Año 34- de análisis de la Asociación Nacional para Abogados Extranjeros- NAFA LAW

Año 34- 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.

La Asociación Nacional para Abogados Extranjeros (NAFA siglas en inglés), es la voz internacional de la profesión legal para abogados extranjeros, es la organización más importante para profesionales del derecho internacionales quienes desean obtener una homologación o equivalencia académica en Estados Unidos. Establecida originalmente en 1991 bajo el nombre de Abogados Licenciados, Corp., poco después en 1993 se incorpora bajo su nombre actual NAFA creada bajo la convicción de que nuestra organización integrada por los abogados extranjeros de todo mundo podría contribuir a la reciprocidad mundial con Estados Unidos para el ejercicio de la ley internacional.

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

Enmienda diciembre 2024 en vigor desde enero 2025. 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 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 30 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: 2025 https://www.internationallawsection.org/foreign-legal-consultancy-rule/

 REGLA 17. SOLICITUD RATIFICADA. Formularios de abogada/os internos autorizados en derecho comercial mercantil Capitulo 17- 2025. https://www.floridabar.org/rules/upl/upl004/

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:

REGLA 16-1.4 SOLICITUD RATIFICADA EN 30 DICIEMBRE 2024. https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/12/2025_06-DEC-Chapter-16-RRTFB-12-30-24.pdf

Un solicitante conforme a este capítulo debe presentar una solicitud [Formularios “A”] ante la Sección de Derecho Internacional del Colegio de Abogados de Florida que debe incluir:

(a) un certificado del organismo profesional o autoridad pública que tenga jurisdicción final sobre la disciplina profesional en el país extranjero en el que el solicitante está admitido, que certifique la admisión del solicitante para ejercer, la fecha de admisión, la buena reputación como abogado o consejero legal o su equivalente y una traducción al inglés debidamente autenticada del certificado si no está en inglés;

(b) una carta de recomendación de 1 de los miembros del organismo ejecutivo de la autoridad profesional o del organismo público o de 1 de los jueces del tribunal de justicia más alto del país extranjero y una traducción al inglés autenticada de la carta si no está en inglés;

(c) una declaración jurada del solicitante de que el solicitante [Formularios “A”]:

(1) ha leído y está familiarizado con las Reglas de conducta profesional adoptadas por la Corte Suprema de Florida y cumplirá y estará sujeto a sus disposiciones;

(2) se somete a la jurisdicción de la Corte Suprema de Florida para fines disciplinarios; y

(3) cumplirá con los requisitos de la regla con respecto a la divulgación;

(d) un compromiso escrito de notificar al Colegio de Abogados de Florida sobre Cualquier renuncia o revocación de la admisión del consultor legal extranjero para ejercer en el país extranjero de admisión, o en cualquier otro estado o jurisdicción en el que el consultor haya sido autorizado como abogado, consejero legal o equivalente o como consultor legal extranjero, o sobre cualquier censura, suspensión o expulsión con respecto a la admisión [Formularios “A”];

(e) un documento notariado que establezca la dirección del solicitante dentro del estado de Florida y que designe al secretario de estado como el agente de la persona a quien se le puede notificar el proceso como si se hubiera notificado personalmente al solicitante de conformidad con la ley aplicable de Florida, en cualquier acción o procedimiento iniciado contra el solicitante que surja de o se base en cualquier servicio legal ofrecido o proporcionado por el solicitante dentro o a los residentes del estado de Florida, cuando no se pueda realizar la notificación al solicitante en la dirección después de la debida diligencia [Formularios “A”]; y

(f) otra evidencia de la naturaleza y el alcance de las calificaciones educativas y profesionales del solicitante, su buen carácter moral, su aptitud general y su cumplimiento de la reglamentación general de certificación establecida en otras partes de este capítulo.

