduated from Yale University, where he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. After graduating from Yale Law School, he began his career as a law clerk and then a postgraduate fellow working under Judge Ken Starr. After Starr left the D.C. Circuit to take the position as head of the Office of Independent Counsel, Kavanaugh followed and assisted him with various investigations concerning President Bill Clinton, including the drafting of the Starr Report, which urged Clinton’s impeachment.

After the 2000 U.S. presidential election (in which he worked for the George W. Bush campaign in the Florida recount), he joined the administration as White House Staff Secretary and was a central figure in its efforts to identify and confirm judicial nominees.

Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious; they stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. He was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators. An evaluation of Kavanaugh’s appellate court decisions in four separate public policy areas was performed by two law professors for the Washington Post. It found he had the most conservative overall voting record on the D.C. Court between 2003 and 2018.

President Donald J. Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9, 2018, to fill the position vacated by retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

When Kavanaugh’s name was on the short list of Supreme Court nominees and before his nomination, Palo Alto University Professor of Psychology Christine Blasey Ford contacted a Washington Post tip line with accusations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s while the two were in high school.

Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

Judge Kavanaugh denied all three accusations. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a supplemental hearing over Ford’s allegations, after which it voted to advance the confirmation to a full Senate vote. After delaying the vote for an additional FBI investigation, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh’s nomination by a vote of 50–48 on October 6, 2018.

Judge Kavanaugh was born on February 12, 1965, in Washington, D.C., the son of Martha Gamble (née Murphy) and Everett Edward Kavanaugh Jr. He is of Irish Catholic descent on both sides of his family. His paternal great-grandfather immigrated to the United States in the late 19th century from Roscommon, Ireland, and his maternal Irish lineage goes back to his great-great-grandparents settling in New Jersey.  Judge Kavanaugh’s father was a lawyer and served as the president of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association for two decades.

His mother was a history teacher Woodson and McKinley high schools in Washington in the 1960s and 1970s. She later earned a law degree from American University in 1978 and served from 1995 to 2001 as a Maryland Circuit Court judge in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Judge Kavanaugh was raised in Bethesda, Maryland. As a teenager, he attended Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit boys college prep school, where he was two years ahead of future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

He was captain of the basketball team and was a wide receiver and cornerback on the football team. Judg Kavanaugh was also friends with classmate Mark Judge; both were in the same class with Maryland State Senator Richard Madaleno.

After graduating from Georgetown Prep in 1983, Kavanaugh went to Yale University, as had his paternal grandfather. Several of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates remembered him as a “serious but not showy student” who loved sports, especially basketball. He unsuccessfully tried out for the Yale Bulldogs men’s basketball team and later played for two years on the junior varsity team. He wrote articles about basketball and other sports for the Yale Daily News, and was a member of the fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon. He graduated from Yale in 1987 with a Bachelor of Arts cum laude in history. In October 2018, it was reported that Kavanaugh and Chris Dudley were in a bar fight in September 1985 after Kavanaugh threw ice at a man who looked like Ali Campbell of UB40.

Judge Kavanaugh then attended Yale Law School, where he lived in a group house with future judge James E. Boasberg and played basketball with professor George L. Priest (sponsor of the school’s Federalist Society). He was a member of the Yale Law Journal and served as a notes editor during his third year. Kavanaugh graduated from Yale Law with a Juris Doctor degree in 1990.

Legal career (1990–2006), Judge Kavanaugh (second from left) with President George W. Bush and White House staffers

Clerkships Judge Kavanaugh first worked as a law clerk for Judge Walter King Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. During Kavanaugh’s clerkship, Stapleton wrote the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Third Circuit upheld many of Pennsylvania’s abortion restrictions. George Priest recommended Kavanaugh to Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, who was regarded as a feeder judge. After clerking for Kozinski, Kavanaugh next interviewed for a clerkship with Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court, but was not offered a clerkship.

In 1992, Judge Kavanaugh earned a one-year fellowship with the Solicitor General of the United States, Ken Starr. Also in 1992, he worked as a summer associate for Munger, Tolles & Olson. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy from 1993–1994, working alongside fellow high school alumnus Neil Gorsuch and with future-Judge Gary Feinerman. Ken Starr associate counsel.

After his Supreme Court clerkship, Judge Kavanaugh again worked for Ken Starr until 1997 as an Associate Counsel in the Office of the Independent Counsel with colleagues Rod Rosenstein and Alex Azar. In that capacity, he reopened an investigation into the 1993 gunshot death of Vincent Foster. After three years, the investigation concluded that Foster had committed suicide. In an op-ed, Princeton University history professor Sean Wilentz criticized Kavanaugh for investing federal money and other resources into investigating partisan conspiracy theories surrounding the cause of Foster’s death.

After working in private practice in 1997–1998, he rejoined Starr as an Associate Counselor in 1998. In Swidler & Berlin v. United States (1998), Kavanaugh argued his first and only case before the Supreme Court. Arguing for Starr’s office, Kavanaugh asked the court to disregard attorney-client privilege in relation to the investigation of Foster’s death. The court rejected Kavanaugh’s arguments by a vote of 6–3.

Judge Kavanaugh was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress, released in September 1998, on the Bill Clinton–Monica Lewinsky sex scandal; the report argued on broad grounds for Clinton’s impeachment. Judge Kavanaugh had urged Starr to ask Clinton sexually graphic questions, and described Clinton as being involved in “a conspiracy to obstruct justice”, having “disgraced his office” and “lied to the American people”.

The report provided extensive and explicit descriptions of each of the President’s sexual encounters with Lewinsky, a level of detail which the authors described as “essential” to the case against Clinton.

In December 2000, Judge Kavanaugh joined the legal team of George W. Bush, which was trying to stop the ballot recount in Florida. After Bush became president in January 2001, Kavanaugh was hired as an associate by the White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. There, Kavanaugh worked on the Enron scandal, the successful nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, and the unsuccessful nomination of Miguel Estrada. Starting in July 2003, he served as Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary, succeeding Harriet Miers. In that position he was responsible for coordinating all documents going to and from the president.

Private practice From 1997 to 1998, Kavanaugh was a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. In 1999, Kavanaugh rejoined the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis as a partner. While there in 2000, he was pro bono counsel of record for relatives of Elián González, a six-year-old rescued Cuban boy. After the boy’s mother’s death at sea, relatives in the U.S. wanted to keep him from returning to the care of his sole surviving parent, his father in Cuba. Kavanaugh was among a series of lawyers who unsuccessfully sought to stop efforts to repatriate Gonzalez to Cuba.

The district court, Circuit Court and Supreme Court all followed precedent, refusing to block the boy’s return to his home.

While Judge Kavanaugh was at Kirkland & Ellis, he authored two amicus briefs to the Supreme Court that supported religious activities and expressions in public places. The first, in 2000, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, argued that a student speaker at football games voted for by a majority of students should be treated as private speech in a limited public forum; the second, in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, argued that a Christian Bible instruction program should have the same after-school access to school facilities as other non-curriculum-related student groups.

Judge Kavanaugh has been a member of the Federalist Society since 1988. In the administration of George W. Bush, he held a key position that involved judicial appointments. Bush judicial nominees who were Federalist Society members included John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both appointed to the Supreme Court, and about half of the judges appointed to the courts of appeals.

U.S. Circuit Judge (2006–2018). Judge Kavanaugh is sworn into the D.C. Circuit by Justice Anthony Kennedy as his wife holds the bible and President Bush looks on, 2006. Coincidentally, Kavanaugh would be sworn into the U.S. Supreme Court 12 years later as Kennedy’s replacement.

President George W. Bush nominated Judge Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 25, 2003, but his nomination stalled in the Senate for nearly three years. Democratic senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him the “Forrest Gump of Republican politics”. In 2003, the American Bar Association had rated Kavanaugh as “well qualified” (its highest category), but, after doing dozens more interviews in 2006, downgraded him to “qualified”.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended he be confirmed on a 10–8 party-line vote on May 11, 2006, and he was confirmed by the Senate on May 26 by a vote of 57–36. Judge Kavanaugh was sworn in on June 1. He was the fourth judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed. Kavanaugh began hearing cases on September 11 and had his formal investiture on September 27.

In July 2007, Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin accused Kavanaugh of lying to the Judiciary Committee when he denied being involved in formulating the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies. In 2002, Kavanaugh had told other White House lawyers that he believed Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would not approve of denying legal counsel to prisoners detained as enemy combatants. The issue re-emerged in July 2018 after Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Notable cases.  When Judge Kavanaugh has written an opinion and the case has been considered by the Supreme Court, that court has adopted his position thirteen times while reversing his position only once. These included cases involving environmental regulations, criminal procedure, the separation of powers and extraterritorial jurisdiction in human rights abuse cases. He has been regarded as a feeder judge.

In the October 2017 Garza v. Hargan decision, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned, divided-panel of the D.C. Circuit in holding that the Office of Refugee Resettlement does not violate an unaccompanied alien minor’s constitutional right to an abortion by requiring that she first be appointed a sponsor before travelling to obtain the abortion, provided “the process of securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occurs expeditiously.”

Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Judge Kavanaugh dissenting. In his dissent, Kavanaugh criticized the majority for creating “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand”. The girl then obtained an abortion. In 2018, in a follow-up petition from the Solicitor General of the United States, the en banc D.C. Circuit’s judgment was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court and the girl’s claim was ultimately dismissed as moot. Thus it does not serve as precedent.

In November 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction in the case. In his dissent concerning jurisdiction, he compared the individual mandate to a tax. After a unanimous panel found that the ACA did not violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause in Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2014), Judge Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. In May 2015, Kavanaugh dissented from a decision that denied an en banc rehearing of the Priests for Life v. HHS ruling in which the panel upheld the ACA’s contraceptive mandate accommodations against Priests for Life’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims.

In Zubik v. Burwell (2016), the Supreme Court vacated the circuit’s judgment in a per curiam decision.

Appointments Clause and separation of powers. In August 2008, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit found that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause did not prevent the Sarbanes–Oxley Act from creating a board whose members were not directly removable by the President. In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversigh Board (2010), the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment by a vote of 5–4.

In 2015, Judge Kavanaugh found that those directly regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could challenge the constitutionality of its design. In October 2016, Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel finding that the CFPB’s design was unconstitutional, and made the CFPB Director removable by the President of the United States.

In January 2018, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment by a vote of 7–3, over the dissent of Kavanaugh.

In 2013, Kavanaugh issued an extraordinary writ of mandamus requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to process the license application of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, over the dissent of Judge Merrick Garland. In April 2014, Kavanaugh dissented when the court found that Labor Secretary Tom Perez could issue workplace safety citations against SeaWorld regarding the multiple killings of its workers by Tilikum the orca.

After Judge Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel striking down a Clean Air Act regulation, the Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 6–2 in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (2014).

Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc of a unanimous panel opinion upholding the agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and a fractured Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 5–4 in Utility Air Regulatory Group, v. Enviromental Protection Agency (2014). After Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a per curiam decision allowing the agency to disregard cost–benefit analysis, the Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 5–4 in Michigan v. EPA (2015).

In Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2007), Kavanaugh dissented when the circuit court allowed a lawsuit making accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Indonesia to proceed, arguing in his dissent that the claims were not justiciable. Judge Kavanaugh dissented again when the circuit court later found that the corporation could be sued under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789.

First Amendment and free speech Judge Kavanaugh wrote for unanimous three-judge district courts when they held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act could restrict soft money donations to political parties and could forbid campaign contributions by foreign citizens. Those judgments were both summarily affirmed on direct appeal by the Supreme Court.

In 2014, Judge Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc D.C. Circuit found that the Free Speech Clause did not forbid the government from requiring meatpackers to include a country of origin label on their products. In United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (2016), Kavanaugh dissented when the en banc circuit refused to rehear a rejected challenge to the net neutrality rule, writing, “Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule”.

In November 2010, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc after the circuit found that attaching a Global Positioning System tracking device to a vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The circuit’s judgment was then affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Jones (2012). In February 2016, Kavanaugh dissented when the en banc circuit refused to rehear police officers’ rejected claims of qualified immunity for arresting partygoers in a vacant house. In District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the circuit’s judgment.

In Klayman v. Obama (2015), Kavanaugh concurred when the circuit court denied an en banc rehearing of its decision to vacate a district court order blocking the National Security Agency’s warrantless bulk collection of telephony metadata. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote that the metadata collection was not a search, and, even if it were, no reasonable suspicion would be required because of the government’s special need to prevent terrorist attacks.

Judge Kavanaugh holds his daughter while greeting British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush.

In April 2009, Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy concurrence when the court found that detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp had no right to advanced notice before being transferred to another country.

In Kiyemba v. Obama (2010), the Supreme Court vacated that judgment while refusing to review the matter. In June 2010, Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence in judgment when the en banc D.C. Circuit found that the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory owners could not bring a defamation suit regarding the government’s allegations that they were terrorists. In October 2012, he wrote for a unanimous court when it found that the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause made it unlawful for the government to prosecute Salim Hamdan under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 on charges of providing material support for terrorism.

In August 2010, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy concurrence when the en banc circuit refused to rehear Ghaleb Nassar Al Bihani’s rejected claims that the international law of war limits the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc circuit found that Ali al-Bahlul could be retroactively convicted of war crimes, provided existing statute already made it a crime “because it does not alter the definition of the crime, the defenses or the punishment”. In October 2016, Judge Kavanaugh wrote the plurality opinion when the en banc circuit found al-Bahlul could be convicted by a military commission even if his offenses are not internationally recognized as war crimes under the law of war.

In Meshal v. Higgenbotham (2016), Kavanaugh concurred when the divided panel threw out a claim by an American that he had been disappeared by the FBI in a Kenyan black site.

Second Amendment and gun ownership. In October 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when the circuit court found that a ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles was permissible under the Second Amendment. This case followed the landmark Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Twenty-five of Kavanaugh’s forty-eight law clerks have been women, and thirteen have been people of color. A number have been children of other judges and high-profile legal figures, including Clayton Kozinski (son of former federal Judge Alex Kozinski), Porter Wilkinson (daughter of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III), Philip Alito (son of Justice Samuel Alito), Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld (daughter of Yale Law Professor Amy Chua), and Emily Chertoff (daughter of former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff).

On September 20, 2018, The Guardian reported that two Yale professors had advised female law students at Yale that their physical attractiveness and femininity could play a role in securing a clerkship with Kavanaugh. Chua was reported by unnamed sources as having stated that female applicants should exude “model-like” femininity and “dress outgoing” in their job interview with Kavanaugh. Responding to the report, Chua denied that Kavanaugh’s hiring decisions were affected by female applicants’ attractiveness, stating, “Judge Kavanaugh’s first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence.”

Jed Rubenfeld stated that Kavanaugh “hires women with a certain look”, although the source stated, Rubenfeld did not say what that look was. Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken called the allegations “of enormous concern to me and the school”, which she said is investigating the matter.

Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States

On July 2, 2018, Kavanaugh was one of four U.S. Court of Appeals judges to receive a personal 45-minute interview by President Donald J. Trump as a potential replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

On July 9, Trump nominated Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court. In his first public speech after the nomination, Kavanaugh said, “No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

A statistical analysis by The Washington Post estimated that Kavanaugh was more conservative than Neil Gorsuch and less conservative than Samuel Alito. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University has stated that among the judges considered by Trump, “Kavanaugh has the most robust view of presidential powers and immunities”. Brian Bennett writing for Time magazine cites Kavanaugh’s 2009 Minnesota Law Review article as defending the privilege of the President to immunity from prosecution during tenure in office. In a 2017 speech at the American Enterprise Institute about former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, he praised his opinions in Roe v. Wade and Furman v. Georgia, where Rehnquist dissented in rulings that overturned the ban against abortion and the statutes which supported the death penalty.

An evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s appellate court decisions was performed by two law professors for the Washington Post, They rated his decisions in four areas: rights of criminal defendants; support for rules regarding stricter enforcement of environmental protection; upholding the rights of labor unions; and siding with those bringing suits alleging discrimination. They found he had the most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court in three of those policy areas, and the second-most in the fourth, between 2003 and 2018.

During his hearing, Kavanaugh said that he had repeatedly described the four greatest moments in Supreme Court history as being the cases Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel, and United States v. Nixon, with Brown being the single greatest.

According to the Judicial Common Space scores, a score based on the ideology scores of the home state senators and the president who nominated the judge to the federal bench, Clarence Thomas is the only justice more conservative than Kavanaugh. According to this metric, Kavanaugh’s confirmation would mean the composition of the court would shift to the right. Had Merrick Garland been confirmed, Stephen Breyer would have become the median swing vote when Justice Kennedy retired. However, since Scalia was replaced by another conservative (Gorsuch), it was expected that Chief Justice John Roberts would become the median swing vote on the Supreme Court upon Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Senate Judiciary Committee public hearings. The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled three or four days of public hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination, commencing on September 4, 2018. The hearings were at the onset delayed with objections from the Democratic members, concerning the absence of records during the nominee’s time in the George W. Bush administration, prior to his service as a federal circuit court judge. The Democrats also complained that 42,000 pages of documents had been received at the 11th hour, the night before the first day of hearings.

Repeated statements from the Republicans included the assertion that the volume of documents available on this nominee equaled that of the previous five nominees for the court; the Democrats responded with their repeated contention that only 15% of demanded documents about the nominee had been obtained. Numerous motions by the Democrats to adjourn or suspend the hearings were ruled to be out of order by Chairman Chuck Grassley, who argued that Judge Kavanaugh had written over 300 legal opinions available for review. The first day’s session closed after statements from each senator and the nominee, with question and answer periods to begin the following day.

During the first round of questions from senators on September 5, 2018, Kavanaugh held to his earlier stated position that he would not express an opinion on matters that might come before the court. He thus refused to promise to recuse himself from any case, including any that might involve President Trump. He also declined to comment on coverage of pre-existing healthcare conditions, semiautomatic rifle possession, the precedent of Roe v. Wade, or the President’s power to issue a self-pardon. The nominee was given the opportunity and expounded at length upon various Constitutional amendments, stare decisis (the role of legal precedent in shaping subsequent judicial rulings), and the President’s power to dismiss federal employees. As in the prior session, there were frequent outbursts of protest in the audience, requiring security intervention and removal, as well as repeated procedural objections from Democrats.

The Committee’s third day of hearings began with a furor over the release of emails of Judge Kavanaugh that related to concern about potential racial profiling in security screenings. The day continued with Kavanaugh’s attempts to articulate his jurisprudence, including refusing direct questions to opine on matters that he characterized as hypothetical. Senator Chris Coons had tendered Judge Kavanaugh written questions about any knowledge of inappropriate behavior on the part of judge Alex Kozinski, for whom Kavanaugh had clerked for, including his circulations of sexually explicit emails via his “Easy Rider Gag List”. According to The Intercept, though Coons had asked him to review his emails from the judge, Kavanaugh instead replied: “I do not remember”.

Some time during his testimony, Judge Kavanaugh stated that the 2017 exposure of his mentor, judge Alex Kozinski, as an alleged prolific sexual harasser, was a surprising “gut punch”.The Guardian reported that their sources disputed Kavanaugh’s account because Kozinski’s alleged behavior was reportedly widely known among those in the judiciary system and its exposure culminated in his abrupt resignation from the bench.

The Committee released a 2003 email in which Kavanaugh said, “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to [Roe v. Wade] as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.” Judge Kavanaugh stressed that he was commenting on the views of legal scholars at the time, not his own views, and noted that the case had been reaffirmed on a number of occasions since the time of the statement.

Sen. Susan Collins, a key but undeclared vote in the confirmation, indicated the statement did not contradict Kavanaugh’s personal assurance to her that Roe is settled law. Judge Kavanaugh noted that Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, was “precedent on precedent”. According to Kavanaugh, Casey is a key decision about when the Court’s precedent may be overturned.

On September 27, the Committee held an additional day of public hearings to discuss allegations that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct while in high school. The only witnesses were Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused him.

Republican members of the committee did not question Ford directly; questioning on their behalf was done by Rachel Mitchell, a career prosecutor from Maricopa County, Arizona. Her questioning of Kavanaugh was cut short by Grassley, after which the Republican members of the committee questioned him themselves.

Alternating with their questions, Democratic members of the committee questioned Ford and Judge Kavanaugh themselves. Ford repeated and expanded upon her earlier allegations, saying that Kavanaugh and Judge, both “visibly drunk”, had locked her into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh groped her and tried to take off her clothes while Judge watched. She said she “believed he was going to rape me” and feared for her life when he held his hand over her mouth.

In his opening statement, Judge Kavanaugh claimed the accusations were a “political hit” by left-wing activists and Democrats, saying he faced retaliation “on behalf of the Clintons” for his work on the Starr Report against Bill Clinton. Leland Keyser, Ford’s friend who Ford said was present during the alleged attack has denied that such an event took place, and questioned certain aspects of the story. Keyser also stated she felt pressured by people to support Ford’s story, something she told the FBI about.

In response to his testimony, more than 2400 law professors signed a letter saying that the Senate should not confirm him because “he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.”

At the conclusion of the hearing the Republican leadership of the committee indicated that they planned to hold a committee vote on the nomination the next day, September 28, with a procedural vote on the Senate floor on September 29.

On September 28, the committee voted along party lines to advance the nomination to the full Senate; Senator Jeff Flake’s vote in support was conditioned on the vote in the full Senate being delayed for a week to allow investigation of the current claims by the FBI. Later, Senators Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski also said they would not vote to confirm without an FBI investigation.

On this request from the Judiciary Committee, Trump ordered a “supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file”, to be limited in scope and completed within one week.

The report was transmitted to the White House on October 3 and from there to the Senate on October 4, where Senators were permitted one at a time to review the report in secrecy. Majority Leader McConnell said the Senate would vote on the confirmation on October 6. Democrats criticized the FBI investigation as incomplete, a “farce”, a “sham” and “a horrific cover-up” that omitted key witnesses at the White House’s direction.

According to The Washington Post, the White House stopped the FBI from investigating possible falsehoods in Kavanaugh’s testimony to Congress about his drinking habits during his youth.

Eighty-three ethics complaints were brought against Judge Kavanaugh in regard to his conduct during his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed a special federal panel of judges to investigate the complaints. In December 2018, the judicial panel dismissed all 83 ethics complaints, concluding that while the complaints “are serious,” there is no existing authority that allows lower court judges to investigate or discipline Supreme Court justices.

On October 5, the Senate voted 51–49 to invoke cloture, advancing the nomination to a final floor vote expected on October 6. This was enabled through the application of the so-called “nuclear option”, or a simple majority vote, rather than the historical three-fifths super majority in place before April 2017.

The vote was along party lines, with the exception of Democrat Joe Manchin voting yes and Republican Lisa Murkowski voting no.

On October 6, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court with a 50–48 vote. One senator, Republican Steve Daines, who supported the nomination, was absent during the vote due to his attendance at the wedding of his daughter that day, and Murkowski voted “present” despite her opposition, so that their two votes would be canceled out and the balance of the vote would be retained – a rarely used traditional courtesy known as a “pair between senators”.

All Republicans except Daines and Murkowski voted to approve the nomination, and all Democrats voted in opposition, except Joe Manchin who voted to approve the nomination.

Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote was historically close. In terms of actual votes, the only Supreme Court confirmation vote that was closer was the vote on Stanley Matthews, nominated by President James A. Garfield in 1881. Matthews was confirmed by the margin of a single vote, 24-23; no other justice has been confirmed by a single vote.

However, in percentage terms, Judge Kavanaugh’s vote was even closer than Matthews’. Matthews was supported by 51.06% of the senators voting, but Kavanaugh only got 51.02% of the vote.

Judge Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Justice of the Supreme Court on the evening of October 6, 2018.

The Constitutional Oath was administered by Chief Justice Roberts and the Judicial Oath was administered by retired Associate Justice Kennedy, whom Kavanaugh succeeded on the Court. This private ceremony was followed by a public ceremony at the White House on October 8.

Upon joining the court, Kavanaugh became the first Supreme Court justice to hire an all-female team of law clerks.

Justice Kavanaugh being sworn in to succeed Anthony Kennedy as an Associate Justice on October 8, 2018

Justice Kavanaugh began his tenure as Supreme Court Justice on October 9, 2018, hearing arguments for Stokeling v. United States and United States v. Stitt. He authored his first opinion on January 8, 2019, in the case of Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., in which a unanimous Court reversed the appeals court opinion that had allowed a court to decide whether an issue in a contract between a dental equipment manufacturer and distributor should be decided by arbitration.

On February 27, Justice Kavanaugh once again joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s liberal justices in Garza v. Idaho, a Sixth Amendment case in which the court held that the Sixth Amendment’s presumption of prejudice of ineffective counsel applies to situations in which an attorney declines to file an appeal because an appeal waiver was signed as part of a plea agreement.

Conclusion:

Abraham Lincoln. The intensity of the illustrious president’s life, as well as the political and social accidents and the tragic accusations, many false ones that surrounded his life, have been evident in our history, and some are described by Emil Ludwig.

The full character and humorous sense of President Lincoln were the basis for his strong personality, acquired through the circumstances he lived. The citizen and political exemplarity that surrounds the life of the so-called Father of the Nation, he was slandered and accused for achieving his most fervent longing by abolishing the slavery of blacks in the United States.

Social justice issues can occur in relation to practically any aspect of society where inequality can arise as a result of unjust prejudices or policies. This judge  has covered, from bench since 2003 when he was  nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush, a wide viriarity of Social justice issues in his legal practice, first as an attorney and later as a judge Justice Honorable Brett Michael Kavanaugh.

We can be delineated into two categories, although they are often co-dependent: Inter-Social Treatment and Unequal Government Regulation.