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). SOLO REQUERIDO POR EL BAR DE EXAMINADORES NACIONAL “NCBE”: Una carta de recomendación de al menos dos (2) abogados, consejeros de la ley, o el equivalente admitidos en la práctica 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). SOLO REQUERIDO POR EL BAR DE EXAMINADORES NACIONAL “NCBE”: Una carta de recomendación de al menos dos (2) miembros abogados de la barra de abogados de cualquier 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 [Formularios “A”];

(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. [Formularios “A”]

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. [Formularios “A”]

(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, [Formularios “A”]  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 “A” 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

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

HUMPHREY HUMBERTO PACHECKER VS. FIDEL CASTRO Y EL PARTIDO COMUNISTA DE CUBA – DOS BILLONES DE DOLARES

EXPEND-1621 008

HUMPHREY HUMBERTO PACHECKER IBA- Bar colegio intenacional de abogados: No. 1061345- desde 1994. ABA- Bar colegio nacional de abogados: No. 01049251. AICAC-HR Court ID No. 05814. 

Dr. Pachecker, recibió una sentencia por defecto [rebeldía] vinculante a favor de su familia, padre Humberto Pacheco León y Cárdenas Jr., por abusos y violaciones sufridas en Cuba, igualmente a favor de la sociedad cubana anti-castrista en Florida, EE.UU., contra de y en función de la falta de acción de Fidel Castro y su Partido Comunista con emplazamiento via a la Sección de Intereses Cubanos de la Embajada Suiza en Washington DC con su representante legal autorizada Sra. Liubia Harris- año 2004.

El hecho de que los demandados, Partido Comunista de Cuba con Fidel Castro, no actuaron dentro del tiempo procesal del emplazamiento y ‘subpoena’ es el valor predeterminado en sentencia por daños causados a los demandantes en el año 2004. El fallo por defecto es el alivio solicitado en la petición original de la parte PACHECKER. Este juicio civil a nivel federal en Florida  involucró daños multimillonarios e ingresó la cantidad de daños alegados en la queja original por dos Billones de dólares.

Dr. Humphrey Humberto Pachecker es un profesor de derecho, abogado decendencia cubano americano- educado en Estados Unidos. Es miembro del Foro de Derechos Humanos para Europa y África del Bar IBA de Inglaterra. Es el Comisionado General de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Corte AICAC-HR de Washington DC. Y es vicepresidente [Vice Chair] del American Bar Association [ABA] 2014- Sección Derecho Internacional FLC.

Ha sido colaborador y acusador en varios casos con escritos legales y quejas relacionadas con los Derechos Humanos Internacionales.

Presentó esta demanda exitosa contra Fidel Castro, el Partido Comunista de Cuba- documentos los cuales se pueden ver aquí seguidos.

En el mes de 2017, Humphrey H. Pachecker, recibió el nombramiento del Tribunal AICAC-HR de Washington DC para Comisionado General de la Comisión Internacional de Derechos Humanos de Investigaciones Judiciales y Policiales, en su calidad de Comisionado General para todo Estados Unidos. Además de otros nombramientos anunciados por la Secretaría General del Tribunal AICAC-HR.

N.A.F.A. [Asociación Nacional para Abogados Extranjeros, siglas en inglés], bajo la administración de Humphrey Humberto Pachecker, ha establecido varios precedentes importantes en la educación y en la ley.

Uno y el más notable de estos precedentes en la ley, es esta demanda presentada en los Tribunales Federales de los Estados Unidos, contra los acusados, Fidel Castro Ruz y el Partido Comunista de Cuba, Et Al.

Otro Precedente importante igualmente es el caso ante la Corte Suprema de Florida año 2002, por regulaciones arbitrarias en la practica de la abogacía, regulaciones las cuales afectaban el ejercicio del abogado extranjero en Florida en la practica Paralegal. El resultado dio la creación a la Regla 20 de la barra de abogado de Florida, legitimando la practica Paralegal. VER DETALLES EN ESTE ENLACE: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA – BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FLORIDA BAR:  https://www.nafalaw.com/en_bencla.html

En un tercer caso con precedente importante es cuando la Corte Suprema de Florida dictaminó, en el caso Dr. Pachecker, contra sus propias decisiones anteriores, no solo con respecto a la práctica legal no autorizada, el estado de limitación, los procedimientos de descubrimiento y los procedimientos civiles, sino también en violación al acuerdo internacional de asociación interestatal del Dr. Pachecker con un abogado de Nueva York Dr. Chernoff. El alcance de su actividad como abogado internacional asociado a la firma de George Chernoff, un miembro de la corte federal en Nueva York y de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, es adyacente al problema presentado en el caso de Sperry v. Florida, 373 EE. UU. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963).