Inter-Social Treatment involves treatment of a group(s) of other people based on personally-held biases and prejudices. These prejudices most often manifest in sociological categories such as:

Race

Gender

Age

Sexual Orientation

Religion

Nationality

Education

Mental or Physical Ability

Unequal Government Regulation involves laws and regulations that purposefully or otherwise create conditions that obstruct, limit, or deny a group(s) access to the same opportunities and resources, relative to the rest of society.

These laws can intentionally (explicitly) or unintentionally (implicitly) create the conditions for social injustice. Areas in which government policy often gives rise to social inequality and injustice include:

Voting Laws (i.e. redistricting and voter ID)

Policing Laws (i.e. traffic, search and seizure, and drug scheduling)

Environmental Laws (i.e. clean water and air, industrial waste disposal)

Health Care Laws (i.e. insurance mandates and coverage eligibility) (

Education Laws (i.e. public school segregation and integration)

Labor Laws (i.e. worker’s rights, occupational health and safety)

Invitation from: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/awards/crsj-thurgood-marshall-award/2020-tmad-nominations/

Our mission: The Prosecution of the Castro Regime for Crimes Against Humanity.

FROM:

Humphrey Humberto Pachecker. President of  N.A.F.A. National Association for Foreign Attorneys. CEO of American International Court of Arbitration and Commission for Human Rights (“HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR”).

RE:

The Complaint for Prosecution of  Raul Castro and the Castro Regime for Crimes Against Humanity and Civil Crimes. The institution and conducting of legal proceedings against Raul Castro and the entire communist Cuban government in respect of civil and criminal charges.

Resubmitted this 19th day of July, 2021.

TO:

*President René Bolio. Justice Cuba. International Commission. Political leaders and human rights activists from different continents have come together to find Justice for Cuba. Your mission: The Prosecution of the Castro Regime for Crimes Against Humanity. “This brutal regime has kept itself in power for almost six decades by terrorizing its people”.

TO:

**Lawmaker Luis Pardo Sainz co-sponsored a bill urging Santiago to help create a Court to prosecute Human Rights violations by the communist government of Cuba.

TO:

***Honorable Michelle Bachelet Jeria- UN High-Commissioner for Human Rights. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Seventh Commissioner.

TO:

*** Honorable President Joe Biden. The Biden-Harris Administration- The White House.

E-Filings via Email:

President of USA – Honorable Joe Biden- VIA EMAIL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

President of Justice Cuba- René Bolio- VIA EMAIL: Justice@JusticeCuba.org

Lawmaker Honorable Luis Pardo Sainz- VIA EMAIL:  luis.pardo@congreso.cl

Honorable Michelle Bachelet Jeria- UN High-Commissioner for Human Rights- VIA EMAIL:  civilsociety@ohchr.org

International Criminal Court  communications to the Office of the Prosecutor – VIA EMAIL: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int

************

Humphrey H. Pachecker’s – “HHP” ‘Amicus Curiae Statement’- with allegations, facts and proofs that brings to the attention of this Court and to this Commission and/or the Internatinal Court relevant legal allegations and, offering information, expertise, and insight that have a bearing on these issues for this case. On matter not already brought to its attention by any of the parties which may be of considerable help to the Court. This  amicus curiae brief is to be filed in future by HHP a pro se attorney professor of law before this Court Commission as provided in Federal Rule 28 U.S.C. Section 1654.

HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR’S Endorsement and support to Democracy 2021 in Cuba.  Justice Commission to bring Raul Castro and representatives of the Cuban regime to trial, and for the installation of an international tribunal to try the crimes against humanity of the dictatorial government in Cuba.

Forum Conveniens:

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT COURT. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Multiple International Venue: My abbreviated legal analysis of where this international crime can be tried on individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC). Similar precedent as the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Background:  Mr Al Hassan was transferred to the ICC on 31 March 2018 following a warrant of arrest  issued by the Chamber on 27 March 2018 for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He made his first appearance before the Single Judge of Pre-Trial Chamber I on 4 April 2018. He is currently in ICC custody. Enter here in this link below: Confirmation of charges hearing postponed to- 6 May 2019: [HAZ CLIC AQUI]:* https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=MA230&fbclid=IwAR1vlayxuzNxKsieTrzhAsWihdc_U_j35Q8kHB7oVsGWPGdAnjr5eONnGKQ

OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, known as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – the United Nations Human Rights Office. Department of the Secretariat of the United Nations that works to promote and protect human rights that are guaranteed under international law stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/complaintprocedure/pages/hrccomplaintprocedureindex.aspx

************

NOTE: “FORUM CONVENIENS”: IS A doctrine of international law generally, and conflict of laws specifically directing competing jurisdictions to defer to the court in the jurisdiction most suitable to the ends of justice in any particular case.

Intervenor/Petitioner/Plaintiff:

Humphrey Humberto Pachecker,  a/k/a Humberto Pacheco Cardenas, Jr. (“HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR”). i/c/o the Estate of Humberto Pacheco Leon, and others  John and Jane Doe which are similarly situated,

Respondents/Defendants:

Raul Castro- the former President of Cuba, the Cuban Communist Party’s (“PCC”) the General Secretary, f/k/a President of the Council of State and of the Council of Minister; First Secretary of the PCC, and the Chairman of the Cuban Communist Politburo, and any and all other Officials with whom he conspired.

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER/PLAINTIFFS.

I, Intervenor/Petitioner, Humphrey Humberto Pachecker,  a/k/a Humberto Pacheco Cardenas, Jr. (“HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR”). i/c/o the Estate of Humberto Pacheco Leon, and others  John and Jane Doe which are similarly situated, appearing in Pro Se, on behalf of myself, and on behalf of the Estate of Humberto Pacheco Leon, and others John Doe and Jane Doe Cubans – family members, injured parties similarly situated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1654, complain and allege as follows:

  1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

First: The amicus curiae will be filed in support for this action for a declaratory judgment and for compensatory and punitive damages for torts committed in violation of international law and the domestic constitution and laws of the  Republic of Cuba including Civil Crimes actions to deal with the behavior of Cuban authorities that constitutes in several injuries to individuals in Cuba and to other private parties.  This Complaint is instituted pursuant to specific statutory authorization, namely the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1350, and the Torture Victims Protection Act, 106, Stat., 73, 1992; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act; and under the Article 25(3)(a) & 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute for crimes against humanity, torture, rape, persecution of the Cuban people ICC as more detailed below.  Plaintiffs in this action include his immediate family members identified former residents of the Communist Republic of Cuba (“communist Cuba”), one individual identified former resident of communist Cuba and United States’ Naturalized Citizen, now deceased, whose immediate family members or themselves were subjected to torture and other major human rights abuses as residents of communist Cuba, as well as other past and current residents and citizens of the communist Cuba, together with his immediately affected family members.  Plaintiffs include the family members, him and as personal representative of the one individual’s estate all subjected  to torture in Communist Cuba, in labor camps and other facilities, supervised by the Defendants under the Defendants control, who were tortured as a result of the violations more detailed described below.  All these Plaintiffs were residents and/or still are citizens of the Communist Republic of Cuba and thereby subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the Defendant Raul  Castro Ruz (“Castro”) in his Capacity as First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party (hereinafter referred to as “ PCC”),  Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Communist Republic of Cuba, and Chairman of the Politburo, have suffered, and been threatened with, the most severe forms of persecution and abuse violating their fundamental human rights, at the hands of, and/or with the concurrence, support and/or supervision of the named Defendant Castro manipulating the Communist’s Republic of Cuba Constitutional basis, governed by the totalitarian state controlled by and under a single party rule of the PCC, later under Article 5 of the Communist Republic of Cuba’s Constitution of 1976 as later amended in 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Communist Article 5″), in concert with other officials at the highest levels of the PCC, the National Government of the Communist Cuba and its ruling Central Committee.  These violations include, but are not limited to torture, genocide, kidnapping, extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention, denial of the rights, human rights, basic rights to freely exercise religious freedom of movement, political beliefs, speak freely, to associate, assemble peacefully, and to express one views freely. Please see composite of Exhibits 1 to 4 attached hereto and explaining in some details the Communist Republic of Cuba’s constitutional basis, regime type, Communist Party Congress, Central Committee, and the Politburo.

2-This amicus curiae is in support or an action that will be instituted against Defendant  Raul Castro, and his conspirators, presently serving and since January 1959 when came to power by force of arms, as General Secretary of the PCC, who has served since the 1960s as the head chief of a repressive authoritarianism of the regime and its ongoing tendency to quell dissidence both within and outside the PCC.  The Defendant acting under the Communist Article 5, subordinates the state and civil society to the PCC, played a principal and a major role in investigates and actively suppress any and all dissent, opposition, including the role the state has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of all citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the PCC and its practices, through a consistent and thoroughgoing policy, and an extensively and brutally applied pattern and practice, of arbitrary arresting, kidnapping, detaining, assaulting, torturing, and sometimes executing said residents and/or citizens of the communist Cuba, with the purpose of intimidating, punishing and coercing them so as to force them to relinquish their beliefs, religious practices, civil liberties, and political rights.  Specifically, acting as Chief of State, Head of Government, First Secretary of the PCC, and Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Defendant exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life through the PCC, with principal authority to control and secure the suppression and termination of said residents and/or citizens in the communist Cuba.  Defendant Castro planned and carried out a sustained and deliberate set of policies and actions that resulted in the arbitrary and unlawful arrest, kidnapping, detention, persecution, and in some cases execution of the Plaintiffs, and/or other members of the Plaintiffs class and family.  Defendant Castro played a critical principal role in seeking the violent suppression of the Plaintiffs and family members in communist Cuba in general in particular (which Defendant personally chooses), through a determined policy of arbitrarily arresting, kidnapping, detaining, torturing, and arbitrarily executing Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs’ family, said residents and/or citizens of communist Cuba, who refused to renounce their beliefs, religious practices, civil liberties, political rights, and their association with the public dissidence, or who demonstrated publicly against these acts of repression. Defendant Castro personally chooses the membership of the selected group which heads the party.  The PCC controls all government positions including judicial offices.  The Ministry of Interior is the principal organ of state security and totalitarian control.  The Revolutionary Arm Forces (FAR) directed by Defendant Raul Castro, exercise defacto control over the state security apparatus, which Defendant Castro supervised during the period of his office as Commander of State from 1959 through present as First Secretary of the PCC, and Commander in Chief, played a principal and critical role in this process of the abusive practices that were a regular part of the campaign of persecution against Plaintiffs, including torture and arbitrary executions, took place.  During said period of time, Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs’ family residents and/or citizens of communist Cuba were arbitrarily detained in labor force camps, jails, and mental hospitals located in communist Cuba, with many of them being executed as a result of torture that was inflicted upon them as part of the campaign of intimidation and punishment that Defendant Castro participated in, design, supervise, and carry-out.  Please see a composite of Exhibits 5 to 10 attached hereto which are photographs showing victims of torture, genocide, kidnapping, and victims of Human rights and basics rights violations.

COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3- These Courts and Commission have jurisdiction over the claims brought by Plaintiffs by virtue of 28 U.S.C. Section 1350, incorporating provisions of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act, which provide for Federal Jurisdiction and a Cause of Action “for any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States” as well as for acts of torture committed abroad against either U.S. Citizens or citizens of other nations by virtue of 28 U.S.C. Section 1654. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act; and under the Article 25(3)(a) & 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute for crimes against humanity, torture, rape, persecution of the Cuban people ICC.  Appearance personally or by Counsel.  “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”

  1. The actions of the Defendant Castro and those with whom he conspired and supported, constituted violations of some of the most deeply held and universally acknowledged human rights that are enshrined in a member of widely ratified international treaties that the United States has ratified as well as being firmly accepted parts of customary international law. These include, but is not limited to, the right to not be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned, and deprived of life; the right to not be subjected to torture and genocide; the right to hold and express views and beliefs freely and without interference; the right to liberty and security of the person; and the right to associate with others and to practice religious and spiritual beliefs without restriction.  The exercise by the Plaintiffs of these international recognized human rights, enshrined in both treaties ratified by the United States and in customary international law, and universally recognized as part of the law of nations, has been seriously and maliciously abridged by the policies and actions of the Defendant Castro and his co-conspirators acting under Communist Article 5, governed by the totalitarian state controlled by and subordinates the state and civil society under a single party rule of the PCC.  Among the specific human rights treaty standards violated by the Defendants are those incorporated in the convention against Torture, the convent on Civil and Political Rights, the Genocide Convention, and the United Nations Charter.  Many of these same standards also are embodied in customary international law as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Each of these standards and how they have been violated by the actions of the Defendant Castro and his co-conspirators to the detriment and injury of the Plaintiffs, is described and explained in the text of the Complaint, below beginning with Paragraph 23.  These violations of international law, together with injuries inflicted upon the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ family members, as a result of these violations, place this legal action within the parameters of the jurisdictional standards spelled out in 28 U.S.C. Section 1350 embodying the provisions of the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act

5-        The fact that the Defendant Castro is not a citizen nor a resident of the United States, although he has in this Country a Registered Agent and/or a Registered Office in a representative capacity, in addition, he is “doing business” through the former Chief of the Cuban Interest Section in Washington D.C., named,  ambassador José Ramón Cabañas Rodriguez, The Cuban Embassy in Washington, D.C. Does not deprived these Courts and the UN HR Commission- of Venue and Jurisdiction– since the very nature of the Alien Torts Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act; and under the Article 25(3)(a) & 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute for crimes against humanity, torture, rape, persecution of the Cuban people ICC  of the venue, rules, laws and  provisions authorizing  this type of civil and criminal action in these Courts and UN Commission recognizing that many defendants or potential defendants in this case, as authorities, and as aliens [in federal jurisdiction] committing crimes and torts abroad that involve violations of international law, and human rights will be in the United States and internationally subject to the jurisdiction of our Federal Courts, to the International Criminal Court ICC and to the UN Commission for Human Rights including in a representative and/or substituted capacity.  Non-resident persons or businesses operating, conducting, and engaging in or carrying on a business or business venture in the United States are amenable to substituted service pursuant to Federal Statutes.

6-        Venue is properly vested in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.C.S. Section 1391 (b) and (d) as a location within the United States where the Defendants are juridically personally located during and through their current Registered Agent’s Office, Cuban Embassy in Washington, D.C., 2630 16 Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20009 , in addition, are “doing business” though their Chief of the ambassador José Ramón Cabañas Rodriguez,  and can be personally substituted served with process regarding the initiation of this lawsuit pursuant to the requirements of Rule 4 (c) (1) and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Non-resident persons or businesses operating, conducting, and engaging in or carrying on a business or business venture in the United States are amenable to substituted service pursuant to Federal Statutes.

III   PARTIES

  1. INTERVENOR/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFFS

7-        Petitioners/Plaintiffs represents a designated class of residents and/or citizens, who have resided in the past, who are currently residing, who have visited in the past, or who are currently visiting the Communist Republic of Cuba, and have been subjected to various forms of persecution and abuse, amounting to serious violations of their human rights, as a result of the policies and actions of the Defendant Castro and other high level government officials with whom he has  conspired, acting under the communist Article 5 governed by the totalitarian state controlled by and under a single party rule of the PCC, aimed at intimidating and punishing the Plaintiffs for their political beliefs, and practices, freedom of speech, preventing them from engaging in these practices, and eliminating them for their human rights advocates and beliefs.

8-        John Doe designations have been used to substitute for the specific identities of family’s members identified Plaintiffs in order to protect them and their families some of whom remain within the jurisdiction of the Defendants from the most serious forms of reprisal, including arrest, torture, and execution.  For these Plaintiffs a very real and substantial risk exists that the government of Cuban would seek to inflict punishment and coercion on the Plaintiffs and on their families as a result of this lawsuit and in bringing public exposure and criticism to the Cuban government’s policies and practices regarding the intimidation of  Cuba’s residents and/or citizens, and the government’s efforts to investigates and actively suppress any and all opposition and dissent.

9-        Plaintiff/Petitioners currently residing in Florida, United States, they are bringing this Complaint in Pro Se on behalf of himself “HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR”), United States Naturalized Citizen. Plaintiff/Petitioner was an officer administrator for the democratic government of Cuba.  “He died in Miami of emphysema.  However, his body showed the scars of having been tortured and suffered other cruel inhuman and degrading treatments by Defendants”.  To resist the illegal persecution, torture, and confinement based solely on his beliefs and democratic practices, Plaintiff/Petitioner suffered family separation when sent his family out of Cuban in exile through Europe until they reunited again here in the United States.  During all this time Plaintiff/Petitioner was coerced and forced to renounce to all his personal possessions, including his job.  He was incarcerate in and out several times including his wife.  Plaintiff/Petitioner,  his wife and daughter were forced to move to an empty chicken house for several years.  For nearly ten years he and his family were forced to live in miserable conditions.  He was also subjected to degradation and ridicule.  For instance, he was arrested and interrogated and physically and mentally tortured to make him believe he was insane, and that his family would be incarcerated and tortured too.  He suffered nasals’ cavity lacerations and internal bleeding which always caused great pains until the day he died in Florida.   Although the Communist Cuba’s Constitution prohibits abusive treatment of detainees and prisoners, but members of the Security forces and government’s officials continue to gave direct orders regarding the torture, mental abuses, incarceration, among others, of Plaintiff.

10-      Plaintiff/Petitioner “HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR”, is bringing this Complaint too, in Pro Se on behalf of himself and his immediate family members, others John Doe, who were and/or currently are being tortured and jailed in the communist Cuba.  Several family members died as a result of torture and/or beating received while in the custody of Cuba’s government. Some of their bodies showed signs of having suffered beaten and tortured. Other family members have received several written death threats and have been visited by PCC’s undercover agents, informers, the Rapid Reaction Brigades  who have threats them with death by slitting their throats.  Another family member was arrested while in her way to a friend’s house.  She was tied up and interrogated for more than 30 consecutive days and she was forced, though torture and beating, to give information about illegal purchase of food.  She was forced to seek exile victim of PCC’s undercover agents, the Rapid Reaction Brigades.  She left Cuba together with her family, they all died in the sea.  The  communist government of Cuba never conducted a full investigation into the Cuban Coast Guards sinking of the “13 of March” tugboat which occurred on July 13, 1994, which caused the death of 37 people.  Please see a composite of Exhibits 11 to 16 attached hereto which are newspaper clips, report on torture in jails and Amnesty International  report on the tugboat “13 of March” killing.

11-      The others John Doe, injured parties similarly situated, immediately affected family members involved in this case who are victims of persecution, torture, and some cases of execution from the Defendants, attached hereto are their stories, photographs of their suffering, their remains; some of them died others still have not recovered from the horrible experience they went thru. See the U.S. Department of State’s report as Exhibits 17 to 22 attached hereto.

12-      Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the individual Plaintiffs identified above are joined in the Complaint by other members of the class of adversely affected individuals family members whom they represent, namely past or present residents and/or citizens of the Communist Republic of  Cuba, individuals incarcerated and tortured in Cuba’s jails, detention centers, and labor camps, individuals kept, abused, and tortured in communist Cuba during the periods that the Defendant Castro exercised supervisory function as the Head of Government, First Secretary of the Cuba Communist Party, PCC.  Members of the Plaintiffs class, because of their beliefs and associations have been subjected either to grave abuses of their internationally recognized human rights, including, but not limited to, arbitrary arrest, kidnapping, imprisonment, torture, genocide, and deprivation of life, liberty, and security of the person, or, have been threatened with such violations, thought the actions of the Defendant Castro and other high level government official with whom he has conspired to carry out these acts and objectives.

13-      Other members of the class of adversely affected individuals have been joined though this class action, pursuant to the requirements of Rule 23 (a), because the class is too numerous to permit joiner of all members, these are questions of law and fact common to the class, the claims of the representative party are typical of the claims of the class, and the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  Moreover, pursuant to the requirements of Rule 23 (b), separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications affecting the interest of all members of the class, and the nature of the circumstances is such that there are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, making a class action the appropriate method for adjudicating the issue presented.  In addition, the physical location and circumstances of many members of the class, namely their being located in Cuba, and the fact that many of them currently are being held in arbitrary and unlawful detention in Cuba, as well as the threat to them and their families safety associated with identifying them as individual Plaintiffs made their joiner as individual and named Plaintiffs impractical, if not impossible and dangerous.

B   DEFENDANTS

14-      Defendant Raul Castro is a Citizen and Resident of the Communist Republic of Cuba, and currently serves as Chief of State, Head of Government, First Secretary of the Cuba Communist Party (PCC), and Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  Defendant exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life through the Communist Party and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy, and the State Security apparatus.  The Communist Party is the only legal political entity, and Defendant personally chooses the membership of the select group which heads the PCC.  The Party controls all government positions, including judicial offices.

15-      Defendants though the Ministry of Interior which is the principal organ of the State Security has totalitarian control; the Revolutionary Armed Forces (“FAR”) directed by Defendant, RAUL CASTRO, exercise de facto control over this Ministry.  In addition to regulating migration and controlling the border guard and the police forces, the Interior Ministry investigates and actively suppresses organized opposition and dissent.  It maintains a pervasive system of vigilance though undercover agents, informers, the Rapid Reaction Brigades, and the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution.  While Defendants traditionally used these Committees to mobilize citizens against dissenters, impose ideological conformity, and root out “counter revolutionary” behavior, severe economic problems have reduced the willingness of the citizens to participate with these committees and thereby lessened their effectiveness.  Other mass organizations also inject government and communist party control into every citizen’s daily activities at home, work, and school.  Under Defendant’s Castro direct control members of the Security Forces committed human rights abuses and continued to harass, threaten, imprison, defame, and physical attack human rights advocates and members of independent professional associations including journalist, economist, and lawyers, often with the goal of encouraging them to leave Cuba.

16-     Defendants repression of dissent includes a member of human rights groups and other non-governmental organizations formed an umbrella association, know as the “Concilio Cubano”.  Defendants responded by detaining and harassing certain key members and obstructing meetings of the group.   Human rights advocates were denied the right of due process and subjected to unfair trials.  Political prisoners were offered the choice of exile or continued imprisonment; prison conditions are harsh.

III GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS

17-      Whereas the Defendant’s Castro communist regime demonstrates some flexibility in accommodating the demands of its partisans, its response to public dissidence and opposition has consistently been uncompromising and repressive.  During the first twenty years of the Cuban communist regime, thousands of regime opponents, including many individuals who today would be classified as prisoners of conscience, were executed by firing squad or “disappeared” in prison.  During the 1960s Defendant’s regime’s campaign to destroy the autonomous institutions of civil society produced a raft of excesses, including mass deportations and imprisonments, and during the mid 1960s, it is estimated that Cuba’s prison system held more than 40,000 long term political prisoners, giving Cuba one of the world’s highest per capita rates of political incarceration.

18-      During the late 1970s and 1980s, approximately 20,000 political prisoners were freed on condition that they immediately leave Cuba communist.  It its Annual Report of year 2001, Amnesty International claims that “Several hundred” imprisoned Cubans are either political prisoners or prisoners of conscience.  Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch Americas have consistently reported ill treatment of detainees in prisons and police stations, and frequent short-term detention and harassment of human rights and political activists.  In 1992 Freedom House documented dozens of cases of political detainees being subjected to unnecessary psychiatric treatments, including multiple dozens of electroshock therapy, in efforts to alter their personalities and as a method of torture.  Political prisoners are regularly subjected to physical and psychological torture, including beatings, neglect, and isolation in cramped, non-ventilated cells.  Political prisoners are also frequently housed alongside common criminals, including violent felons.  Prisons conditions are known to be extremely poor through testimonial evidence and though evidence gathered by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (“UNCHR”).

19-      From the 1991 until 1997, the UNCHR designated a Special Representative (upgraded in 1992 to Special Rapporteur) to investigate the human rights situation in Cuba.  The Cuban communist Government consistently denied the Special Rapporteur permission to enter the country and refused to respond to the Rapporteur’s written inquires on human rights matters although later modified their response.  Based on reports from Cuba’s independent human rights groups, every year but one since 1991, the UNCHR has adopted resolutions condemning Cubas human rights record.  For example, in 1995 the commission approved a resolution that regretted profoundly Cuba’s violations of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms and expressed “particular concern at prevailing intolerance for freedom of speech and assembly in Cuba.”   Official surveillance of private and family affairs by government -controlled mass organizations, such as the CDRs Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, remains one of the most pervasive and repressive features of Cuban life.  The communist government has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of residents and citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the regime and its practices.  The PCC controls the mass organizations which permeate society.  Their ostensible purpose is to “improve” the citizenry, but in fact their goal is to discover and discourage nonconformity.  The PCC utilize a wide range of social controls.  The Ministry of Interior employs an intricate system of informants and block committees CDRs, to monitor and control public opinion.  CDRs reports on any suspicious activity, including conspicuous consumption; unauthorized meetings, including those with foreigners; and defiant attitudes toward the government and the revolution.  State Security often reads international correspondence and monitors overseas telephone calls and conversations with foreigners.  Citizens do not have the right to receive publications from abroad, cannot access the internet.  Security Agents subject dissidents, foreigners, diplomats, and journalists to surveillance.  The PCC, does not allow criticism of the revolution or its leaders.   Laws against anti-government propaganda, graffiti, and insults against officials carry penalties of from 3 months to 1 year in prison.  If Defendant or its conspirators are the object of criticism, the sentence is extended to 3 years.  Local CDRs inhibit freedom of speech by monitoring and reporting dissent or any criticism. Police and State Security officials regularly harassed, threatened, beat, and otherwise abused human rights advocates in public and private as a means of intimidation and control.