Otro precedente- demanda por violaciones a los derechos civiles y violaciones por prácticas comerciales fraudulentas en contra del Banco Chase del Estado de Texas- verlo aquí: https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/Case-Information/Case-Disposition-Orders/2004-Case-Disposition-Orders/September/Humphrey-Humberto-Pachecker-v.-Chase-Bank-of-Texas-etc

El alcance de su actividad como socio de George Chernoff, abogado de Nueva York, es análogo al tema presentado en Sperry v. Florida, 373 EE. UU. 379. Esto dio lugar a radicar su apelación ante la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos bajo una petición llamada Writ for Certiorari: Ver detalles haz clic aquí: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-9192.htm

Este conjunto de leyes en el caso Castro fue exitosamente ganado por el Dr. Pachecker por  un incumplimiento de los Demandados con el juicio de una petición por dos (2) mil millones de dólares estadounidenses. Dr. Pachecker tiene varios precedentes marcados en las paginas del derecho internacional- Ingrese aquí para ver esta demanda y documentos de juicio: http://www.nafalaw.com/es1/lawsuit.pdf En adición: http://nafalaw.com/blog/?p=173

Pagina principal-Ver acciones adicionales aquí: http://nafalaw.com/blog/2016/08/03/n-a-f-a-declara-guerra-judicial-en-contra-de-cuba-comunista-en-los-tribunales-publicos-de-derechos-humanos/

Esta sentencia contra Fidel Castro y  su partico comunista fue revocada seis meses más tarde por el juez presidente del tribunal federal en lo que el peticionario Humphrey Humberto Pachecker presentó en su escrito de apelación ante la Corte Suprema con alegatos de ‘activismo judicial’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism; sospechando de estar basado en consideraciones personales o influencias políticas más que en la ley existente.

En esta decisión revocatoria del juez el demandante tiene hasta 20 años. [“§95.11 (1) doméstico; 5 años- sentencia extranjera §95.11 (2) (a)”] para apelar. http://www.shdlegalgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Fla.-Stat.-_-95.11.pdf

Esta decisión del juez presidente, fue hecha en violación de varias teorías jurídicas, contraria a precedentes de las cortes federales en California, y contrario a la conformidad de las siguientes actas federales llamadas:

1)- ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT, 28 U.S.C. Sección 1350,

2)- LEY DE PROTECCIÓN DE VÍCTIMAS DE TORTURA, 106, Estatuto 73, 1992. Public Law 102-256- Torture Victim Act.

VER IMAGENES DE ALGUNOS DOCUMENTOS ORIGINALES RELACIONADOS A ESTE CASO:

1. DEMANDA VS. CASTRO PART COMUNISTA

2. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 3. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 4. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 5. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 6. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 7. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 8. DEMANDA VS. CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 9. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 10. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 11. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 12. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 13. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 14. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 15. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 16. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA 17. DEMANDA VS CASTRO PART COMUNISTA

Why we- USA, needs foreign attorneys here in any case? – ¿Por qué nosotros, EE. UU., necesitamos abogada/os extranjeros aquí en cualquier caso? Español – English

USA FLAG

Part I [english]

Parte II. [español]

The National Association for Foreign Attorneys [N.A.F.A. LAW] has continuously advocated for the reciprocity rule since 1992 when the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the reciprocity admission proposal for foreign attorneys known as Chapter 16 Foreign Legal Consultant.

In evaluating the issue of foreign attorneys working as foreign legal consultant in United States, the main question shall be to ask- why we, USA, needs foreign attorneys here in any case? Answer to the query requires examination of the economic situation of our country, and the practice of law which guides it in its development.

As our population and economy continue to broaden the USA’s horizons, the need for foreign lawyers’ services [FLC] will increase as well. USA local investors with business projects abroad, as well as international investors from abroad seeking opportunities in United States, are often in need of, and would therefore benefit from, the convenience of  having a foreign legal consultants, foreign lawyers, readily available to advise on such questions.

Rather than overlap or even conflict, the activity of foreign lawyers legal consultants complements the work of local lawyers called upon to anticipate the effects of an international transaction negotiated in USA or involving a party from USA. The local lawyer examining a matter from the perspective of the client may not always be prepared to plan adequately for all of the legal consequences arising out of a transaction to be performed, either in whole or in part, in a foreign jurisdiction.