20-      The Cuba communist regime not only violates basic civil liberties, but also uses political criteria to discriminate in the provision of employment, education, and social services.  Thurs, for example, individuals who display discontent be dismissed altogether from their jobs, or their children may be expelled from schools.  The Cuba communist’s Penal Code does not meet international standards of due process and protection of human rights, rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.  Among the felonies listed in the code are thought crimes such as “dangerousness,” “illegal association,” and “dissemination of enemy propaganda.”  These charges, which carry sentences ranging from one to fifteen years, are often lodged against nonviolent political dissidents and human rights monitors.  More vocal opponents who call for fundamental political change may be charged with “Rebellion,” which carries sentences exceeding fifteen years (15) and, in some cases, may warrant capital punishment.  Individuals who are convicted of insulting the Defendant face prison sentences of up to three years, and citizens caught attempting to emigrate illegally may be imprisoned for up to six years.  Trial procedures are skewed against defendants, who do not enjoy the right of habeas corpus and are usually not assigned a public defender until the actual date of their trial.

21-      Consistent with the general description and documentation of the serious infringements of human rights that were carried out against residents and/or citizens of the communist Cuba, each of the Plaintiffs and their families suffered very concrete injuries and losses as a result of the actions of the Defendant Castro, and actions by other officials supervised by and/or under the orders of Defendant Castro.

22-      Specifically, Plaintiffs were subjected to arbitrary arrest, abduction, imprisonment and torture based on their beliefs and practices, and their support for other family members, as detailed in the specific causes of action that  follow  beginning with paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

IV SPECIFIC CAUSES OF ACTION CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

23-      The following specifics abuses, constituting torts involving the most serious forms of intentionally inflicted physical and mental suffering and injury, were inflicted upon the Plaintiffs as a direct result of the actions of the Defendant Castro and those with whom he acted in concert to carry out the officially sanctioned and mandated policy of persecuting, punishing, terrorizing and intimidating residents and/or citizens of the communist Cuba.  Each of these types and forms of abuse also constituted violations of international law embodied in treaties and in customary international practice, binding on both the United States and the government of communist Cuba as indicated and explained in each paragraph below, thereby bringing these torts within the terms of the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act, as indicated above in paragraphs 3 though 5 of this Complaint.  They were carried out by the Defendant and other officials with whom he conspired, acting under communist constitutional basis governed by the totalitarian state controlled by and under a single party rule of the PCC, and later under the Communist Article 5, with the specific intent and purpose of abridging and denying and coercing them for the exercise of those rights, in violation of international law.  Each of the following causes of action should be considered to re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above in this Complaint as if fully set forth in the body of each cause of action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: TORTURE 

24-      Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations set forth above in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

25-      The acts inflicted against Plaintiffs were inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the control, and authority, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Defendant or a public official or other person with whom he conspired, acting in an official capacity and/or under Defendant’s order and/or supervision.

26-      The acts and abuses herein described placed Plaintiffs in imminent fear of their lives and/or caused them to suffer severe physical and mental pain and suffering.  They were deliberately and intentionally inflicted for purposes that included intimidation and punishment, among others.

27-      The Convention against Torture, which came into effect internationally on June 26, 1987 and was ratified by the United States on October 21, 1994 and implemented and given domestic effect by Congress through legislation adopted in 1994 and 1998, and, in May, 1996 communist Cuba ratified the U.N. Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, even the Cuban Communist Constitution prohibits abusive treatment to detainees and prisoners.  This infliction of torture was the first type of human rights violation the U.S. Courts recognized as authorizing the granting of relief under the Alien Tort Claims Act, in the landmark case of Filartega   vs.  Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d. Cir. 1980).  Torture also is prohibited absolutely under other international treaties and under customary international law, including Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The latter treaty came into effect internationally on March 23, 1976, and was ratified by  the United States on June 8, 1992.  The Universal Declaration is not a treaty, but a unanimously adopted resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations that is widely recognized as an embodiment of fundamental and universally accepted standards of customary international law.  The abusive practices imposed upon the Plaintiffs and other family members in detention, including, but not limited to beatings, prolonged periods of restrain and denial of food, water and sleep, as well as the use of instruments of torture, and being forced to witness the torture of others, as described by Plaintiffs in paragraphs above of this Complaint, constitute  severe  pain and suffering under the meaning of the Convention Against Torture and the other international instruments, and thereby constitute violations of international law under the terms of the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1350.

28-      As has been documented by the U.S. Department of State in its Country Report on Human Rights and its Report on International Religious Persecution (attached hereto as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits) Cuba has engaged in a consistent and wide spread pattern and practice of subjecting these residents and/or citizens to torture while in detention.  Plaintiffs have provided specific examples of how Plaintiffs or their immediate family members have been subjected to torture, and have suffered physical and psychological injuries as a result of these practices that the Defendant Castro and other government officials with whom he has conspired have promoted and supported.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: GENOCIDE

29-      Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporated by reference all the allegations set forth above in the Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

30-      The acts inflicted against Plaintiffs were inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the control and authority, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Defendant Castro and/or a public official or other person with whom he conspired, acting in an official capacity and/or under Defendant’s order and/or supervision.

31-      The acts and abuses herein described placed Plaintiffs in eminent fear of their lives, and caused them to suffer severe physical and mental pain and suffering.  They were deliberately and intentionally inflicted for purposes that included intimidation and punishment among others.

32-      Genocide is prohibited under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (referred to as the Genocide Convention), which entered into force internationally on January 12, 1951 and was ratified by the United States on November 25, 1988.  Genocide is defined in the Convention as intentional actions taken “to destroy, whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group”   through such means as “killing members of a group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…” (Article II)(a) through (c)).  The actions of the Defendant Castro and the other government officials with whom he conspired meet this definition because they consisted of an intentionally inflicted policy and practice carried out under Cuba’s communist regime, of inflicting serious bodily harm, and in a number of cases death while in detention,  against resident and/or citizens aimed at punished, intimidating and coercing them because of their religious, beliefs, associations, and practices, with the ultimate aim of elimination of the Plaintiffs and their members of family and other similarly situated.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION; DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE

33-      Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force internationally on March 23, 1976, and ratified by the United States on June 8, 1992, confirms that “Every human being has the inherent right to life” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”  This same principle is set out in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, at United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution unanimously adopted on December 10, 1948, and now interpreted as the clearest embodiment of the Universal Standards of human rights enshrined in customary international law.  As indicated above, and in the documentation attached hereto, an extraordinary large number of residents and/ or citizens, numbering over the several  thousands in slightly over forty years according to the U.S. Department of State on its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, have died in detention under conditions that U.S. Department of State has confirmed were likely linked to the infliction of torture.  These executions through torture can be directly attributed to Defendant Castro in his capacity as Head of Government, First Secretary of the PCC,  Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the communist Cuba, and Chief Supervisory Official in charge of the operation of the totalitarian state, labor camps, and mental hospitals under his control where many of these instances of torture and arbitrary executions as a result of torture took place during the period when Defendants exercised authority over all aspects of Cuban life with persecution in Cuba.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON, AND TO BE FREE OF ARBITRARY ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT.

34-      The right to liberty and security of the person is guaranteed by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 9 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Article 9 of the Covenant also stipulates that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention” or “deprived of his liberty” except according to lawful procedures.  Also of special relevance to the tort damage Complaint that has been brought before this Court by the Plaintiffs, Article 9 stipulates that “Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right of compensation.”(Article 9 (5)).

35- Amnesty International Report 2002  confirmed that medical care in Cuban prisons was disastrous in last years.  Medicine and supplies were scarce and Cuba’s government blames the long time United States’ ban on trade with Cuba as a factor, this Report said that “ there were concerns that in some cases care was deliberately withheld from prisoners of conscience or other political prisoners.”  Many prisoners have died while in custody in year 2001 after suffering many of them from health problem.  Amnesty International indicates that between 1991 – 1996 dozens of members of groups belonging to Cuban citizens were taken into custody and threatened with imprisonment. “Some 600 long-term prisoners of conscience remained in prison, the majority accused of  “enemy propaganda”.  Several hundred other political prisoners were also serving lengthy jail terms…Although, serving sentences for “dangerousness”. The arbitrary arrest and detentions described by the Plaintiffs in this Complaint are indicative of the type of arbitrary administration of justice that has been imposed on the residents and/or citizens, resulting in the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and often serious injuries and deaths.  There were reports that prisoners were frequently beaten by guards in several prisons including Combinado del Sur and Havana province.  Political prisoners have been stripped, handcuffed, beaten and dragged along corridors for refusing to shout out pro-government slogans while held in prison.  At least five hundred unarmed civilians died in circumstances suggesting excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, including security guards belonging to vigilance and protection corps, who were reportedly under orders to shoot to kill anyone who entered state property to steal food.  Please see an updated Report from Cubafacts.com, and Amnesty International 1996 as  composite of Exhibits 23 to 28 attached hereto.

FIFTH AND SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION, AND THE FREEDOM TO HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE AND TO ASSOCIATE FREELY.

36-      The right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and the right to hold opinions without interference and to associate with other freely, are enshrined in Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration, and Articles 18, 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As enumerated in the attached U.S. Department of State Reports on International Religious Freedom and Country Reports on Human Rights, these internationally recognized rights and protections have been seriously infringed by the policy and practice banning the residents and/or citizens, and seeking the repression, punishment and intimidation of these residents and/or citizens in order not to permit them to exist.  This “harsh” and “unremitting campaign” against the residents and/or citizens has included assigning many thousand to re-education through labor camps and other facilities specially established to “rehabilitate” these citizens who refuse to recant their belief “voluntarily” but in fact their goal is to “discourage” nonconformity.  Each of the identified Plaintiffs in this case have stated how their arrest, detention, and punishment, including physical and mental took place because of their beliefs.  In May of 1996 Amnesty International requested permission to visit Cuba but received no reply.  In August 1996 Amnesty received an invitation to attend an international conference on the protection of citizens’ rights in Havana organized by the government.  However, when requested visas delegates were told that they could only attend  as individuals and not as representative of Amnesty International. In September and October of same year, journalists from Havana Press and Bureau of Independent Journalist of Cuba, faced harassment and threats of imprisonment and were warned that the state would not be responsible for any future violent action taken against them because of their activities.

Sixth Cause of Action. Freedom of expression is an inalienable human right and the foundation for self-government. Freedom of expression encompasses the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and association, and the corollary right to receive information without interference and without compromising personal privacy.

37– The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The Preamble of this document states that “. . . recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. . .” and “. . . the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. . . .”

Article 12 of this document states:

38- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18 of this document states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.

Article 20 states:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

39- On December 18, 2013, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution reaffirming that the right to personal privacy applies to the use of communications technology and digital records, and requiring the governments of member nations to “respect and protect” the privacy rights of individuals.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATIONS OF THE ABOVE-CITED RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS AS EMBODIED IN CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

40-      Each of the above-cited violations of international treaty based law also involve the abridgement and violation of the same rights protections enumerated in sub-sections A through F above, as embodied in customary international law.  It is well established that the enumeration of these types of Universally recognized rights and protection in specific treaties do not remove them from coverage by customary international law, but merely provide an additional treaty-based framework recognizing their internationally protected status .  This distinction, and the additional coverage by international customary law, are important, since they provide a basis for requiring compliance with universally accepted human  rights standards by all nations and governments, whether or not they have specifically ratified individual human rights treaties.  For example, see Filartega  vs.  Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d. Cir. 1980), United States Courts found it possible to apply the prohibitions against torture as a basis for an Alien Tort Claims Act based on customary international law as well as the treaties embodying the same anti-torture standards.

EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION; TERRORISM,  ACTS DONE TO THE TERROR OF THE PEOPLE.

41-      Defendants, throughout their 59 years of totalitarian regime, have managed to inflict total terror on the residents and/or citizens of Cuba.  This regime has caused and is causing at all times an state of alarm, fright, dread, a state of mind induced by the apprehension of hurt from the hostile and continuous threatening  daily events and manifestation, a total fear caused by the appearance of danger that Defendants portrait on the residents and/or citizens of Cuba.  These Defendants’ acts were done “to the terror of the people.”  See Arto vs.  State, 19 Tex. App. 136.  Cuba’s residents and/or citizens have no legal right to change their government or to advocate change.  The Constitution proscribes any political organization other than the PCC.  Communist government in Cuba rejects any change judged incompatible with the revolution.  Communist Party membership is a de facto prerequisite for high-level official positions and professional advancement.  Please see report where, U.S. District Court deny Immunity to Chinese Officials sued for persecution and crimes against humanity, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 29 – 30 and made a part hereof.

 PRAYER    FOR   RELIEF.

42-     Based on the above facts, jurisdictional claims, and legal arguments presented herein, Plaintiff, “HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR”) on behalf of himself, in Pro Se, on behalf of the Estate, and others John Doe and Jane Doe family members similarly situated, ask for judgment against the Defendants as follows:

a).      Compensatory damages according to and consistent with the injuries described, the extent of which will be demonstrated according to evidence to be presented;

b).     Punitive and exemplary damages according to and consistent with the extraordinary and gross nature of the Defendants’ conduct and the injuries it produced, the extent of which will be demonstrated according to evidence to be presented;

c).      Declaratory judgment confirming the unlawful nature of the pattern and practice of gross violations of human rights that have taken place, and that the Defendant have played a material part in carrying out, in concert with other high-level officials in Cuba, resulting in serious and permanent injury of the Plaintiffs;

d).     Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem suitable and necessary;

e).      Reasonable fees and costs associated with these proceedings, including service of process.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a Jury Trial is demanded for all issues so prosecutable.

Respectfully Submitted this 24th day of June, 2019

Resubmitted this 19th day of July, 2021.

__________________________________________,

HUMPHREY HUMBERTO PACHECKER in PRO SE,

“HHP – NAFA LAW – AICAC-HR”

La Corte en su nuevo local, y bajo el nuevo presidente, Dr. Humphrey Humberto Pachecker, desde el mes de abril, 2019, está localizada a solo tres cuadras de la Casa Blanca y el Banco Mundial, esta prominente dirección de Pennsylvania Avenue la ubica en un distrito comercial dinámico de agencias federales, bufetes de abogados y grupos gubernamentales.

Ver Carta de la Honorable Michelle Bachelet Jeria- UN High-Commissioner for Human Rights, dirigida a nuestro presidente AICAC-HR: http://nafalaw.com/blog/2019/03/08/nueva-localidad-corte-aicac-hr-washington-dc-bajo-nuevo-presidente/

DOCUMENTOS y FORMULARIOS REQUERIDOS PRESENTAR PARA ADMISION EJERCER ABOGACIA

S COURT

TRES [3] puntos de Atención muy importantes los cuales todos deben cumplir para lograr una admisión a la corte suprema y a la barra. Para ver lista de documentos requeridos ver- comenzando con: Atención No. 1.

La Regla de admisión a la corte suprema para abogados extranjeros, llamada ‘Consultoría Legal Extranjera’ permite que un abogado/a extranjero sea certificado por la corte suprema estatal en Florida, u otros 32 estados, sin presentar examen, como Consultor Legal Extranjero reconocido para asesorar y representar a los clientes sobre las leyes de la barra bajo la cual el abogado está admitido a ejercer, el derecho internacional Y el derecho mercantil Estatal. Las normas que regulan el Colegio de Abogados de Florida- el Capítulo 16 – 17, explica los requisitos para la certificación. Ver detalles de las varias reglas de admisión – enlace para idioma español: AQUI: https://www.floridabar.org/rules/upl/upl009/

Atención No. 1:

Cuales son los documentos académicos que las cortes supremas requieren presentar para considerar ser admitida/o a ejercer en Estados Unidos. Entrar por este enlace:

Requisito oficial de la documentación que la Corte Suprema requiere que el abogada/o extranjero presente con su solicitud. NOTA: Copias a color y autenticadas por notario público u otra autoridad. APLICABLE a otras carreras- ver cuales son las diez [10] carreras- para ver haz clic aquí:***http://nafalaw.com/blog/2017/04/10/the-rebellion-of-donald-trump/

Para nosotros en NAFA- No es necesario que UD tenga toda esta documentación a la misma vez, inicialmente puede enviarla en copias ‘escaneadas’ vía ‘email’- según las tenga disponiblesLas 4 cartas de recomendación requeridas de 4 abogados NO enviarlas hasta el final del programa, debido a que estas cartas tienen fecha de vencimiento en 90 díasluego le haremos llegar ejemplo de cartas y a quien deben ir dirigidas.

US SUPREME COURT

PARA FLORIDA Y OTROS 32 ESTADOS- PRESTAR PARTICULAR ATENCIÓN A LOS SIGUIENTES REQUISITOS. REGLA SECCION 16 THE FLORIDA BAR- CERTIFICACIÓN:

(a). Inicio de petición de permiso para realizar servicios jurídicos. Permiso para que un consultor legal abogado/abogada extranjero pueda prestar servicios legales en virtud de estas reglas de admisión a la abogacía por reciprocidad se hará efectiva mediante la presentación de varias solicitudes [sets de formularios] y de la obtención de la certificación por la Sección de Derecho Internacional del Colegio de Abogados de la Florida [u otros estados], bajo los requisitos de la normativa Reglas 16-1,2 (a) a (j) y 16 a 1,3 (a) y (b) en el presente listado.

Además de cualquier otra prueba que la barra de Abogados Estatal, a su discreción, pueda requerir con su solicitud se deberá incluir con la presentación estos documentos:

(1). Un certificado debidamente autenticado de la entidad que rige el ejercicio de la abogacía [u otra profesión] en el país extranjero en el cual  e/la solicitante tiene licencia para ejercer, acompañado por el sello oficial de dicha entidad, y que el certificado deberán acreditar que:

(A). La jurisdicción y la entidad en esta materia;

(B). La fecha de admisión del solicitante para ejercer en ese país extranjero y la fecha correspondiente al presente;

(C). Constancia de la buena conducta del solicitante como un abogada/o, consejero en la ley, o su equivalente, [u otra profesión]- y

(D). Si- en caso- de cualquier acusación o queja que haya sido presentada en contra del abogado y el demandante con esa entidad, y si es así, la esencia de cada uno de esos cargos- queja y la adjudicación o disposición de los mismos;

(2). Una carta de recomendación firmada por y con el sello oficial, si lo hubiere, de  uno (1) de los miembros de la junta directiva de dicha entidad o colegio de abogados, o de uno (1) de los jueces, magistrados, o fiscales- del más alto tribunal de justicia de ese país extranjero, con la certificación del caracter moral y calificaciones profesionales del solicitante;

(3). Una carta de recomendación de al menos dos (2) abogados [u otro profesional en su carrera], consejeros de la ley, o el equivalente admitidos en la práctica y en tal país extranjero, que establezca la cantidad de tiempo, cuándo y bajo qué circunstancias conoce al candidato abogada/o solicitante y su valoración del carácter moral del candidato solicitante;

(4). Una carta de recomendación de al menos dos (2) miembros abogados de la barra de abogados de Florida o del Estado, EE.UU., que establece la cantidad de tiempo, cuándo y bajo qué circunstancias conoce al candidato solicitante y su valoración del carácter moral del solicitante;

(5). Una declaración jurada del solicitante él/ella es solicitante para ejercer esta abogacía [es parte de los formularios “Foreign Legal Consultant” [FORMULARIOS “A” PROVISTOS POR NAFA]:

(A). Declaracion que e/la solicitante ha leído, estudiado y está familiarizada/o con las Reglas de Conducta Profesional, Disciplina, y Ejercicio de la abogacia, y las reglas del Florida Bar- Chapter 16 y 17 aprobadas por la Corte Suprema del estado y que acatará, y estará sujeto a las disposiciones de los mismos tribunales supremos;

(B). E/la solicitante se somete a la jurisdicción de la Corte Suprema del estado por todo motivos disciplinarios, según se define en la Regla del colegio de abogados estatal, el Chapter 3 y  de este reglamento y se describe en Capitulo16-1,6. La declaración jurada del solicitante también debe autorizar la notificación a la entidad que rige el ejercicio de la abogacía en el país extranjero en el que el solicitante tiene licencia para ejercer- en caso de cualquier acción disciplinaria tomada contra el solicitante en la Florida, y otro estado.

(C). Deberá cumplir con los requisitos de las reglas de admisión a la abogacía, el Capítulo 16 a 1,3 (b) en relación con la divulgación y anuncios;

(6). Una declaración jurada de compromiso por escrito de notificar al tribunal supremo de cualquier renuncia o revocación de la admisión de/la abogada/o extranjero consultor jurídico para ejercer en su país extranjero de admisión original, o en cualquier otro estado o jurisdicción en la cual dicho abogada/o consultor ha sido licenciado como abogada/o, consejero en ley, o equivalente, o como abogada/o consultor legal extranjero, de cualquier censura, suspensión o expulsión en relación con dicha admisión, y***

(7). El establecimiento de un instrumento debidamente reconocido sucesivamente con la dirección del solicitante dentro del estado de Florida y otro estado con la designación nombrando a la Secretaria de Estado como su agente registrado de dicha persona en caso de cualquier proceso legal se pueda emplazar – servir, de conformidad con la legislación aplicable de la Florida y otro estado, con el mismo efecto como que si se emplazara – sirviera personalmente a dicho solicitante, en cualquier acción o procedimiento que a partir de entonces y en contra del solicitante que surja o pueda surgir de o esté basada en cualquiera de los servicios jurídicos prestados u ofertados y/o a ser prestados por dicho solicitante en el plazo autorizado para los residentes del estado de Florida y otro estado, cuando después del emplazamiento y servicio con la debida diligencia no se pueda hacer en persona a tal solicitante en dicho domicilio propio***.

(b). Declaración Jurada Anual. Una persona abogada/o certificada bajo este capítulo como abogado consultor legal extranjero presentará al Colegio de Abogados de la Florida u otro estado, con una periodicidad anual, una declaración jurada que acredite la buena conducta del abogado consultor legal extranjero como un abogado, consejero en la ley, o su equivalente en el país extranjero en el que dicha persona tiene licencia para practicar y también se incluirá a dicha declaración una cuota de renovación anual equivalente a las cuotas anuales pagadas por todos los abogados miembros del Colegio de Abogados de la Florida u otro estado, en buena conducta, y las demás pruebas que el colegio, The Florida Bar, u otro estado, estime necesaria para determinar la capacidad de las calificaciones del abogado consultor legal extranjero en virtud de esta [FORMULARIOS PROVISTOS POR NAFA].

*** Énfasis en Artículo 9, sub-elementos. Vea a continuación.

Subtema 1:

Certificados debidamente autenticados de los tribunales ubicados en cada jurisdicción en la que el solicitante ha residido, practicado leyes o ejercido como asesor legal extranjero, certificando la ausencia de procedimientos penales en su contra, juicios pendientes o no juzgados, o declaraciones de quiebra presentadas por o contra el solicitante en dicha jurisdicción.

Una carta de recomendación firmada por y con el sello oficial, si corresponde, de uno de los miembros del cuerpo ejecutivo de dicha entidad o de uno de los jueces del tribunal supremo de dicho país extranjero, que certifique las calificaciones profesionales del solicitante;

Una carta de recomendación de al menos dos miembros con buena reputación en el Colegio de Abogados del Estado, en la que se indica la duración, el momento y las circunstancias en las que han conocido al solicitante y su evaluación del carácter moral del solicitante.

Usted requiere hacer el curso para Notarios y tomar el examen provisto aquí siguiendo los siguientes pasos e instrucciones:

Notary Education Program:

Go to Next Page;

Deshabilite cualquier pop-up que prevenga abrir un enlace;

Seguido entrar por el enlace: Start Self-Assesment. O simplemente entre por el siguiente enlace para crear una cuenta a su nombre: http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/education/login/login.asp

Una vez dentro de esa pagina entrar por el cuadro “New users” abriendo el enlace “Create Your Account.” Para crear una cuenta la cual te permitirá tomar el curso. Una vez creada la cuenta, podrás entrar a un formulario de registro el cual pide toda tu información personal, correo, etc (No pide información migratoria. No pide tarjeta de crédito. No pide seguro social). Una vez creada y autorizada tu cuenta, te llevará al cuadro “You are now logged in: Current Status.” Aquí puedes ver las 8 secciones (materias) las cuales debes completar para aprobar el examen. NOTA. Fíjate que esta página tiene un reloj el cual estará midiéndote el tiempo que tomas en el curso. El mínimo es 23 minutos, el máximo es 2 horas por cada sección [materia]. NO es necesario que hagas todas las secciones a la vez; tampoco perderás las secciones que hagas las cuales será guardadas (salvadas por el sistema) cada vez que salgas del sistema; estas reaparecerán cada vez que entres al programa usando tu cuenta personal.

Una vez aprobado el examen de notario público- baja el certificado de aprobación- firmalo y regresarlo a NAFA con los siguientes formularios.

Favor de entrar por el siguiente enlace y llenar los formularios de notario publico, firmarlos y regresarlo todo a NAFA SEBRING, FL.  El Affidavit of Character, requerido lo podemos hacer nosotros en NAFA.  https://www.nationalnotary.org/file%20library/nna/applications/florida_notary_application.pdf

Atención No. 2:

Colegas abogada/os tomando el programa de homologación y revalida a la abogacía internacional para ejercer en Estados Unidos como abogado consultor del derecho extranjero- incluyendo derecho mercantil Estatal [solo algunos Estados incluyendo Florida]; derechos federal administrativo, y derecho notarial.

Alguna/os colegas aún NO han completado los formularios oficiales requeridos Y documentos requeridos para solicitar admisión a la corte suprema para ejercer.

Si Usted no lo ha hecho aún estos formularios- debe seguir estas instrucciones según el Estado de Estados Unidos en el cual Usted quiere ejercer.

Primero: Los siguientes enlaces tienen acceso directo a los formularios OFICIALES los cuales Usted debe llenarlos, firmarlos [algunos ante notario] y, regresarlos todos en original a NAFA LAW SEBRING FL para poder armar los expedientes requeridos- preparar sus solicitudes para radicarlas ante las autoridades.

Segundo: Seguido pueden ver la lista oficial de documentos académicos requeridos presentar.

De todos estos formularios, tenemos un formulario nacional, igual para TODOS los abogados y TODOS los Estados de Estados Unidos llamado NCBE Forms.