The need for foreign lawyers FLC is felt in the litigation arena as well. Litigation matters may arise as natural outgrowth of the increase in international business in which USA plays  a role of growing importance in the hemisphere and beyond. Along with the flow of foreign capital into USA, there is a parallel influx of foreign nationals.

Another very important consideration in which the foreign law consultant lawyer, once s/he has been admitted to practice, this other consideration is to complement the work by assisting local lawyers other areas of law such as in immigration matters as well in other federal issues such as trademark intellectual law and patents.

Many such persons investors, own, or come to own , property in USA, including real estate, bank accounts, securities accounts, and other assets. A very important and necessary subject for every foreign investor is immigration. Work visas, investor visas, professional visas and intra-company visas are subjects of great need for these investors, professional employees, businessmen, as well as for local lawyers who assist these people. FLC foreign lawyers can specialize in immigration law and processes and complement the work of local attorneys.

The National Association for Foreign Lawyers (NAFA), is the international voice of the legal profession for foreign lawyers, is the most important organization for international legal professionals who wish to obtain an academic recognition or equivalency in the United States. Originally established in 1991 under the name Abogados Licenciados, Corp., shortly after in 1993 it was incorporated under its current name NAFA created under the conviction that our organization made up of foreign lawyers from all over the world could contribute to global reciprocity with the United States for the practice of international law.

Update for Foreign Education in law.

The State Bar of California [year 2021] includes attorneys who have been educated abroad. They do not have to be citizens to be a licensed attorney in California, but they do have to fill out some extra paperwork. If an applicant wants to practice law in California as a foreign-educated applicant not admitted to practice law in any United States jurisdiction, the information and forms are below. These guidelines do not apply to attorneys who are already admitted to the active practice of law in a foreign country or in another U.S. jurisdiction and are in good standing. These ‘foreign attorneys’ are qualified to take the California Bar Examination without having to complete any additional legal education. ‘No LLM required anymore’. See more information entering this link here: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education/Legal-Education/Foreign-Education

Following the 8 CFR 292.1-3 Code, which means that, “Any attorney- any person who is eligible to practice law in, and is a member in good standing of any court, the supreme court of any state, any possession, any territory or the Commonwealth of the United States, or the District of Columbia, and is not under any order to suspend, sanction, restrict, or otherwise prohibit it in the practice of law.”

This rule applies very well to attorneys certified in any state in the United States as a foreign law consultant to the FLC, once admitted by a state supreme court and by any state bar association, as a member of the section of international law of the FLC.

This Legal writing involves the analysis of precedents fact patterns and presentation of arguments such as legal memoranda and briefs. This one legal writing involves a balanced analysis of a legal problem known as the authorized practice of law by foreign attorneys admitted as Foreign Legal Consultant [FLC]. This form of legal writing is persuasive, and advocates in favor of our legal position. By HUMPHREY H. PACHECKER – parts reprinted.

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN SPERRY V. FLORIDA.

U.S. Supreme Court

Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963)

Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar

No. 322

Argued March 25, 1963

Decided May 27, 1963

373 U.S. 379

Petitioner Mr. Sperry is not a lawyer, and has never been admitted to the Bar of any State, but, under regulations issued by the Federal Commissioner of Patents with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 31, he has been authorized to practice before the United States Patent Office.

As part of that practice, he has for many years represented patent applicants, prepared and prosecuted their applications, and advised them in connection with their applications in the State of Florida.

The Florida Bar sued Mr. Sperry in the Supreme Court of Florida to enjoin the performance of these and other specified acts within the State, contending that they constituted unauthorized practice of law.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that:

  1. Florida may not prohibit Mr. Sperry petitioner from performing within the State tasks which are incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications before the Patent Office. Pp. 373 U. S. 381-402. [Federal law].

 (a) The determination of the Supreme Court of Florida that the preparation and prosecution of patent applications for others constitutes the practice of law, within the meaning of the law of that State, is not questioned. P. 373 U. S. 383.

(b) Florida has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the State, and, in the absence of federal legislation on the subject; it could validly prohibit nonlawyers from engaging in this circumscribed form of patent practice. P. 373 U. S. 383.

 (c) A federal statute, 35 U.S.C. § 31, expressly permits the Commissioner of Patents to authorize practice before the Patent Office by nonlawyers; the Commissioner has explicitly granted such authority; and Florida may NOT deny to those failing to meet its own qualifications the right to perform acts within the scope of the federal authority. Pp. 373 U. S. 384-385.

(d) There cannot be read into the federal statute and regulations a condition that such practice must not be inconsistent with state law, thus leaving registered patent practitioners with the unqualified right to practice only in the physical presence of the 373 U. S. 380 Patent Office and in the District of Columbia, where that Office is now located. Pp. 373 U. S. 385-387.

In this legal writing, we do recognize that the unauthorized practice of immigration law has been an ongoing and growing problem for the past several decades in the United States. There are numerous commentaries and publications in the legal community regarding the unauthorized practice of law by the ill-named “notarios publico,” commonly known as “notarios,” and other unauthorized immigration consultants.

The practice of immigration law by out-of-state licensed attorneys [and by foreign attorneys admitted by the state supreme court of any state as a foreign law consultant], however, has not received any substantive attention for years.

Thus the question becomes: What does it mean to be a U.S.  Lawyer or Foreign lawyer who is admitted to practice and what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law by a licensed attorney? The type of licensed lawyers we focus on here are those who move from the state(s) [or other country] in which they are admitted, and then set up their law practice, concentrating in the field of immigration law, in one state.

These lawyers believe this is acceptable, based in large part upon the Supreme Court decision of Sperry v. Florida, so long as they practice “purely” federal law. Paragraph (d)(2) recognizes that a U.S. or foreign lawyer may provide legal services in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is not licensed when authorized to do so by federal or other law, which includes statute, court rule, executive regulation or judicial precedent. ABA Model Rule on Practice Pending Admission. Laying aside the question of what constitutes unauthorized practice of the law; Professor Bennett devotes his study to the right of state and federal agencies to authorize non-lawyers to practice before them and to a discussion of the right of legislative bodies in general to determine who shall practice law.

Non-Lawyers and the Practice of Law before State and Federal Agencies. Bennett, Wallace R. “Non-Lawyers and the Practice of Law before State and Federal Agencies.” American Bar Association Journal, vol. 46, no. 7, 1960, pp. 705–709. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25721213. Accessed 14 Dec. 2020.

The argument is that since FLC and authorized nonlawyers limit their practice to federal immigration law, it is not necessary to become members of the bar in the state(s) in which planning to practice federal immigration law.

Before delving into the issue of unauthorized practice of law as it relates to licensed attorneys, it is vitally important to note those who clearly are violating the law. The undisputedly unauthorized practice of law we refer to here is that which is done by the so-called notarios who hold themselves out to be immigration experts. They are usually unauthorized non certified foreign attorneys and other immigration consultants. Within the American legal system, they are simply non-lawyers and thus considered to be lay persons who do not have any right to provide legal assistance to any individual.

Unlicensed attorneys are typically not part of the ABA or any other professional organization or State Bar which may regulate their conduct. Therefore, their ability to harm the public within the states that do not regulate them is immeasurable.

A registered foreign legal consultant (FLC) is an attorney or counselor at law (or equivalent) licensed in another country who has received special certification from the State Supreme Court and the State Bar to represent a client in this state. A foreign legal consultant can practice law in a limited manner in US. This includes admission Pro Hac Vice, Administrative admission rules and admission as an In-house Lawyer advising a company or corporation in one particular field of business state law, or coordination with outside counsel on litigation matters. Eg. See The Florida Bar rules of admission Chapter 16 – Chapter 17- Florida Supreme Court.

One ongoing significant case of a Foreign Legal Consultant practicing immigration law in New Jersey is a Brazilian lawyer, Mrs. Norka Schell, exemplifies the problem of foreign attorneys engaging in the unauthorized practice of immigration law despite Sperry Case. The case also highlights the state legal system’s failure to properly and legally regulate the unauthorized practice of law.

Ms. Schell is a credentialed foreign legal consultant by the New Jersey Supreme Court, and allowed to represent clients in New Jersey solely by giving legal advice on Brazilian law, the country where she is licensed.