Ver los Estados, para llenar los formularios y obtener esta licencia y certificación de la Corte Suprema para ejercer la abogacía de consultoría derecho extranjero- internacional (“FLC”), también puedes ver cuales son los  otros 28 estados de Estados Unidos.

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES –FLORIDA:

Aplicación #-1: Formularios Oficiales para todos abogados(a) extranjeros en Florida – Corte Suprema – haz clic y entrar por siguiente enlace para ver los formularios requeridos presentar: https://www.floridabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/foreignlegalconsultappl.pdf

Aplicación #-2-: Formularios Oficiales para TODOS abogados(a) en TODA la nación: Investigación de Carácter- haz clic y entrar por siguiente enlace:

Enlace (a): https://accounts.ncbex.org/php/ncbe_number/

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES—TODOS LOS ESTADOS:

Aquí primero- para llenar estos formularios de admisión, debes abrir una cuenta (gratis) a tu nombre y tus datos para que te asignen un numero de solicitante– todo comienza entrando por el enlace anterior- Enlace (a). Antes de llenar los formularios originales los cuales los bajarás entrando por el Enlace (a), antes entras por el siguiente Enlace (b) para que puedas bajar un ejemplo de los formularios y estos te sirvan de borrador para que no cometas errores en los formularios originales, usando este “Sample”. Enlace (b):  http://www.ncbex.org/dmsdocument/134

*

 ENTRAR MAS DETALLES — CALIFORNIA:

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Special-Admissions/Foreign-Legal-Consultants-FLC/FAQ

*

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES — NUEVA YORK:  http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/521rules10.htm

*

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES — ARIZONA:

http://www.azcourts.gov/cld/Attorney-Admissions/Other-Admissions/Foreign-Legal-Consultant

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES — TEXAS:

https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Foreign_Legal_Consultants1&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=34463

 *

 ENTRAR MAS DETALLES – NEW JERSEY:

https://www.njbarexams.org/appinfo.action?id=10

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES – CAROLINA NORTE:

https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/directories/foreign-legal-consultants-flc/

 *

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES – CAROLINA SUR:

https://barapplication.sccourts.org/foreignLegalConsultants.cfm

 *

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES – WASHINGTON:

https://www.wsba.org/for-legal-professionals/join-the-legal-profession-in-wa/lawyers/foreign-law-consultants

 *

ENTRAR MAS DETALLES – OTROS ESTADOS:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/foreign_legal_consultants.authcheckdam.pdf

Atención No. 3: 

A falta de tarjeta de Seguro Social [SS#], se requiere tarjeta personal de impuestos llamada ITIN. Como obtenerla: Solicitud de Número de Identificación Personal [ITIN] del Contribuyente del Servicio de Impuestos Internos. Esta es para uso por personas físicas que no son ciudadanos o no residentes permanentes de EE.UU. Vea y baje el formulario con instrucciones para radicarlo: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw7sp.pdf   Vea las instrucciones por separado: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw7sp.pdf 

A falta de una licencia de conducir del Estado [u otra identificación oficial de EE.UU.], se requiere una ID, Identificación Personal. El Departamento de Seguridad de Carreteras y Vehículos Motorizados de Florida [u otro Estado] emite tarjeta de identificación personal para personas que no pueden o no quieren tener una licencia de conducir. Para obtener una ID, se requiere: Prueba de identidad (1 documento). Los ejemplos son: Un pasaporte extranjero válido y vigente, copia original o certificada de un certificado de nacimiento para ciudadanos no estadounidenses No estadounidenses. Citizen FL ID Requisitos- a continuación. Vea las instrucciones para obtener una tarjeta de identificación: https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards-es/

TODOS abogada/os aspirantes que NO tenga el número de seguro social [SS] requieren pedir un número de impuesto personal [ITIN] solo en caso que no tengan un número de seguro social [SS]. Ver detalles del ITIN: https://www.irs.gov/es/individuals/revised-application-standards-for-itins

*** Énfasis en Artículo 9, sub-elementos. Vea a continuación:

Subtema 1:

Certificados debidamente autenticados de los tribunales ubicados en cada jurisdicción en la que el solicitante ha residido, practicado leyes o ejercido como asesor legal extranjero, certificando la ausencia de procedimientos penales en su contra, juicios pendientes o no juzgados, o declaraciones de quiebra presentadas por o contra el solicitante en dicha jurisdicción.

Una carta de recomendación firmada por y con el sello oficial, si corresponde, de uno de los miembros del cuerpo ejecutivo de dicha entidad o de uno de los jueces del tribunal supremo de dicho país extranjero, que certifique las calificaciones profesionales del solicitante;

Una carta de recomendación de al menos dos miembros con buena reputación en el Colegio de Abogados del Estado, en la que se indica la duración, el momento y las circunstancias en las que han conocido al solicitante y su evaluación del carácter moral del solicitante.

Atención- Importante: Para hacer TODO este proceso de homologación, revalida, y estudios para ejercer en Estados Unidos, cualquier tipo de visa migratoria es aceptada, de hecho, algunos colegas hacen todo este proceso desde sus países sin tener ningún tipo de visa. PERO, antes que presentemos los expedientes solicitando admisión a la corte suprema y colegio de abogados [barras] TODOS abogada/os aspirantes requieren, ‘sine que non’, comenzar los tramites de solicitud para una visa de trabajo, o un permiso de trabajo para poder ejercer. TAMBIEN, desde que se comienza a hacer TODO este proceso de homologación, revalida, y estudios para ejercer en Estados Unidos – TODOS abogada/os aspirantes requieren pedir un número de impuesto personal [ITIN] solo en caso que no tengan un número de seguro social [SS]. Ver detalles del ITIN: https://www.irs.gov/es/individuals/revised-application-standards-for-itins

USA FLAG

JURISDICCIONES EN LAS CUALES PUEDES REVALIDAR Y EJERCER LA ABOGACIA GENERAL LIBRE

IBA CONFERENCE WA DC

Estimados colegas abogado/as extranjero/as: El siguiente es un reporte oficial del THE BAR EXAMINER, MARZO 2019 en el cual podemos ver las siete [7] jurisdicciones estatales donde los abogado/as extranjeros graduados en escuelas de derecho fuera de los Estados Unidos, pueden presentar examen para la admisión a la practica general del derecho estatal, y del derecho federal en los 50 estados (53 jurisdiciones) de los Estados Unidos. Estas son en orden alfabetico Y  de las cuales una [1] tienen una mejor facilidad como es, el Estado de Louisiana, donde solamente se requieren estudios adicionales de 14 creditos (4 materias) en Derecho Anglosajón [common law]- diferentes a otras jurisdicciones las cuales requieren hasta 26 creditos equivalente a una maestria LLM en US LAW.  VER Las siguientes jurisdicciones cuales tienen reciprocidad con abogados- abogadas extranjeros para la practica general de la abogacia:

CALIFORNIA – LOUISIANA –  NEW YORK –  VERMONT – WASHINGTON  – WISCONSIN – PALAU 

PARA VER la Guía Oficial A.B.A., detallando todos los siete Estados de EE.UU. y sus jurisdicciones cuales admiten la revalida a la práctica de la abogacía a los/las abogados/as extranjeros, abrir el siguiente enlace – VER paginas Chapter four [4]  http://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files/Comp-Guide/CompGuide.pdf

Estado de Wisconsin es el único estado en el que los graduados “locales” de las facultades de derecho de Wisconsin aprobados por la Asociación de Abogados de Estados Unidos (ABA) no tienen que tomar el examen de la barra estatal para ser admitidos en la barra estatal.

PRIVILEGIO DEL DIPLOMA:
Uno de los grandes beneficios de ser un estudiante de la Facultad de Derecho de la UW en Wisconsin es Diploma Privilege. Diploma Privilege permite a nuestros graduados obtener una licencia para ejercer la abogacía en Wisconsin sin tomar un examen de la barra. Esta oportunidad invaluable está disponible para los estudiantes que completen nuestra hoja de trabajo de cursos de Diploma Privilege (PDF) y obtengan una “C” o un promedio mejor. Wisconsin es el único estado del país que ofrece el privilegio de obtener un diploma.VER DETALLES HAZ CLIC AQUI: https://law.wisc.edu/current/diploma_privilege/

AVISO IMPORTANTE: Estas jurisdicciones antes mencionadas, las cuales permiten la revalida de la abogacía al abogado/a extranjero para la practica general libre estatal y federal, es totalmente diferente, y no debe  confundirse con la revalida de la abogacía internacional extranjera la cual es permitida en 33 estados de EE.UU. Y en las cuales no se presenta examen de admisión.  Para ver detalles de esta revalida a la abogacía internacional extranjera por 33 estados- favor de ver los siguientes articulos informativos- seguido- despúes de este articulo.

NAFA ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, Asociación Nacional para Abogados Extranjeros, es la única Institución – Colegio- para abogado/as extranjeros en los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, la cual capacita-  asiste y prepara todo el proceso de solicitud,  equivalencia de su documentación extranjera, con educación y capacitación; con material de estudios- preparando todo el proceso de solicitud ante el Colegio- Bar y Corte Suprema en cualquier de los siete (7) jurisdicciones estatales antes especificadas- de tal forma, obtener tu homologación y revalida con el derecho a la practica general de la abogacía en Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.

Para obtener una completa y detallada información sobre tu homologación, escríbenos vía este contacto electrónico aquí: ***Ayuda@nafalaw.com o llámanos numero: 1-888-282-2241 y haga una cita para atenderle personalmente. En NAFA ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION  2019 es el año de la homologación con revalida a la abogacia.

El siguiente enlace es un reporte informativo en tema relacionado a presentar un examen al Bar. Examenes: http://www.ncbex.org/exams/

Abogados Consultores Jurídicos extranjeros certificados en Florida.
Un Abogado Consultor Legal Extranjero es una persona admitida a la práctica en un país extranjero como un abogado, consejero en la ley, o su equivalente, y está certificado por la Corte Suprema de Florida para prestar servicios limitados en este estado como asesor legal con respecto a las leyes del país en el que el abogado está autorizado para ejercer. Un consultor legal extranjero no es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de la Florida, es miembro de la Sección de Derecho Internacional de Florida Bar  Actualmente hay 121 Abogados Consultores jurídicos extranjeros en Florida. Para ver el listado oficial haz clic aquí: http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/AFLC?Openview Cada 33 estados tienen su lista de Abogados Consultores Jurídicos extranjeros admitidos en cada estado. Nuestro fundador y director general Dr. Humphrey Humberto Pachecker, actualmente es le vicepresidente del colegio de abogados nacional, A.B.A., American Bar Association, sección de programas para abogados consultores extranjeros en todo Estados Unidos. Para ver detalles haz clic aquí: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/international_law/September%209.authcheckdam.pdf

 A.B.A., Foreign Legal Consultant Committee: INTFLC@mail.americanbar.org

  Humphrey Humberto Pachecker, Vice-Chair (Programs)

NUEVA LOCALIDAD CORTE AICAC-HR WASHINGTON DC BAJO NUEVO PRESIDENTE

Comisión General de Derechos Humanos de la Corte AICAC-HR, Washington DC., Dr. Humphrey Humberto Pachecker, en su primer período de sesiones de la Comisión Consultiva, tomó posesión. El Dr. Humphrey Humberto Pachecker, continuará sus funciones adicionales en capacidad de CEO NAFA LAW – UNPAM University, además de ocupar como el nuevo presidente de la Corte AICAC-HR y su Comisión de Derechos Humanos comenzando sus funciones este día primero de abril, 2019. PARA VER REGISTRO OFICIAL HAZ CLIC AQUI: AICAC-HR REGISTRATION DC.GOV

La Corte en su nuevo local, y bajo el nuevo presidente, Dr. Humphrey Humberto Pachecker, desde el mes de abril, 2019, está localizada a solo tres cuadras de la Casa Blanca y el Banco Mundial, esta prominente dirección de Pennsylvania Avenue la ubica en un distrito comercial dinámico de agencias federales, bufetes de abogados y grupos gubernamentales. El nuevo sitio Web en esta localidad y podemos ver paginas con varios servicios entrando por este enlace: http://courtaicac-hr.us/

Ver Carta de la Honorable Michelle Bachelet Jeria- UN High-Commissioner for Human Rights, dirigida a nuestro presidente AICAC-HR- al pie de este articulo: Video *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOxRUKWg430

Conforme a la resolución 3/8/19 del Presidente- ha sido creado un Comité Asesor del Consejo de Derechos Humanos, (en adelante “el Comité Asesor Jurídico Académico”), integrado por  expertos, y encabezado por el Abogado profesor Romer Fernando Villarroel Hurtado quien funcionará como profesor y asesor en Derechos Humanos en Estados Unidos y ante la jurisdicción de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos [CIDH] [OEA] http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/

El Abogado profesor Romer Fernando Villarroel Hurtado de la Corte AICAC-HR, trabajará bajo la dirección del Presidente en materia jurídica para radicar querellas y/o asesorar en las demandas interpuestas ante la CIDH por alguna parte que quiera “retener”, contratar los servicios de asesoramiento jurídico procesal ante la jurisdicción de la CIDH – OEA por honorarios al retenedor.

Igualmente el Abogado profesor Romer Fernando Villarroel, dirigirá el programa académico de formación para Maestría en Defensores de Derechos Humanos impartiendo clases magistrales de cursos en presencia y de consultas virtuales en línea directamente con el Abogado profesor Romer sustituyendo a la Academia de capacitación anterior para la Promoción y Protección de los Derechos Humanos.

La nueva Corte AICAC-HR, seguirá las directrices de la Subcomisión de las Naciones Unidas para Promoción y la Protección de los Derechos Humanos, y citamos.

El objetivo del nombramiento de los miembros del Comité, considerando los requisitos técnicos y objetivos contenidos en la decisión del Consejo 6/102, es asegurarse que el mejor asesoramiento y conocimientos especializados estén a disposición del Consejo. La función del Comité Asesor es la de proporcionar conocimientos especializados al Consejo de la forma que éste lo solicite, centrándose principalmente en un asesoramiento basado en estudios e investigaciones. Tales conocimientos especializados serán proporcionados únicamente cuando el Consejo lo solicite, en cumplimiento de sus resoluciones y bajo su orientación.

El Comité Asesor debería estar orientado a la implementación. El alcance de su asesoramiento deberá limitarse a las cuestiones temáticas que guardan relación con el mandato del Consejo, a saber, la promoción y protección de todos los derechos humanos. El Comité Asesor no adoptará resoluciones ni decisiones. Podrá formular, dentro del ámbito de trabajo establecido por el Consejo y para que éste las examine y apruebe, sugerencias para mejorar su eficiencia procedimental, así como propuestas de nuevos estudios dentro del ámbito de trabajo establecido por el Consejo.

Se insta al Comité Asesor a que, en el desempeño de su mandato, establezca una interacción con los Estados, las instituciones nacionales de derechos humanos, las ONG y otras entidades de la sociedad civil, de conformidad con las modalidades que apruebe el Consejo. Los Estados miembros y los observadores, incluidos los Estados que no sean miembros del Consejo, los organismos especializados, otras organizaciones intergubernamentales, instituciones nacionales de derechos humanos, así como las ONG, tendrán derecho a participar en la labor del Comité Asesor sobre la base de las disposiciones, en particular la resolución 1996/31 del Consejo Económico y Social, y las prácticas observadas por la Comisión de Derechos Humanos y por el Consejo, al mismo tiempo que se asegurará la contribución más eficaz posible de esas entidades.

El Comité Asesor celebrará hasta dos períodos de sesiones anuales, de un máximo de diez días laborables por año. La sesión inaugural se llevará a cabo del 4 al 15 de agosto de 2008 en el Palacio de las Naciones, Oficina de las Naciones Unidas en Ginebra.

Información sobre la Subcomisión.

La Subcomisión de las Naciones Unidas para Promoción y la Protección de los Derechos Humanos, el órgano subsidiario principal de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos, fue establecida en 1947. Originalmente la ‘Subcomisión para la Prevención de la Discriminación y la Protección de las Minorías’, fue renombrada en 1999. En 2006, los miembros eran 26: siete de África, cinco de Asia, cinco de América Latina y el Caribe, tres de Europa Oriental y seis de Estados de Europa Occidental y otros Estados.

Las funciones principales de la Subcomisión consistían en emprender estudios en derechos humanos, hacer recomendaciones referentes a la prevención de la discriminación de clase y de la protección de minorías. Los estudios emprendidos trataron diversos aspectos de la realización de derechos humanos, de la administración de la justicia, del combate a la discriminación de lucha y a la protección de los derechos humanos de las minorías, populaciones indígenas y otros grupos vulnerables. Los países son los siguientes: https://www.ohchr.org/SP/Countries/Pages/HumanRightsintheWorld.aspx

8 March 2019

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATION, THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 

Dear AICAC-HR : http://courtaicac-hr.us.  Humphrey H. Pachecker,

I would like to warmly thank you for your donation in support of human rights.

Human rights are being violated every day, in every corner of this planet. Helping and seeking justice for victims and preventing further violations from occurring are immense tasks, but I and my colleagues at the UN Human Rights Office are fully committed to standing up for the rights of every human being everywhere.

Donations like yours encourage me and my colleagues tremendously in our daily work. We are convinced that it is only by joining forces and standing up for rights together that we can make this world a better place. Your financial support will help us achieve more respect for human rights so we can have a concrete impact on people’s lives.

By contributing USD to my Office, you have joined a very important group; those who care and are committed to making a difference for human rights. Thank you again for your trust and support.

With my very best wishes,

Michelle Bachelet Jeria- UN High-Commissioner for Human Rights

 

Posthumous tribute to attorney Dr. George Harper of Miami, Florida

In this February 2019, has been two years since the death of attorney Dr. George Harper of Miami, Florida.

Memories of our own lives are often unreliable, so it should come as no surprise that the same is true of our colleagues, teachers, influencers and even our deceased loved ones. But in this case my memories are unforgettable.

Attorney George Harper, once in 1994 gave me a piece of advice which I have never forgotten, and in fact this advice has been part of my services within my national association for foreign lawyers NAFALAW.COM.

One day after completing a program of studies at the University of Miami, LLM International Law, the lawyer Dr. Harper and his colleagues invited the entire group of graduates to visit his offices in DownTown Miami. Visiting there in his luxurious office and giving us a walk through these offices, we did share with all colleagues good times, and enjoyed cupcakes and natural drinks.

Attorney Harper approached me, perhaps knowing that I was the only graduate of Cuban descent; but for whatever reason- he asked me about my future plans. My response was that, despite receiving an LLM program from the University of Miami, the Florida Bar of Admission had rejected my request to take the bar exam, in their response they explained that in Florida to have access to take the bar exam is necessary first to have a JD degree obtained from an university- law school approved by the ABA, and that my equivalence of my JD studies were obtained in a school not approved by ABA.

Attorney Harper’s response to my statement was divided into two parts.

The first part was that, although in Florida with my LLM- I could not take the bar exam, there were other states that would accept my LLM from UM University, in addition to my JD studies obtained at no ABA certificate, allowing me to take the bar exam, one of these states was NY.

The second part of his answer, was the most important for me to this day, and I quote: “Humphrey, you do not really need to take the Florida bar admission exam, I give you a confidential information! [he said with a smile]; filing for your admission to the Florida Bar, under the Chapter 16 rule, called the Foreign Law Consultant Lawyer, and then you only have to associate with a Florida lawyer to enter into a reciprocity agreement, you just have to follow the principles established in the case- ‘Florida vs . Savitt ‘”

At that moment I did not understand the importance of his response until the next day when I did an investigation of the precedent in this case, ‘Florida vs. Savitt ‘ and, at that moment was when I did understand the broad benefit of this rule. In my search, amplified, I was able to obtain a copy of “The Florida Bar Journal, volume LXIV, No. 2, February 1990”, written by attorney David S. Willig, and I quote: “Why we need foreign legal consultants in Florida.”

This wise statement with professional information told to me by the Dr. George Harper in 1994, has been one of my best working tools and the existence of my NAFA LAW institution to assisting and advising foreign lawyers in order to be admitted as attorney in the United States.

Then, in 1996, I was able to associate with a New York lawyer, Dr. George Chenoff, who applied for admission to the NY Bar and thus enabling us to practice federal laws and immigration laws until 2007- until the death of Dr. Chernoff who was my partner, friend and teacher.

I next, here below, quote an article with photos, in the form of a posthumous tribute- to Dr. George Harper, published in 2017 the Miami Herald newspaper.

“Foreign investment expert George Harper dies at 74″

George Harper was co-founder of the legal firm Harper Meyer in 2002 and an expert on foreign investment, aviation, banking and international business transactions. He was a member of Iron Arrow Honor Society. COURTESY STEVEN HARPER

When attorney George “Rocky” Harper advised clients on international investing, finance, franchising, commercial transactions and aviation, many followed his wisdom.

Before he graduated from the University of Miami School of Law in 1970, Harper knew all about foreign investment risk. Harper’s family owned and ran a 10,000-acre cattle and rice ranch in Sancti Spíritus, Cuba, which was expropriated when Fidel Castro took power.

His late father, George Kitchens Harper, managed to wrest just over $195,000 from Castro, in the form of a check. But it was better than many others fared under the new regime in 1959.

“While he was not compensated for his land or the value of his cattle and crops, at least he got something,” his son George Harper said in a 2009 Miami Herald story.

Five months after the transaction, the Harper family, including a then 17-year-old George Harper, who had been born in Havana, left Cuba for the United States. Harper arrived two days after graduating high school from Havana’s Ruston Academy.

His late mother, Cuban-born Elizabeth Pardo Harper, wanted her son to finish school so that he would be ready for college. He earned a degree in industrial management from Georgia Tech, served in the U.S. Navy and became a U.S. citizen before earning his law degree.

Harper, who lived in Coral Gables, died Feb. 20 at 74 from pneumonia, two months after he was diagnosed with liver cancer. He worked at the Miami firm he started in 2002 — Harper Meyer Perez Hagen O’Connor Albert & Dribin — until the end, said his son and legal partner, Steven Harper. Before Harper Meyer, he was a partner at Paul, Landy, Beiley and Harper and later at Steel Hector & Davis.

Harper helped large and small businesses avoid pitfalls common to international investors. His practices included international business transactions, inbound and outbound foreign investments, aviation and banking. Among his clients: Colombia’s Avianca, Empresas Polar from Venezuela and Latin American chicken chain Pollo Campero from Guatemala.

Protect yourself before you make any commitments. There are a lot of sharks all over the world.

Attorney George Harper in the Miami Herald, 2009.

He was also tapped frequently to speak on U.S.-Cuba relations. Harper was named to the Hispanic Business Magazine Legal Elite List and Miami Today’s Book of Leaders. He received the Inter-American Law Review Lawyer of the Americas Award and was named Lawyer of the Americas by the University of Miami Law Review.

His advice, from a 2009 Miami Herald business article: “You have to do your homework. Know your partner, know your market and know the laws of the country where you plan to do business.”

Harper, president of the Inter-American Bar Association in 2005 and chair of the International Law Section of The Florida Bar in 1989-1990, shared his expertise as an adjunct professor at the St. Thomas University Law School and UM’s law school, where he also served as president of the Law Alumni Association.

“He was a popular teacher; students enjoyed him,” said Dennis Lynch, dean emeritus from the UM School of Law. “He was known in the Miami legal community as an attorney with a very strong working knowledge of doing business in Latin America, the difficulties and how to approach it. He predated a lot of other attorneys in developing that expertise.”

We had a right to impose the embargo. They did not have the right to take over our properties without compensation.

Havana-born attorney George Harper in the Miami Herald, 2015.

Outside of law, Harper was a former chairman of the board of History Miami and sat on the board of its endowment fund. He also was a member of the Salvation Army’s Advisory Council.

Harper’s passions also influenced members of his family. His son Steven followed him into two careers — music and the law. During high school in Cuba, a young George Harper was a DJ on a Havana radio show, “Teenage Turntable.” When he was a boy, Steven Harper determined he would become a lawyer like his dad until he discovered pop music. For a couple of years in the late 1990s, Steven worked as a recording engineer at North Miami’s Criteria Studios.

As he saw changes coming to the music industry, Steven reverted to the early plan and became an attorney.

“He helped me come full circle and fulfill an early childhood dream,” Steven Harper said of his father. “The most important thing he ever taught me was to treat everyone with respect. That’s what he did, and it’s why he touched as many lives as he did.”

Legal partner James Meyer told the Daily Business Review that Harper was a mentor figure since they were associates together in 1989. He was “a father figure to me throughout my entire adult life, the guiding light of our firm and truly one of Miami’s greats.”

Married for 50 years to Jeanne, the couple met as children because their mothers were sorority sisters at Duke University in North Carolina. Steven said of his parents: “They were also best friends and fell in love.”

Here, too, son and father shared characteristics. Steven Harper met his wife, Betsy Colross Harper, when they were teens at Riviera Country Club in Coral Gables, where his father golfed.

Harper is also survived by his son Douglas and grandchildren Jonathan, Riley, Nicholas, Christopher, Elizabeth and James; brother Tom and sister Jean Harper.

A memorial for friends and family will be at 11 a.m. March 11 at St. Philip’s Episcopal Church, 1121 Andalusia Ave., Coral Gables. A memorial to celebrate Harper’s contributions to the legal, banking and business communities will be from 5-7 p.m. March 15 at Gusman Concert Hall, 1314 Miller Dr., Coral Gables. Donations can be made to the George R. Harper Scholarship at the University of Miami School of Law.”

EXCERPT OF ARTICLE BY HOWARD COHEN

HCOHEN@MIAMIHERALD.COM

FEBRUARY 23, 2017 03:40 PM,

UPDATED FEBRUARY 24, 2017 09:20 PM