Law enforcement officials, however, have claimed that Ms. Schell has been engaging in the unauthorized practice of law for more than twelve years. On her website, Ms. Schell indicates that she offers services related to U.S. immigration law which officials claim goes beyond what she is authorized to practice.

To date, no charges of unauthorized practice have been filed against Ms. Schell, and she has not been barred from providing immigration related services. https://www.lawschell.com/

The issues surrounding the unauthorized practice of law discussed above raise questions about states’ ethical rules. The rationale used by immigration lawyers who are licensed in one foreign jurisdiction but then proceed to petition for admission as a FLC attorney to physically live and practice law in U.S. whereby they are unlicensed and practicing without the assistance of a licensed attorney in that state arises from the U.S. Supreme Court decision Sperry v. Florida. The controversy over the unauthorized practice of law was the emphasis of this 1963 Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Alexander T. Sperry (Sperry), a non-attorney, practiced patent law in Tampa, Florida without admission neither to the Florida Supreme Court nor to the Florida Bar or any other state bar. Mr. Sperry, however, was licensed to practice by a federal agency before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The Florida Bar sought to enjoin Sperry’s conduct on the ground that it constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The Florida State Court did not question the determination that, under Florida law, preparing and prosecuting patent applications for others constituted practicing law.

But, in the decision delivered by Chief Justice Warren, however, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that although Florida has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the State, it could NOT validly prohibit this “practice” because Congress provided “that the Commissioner of Patents [or any other federal agency] ‘may prescribe regulations governing the recognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties before the patent office.’”

Thus, state law must “yield” when it is incompatible with federal law.

The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sperry provides an important explanation regarding the prohibition of unauthorized practice of law. In Sperry suggests that a State’s unauthorized practice of law rules and regulations CANNOT obstruct an individual’s right to practice if such practice is authorized by federal law.

Thus, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal law that authorized practice before the USPTO was superior to Florida’s unauthorized practice of law statute and therefore the Florida state law had NO right to hinder or interfere with the federal statute at stake.

The Sperry decision influenced various groups of people who sought to practice before federal agencies. Some of these groups have argued that the Sperry decision means that an out-of-state, and foreign  licensed attorney admitted and certified as FLC can practice federal law if his or her federal practice is clearly covered by authorizing language similar to the federal patent office statutes discussed in Sperry.

The Sperry “federal practice exception” to the unauthorized practice rules, however, has been limited to the facts of that federal case and applies only where there is a federal statute specifically authorizing such practice.

Therefore, in order to demonstrate the effect of Sperry’s decision on the area of immigration law we must examine the federal statute that governs who can practice immigration law. 8 C.F.R. Section 292.1.

Who Can Practice: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was created as a set of practical and procedural rules for those appearing before the federal agencies. The CFR outlines a wide range of representatives who may appear before the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as well as before the Department of Justice, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The allowed representation includes the following: (1) attorneys licensed to practice law in one of the states of the United States;

(2) law students and law graduates;

(3) reputable individuals; 72

(4) accredited representatives;

(5) accredited officials; and

(6) foreign attorneys.

The CFR, however, sets certain restrictions for non-attorneys as to the establishment of the immigration practice and remuneration for such representation.

There remains, however, 8 C.F.R. section 292.1(a) (1), which allows any attorney licensed by a state in the United States to practice immigration law.

The language implies that, as long as a U.S. licensed local and foreign attorney restricts his/her practice to federal immigration law, his/her practice is permissible in any state and will withstand any state level unauthorized practice of law rules.

In Sperry there was a federal statute authorizing the USPTO to set licensing requirements for patent attorneys and agents. Requirements include an examination administered by the USPTO. In contrast, in immigration law representation before USCIS, ICE, CBP, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) does NOT require special registration or licensing.

Taking Sperry as a starting point, the Department of Justice “promulgated disciplinary regulations on a nationwide basis governing the privilege of appearing as an attorney or representative before the [Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)], the Immigration Courts, and the [USCIS].”

The national disciplinary scheme was criticized from different standpoints. Many commentators argued that the unilateral national disciplinary scheme of the federal agencies is inappropriate; states should have sole jurisdiction over the disciplinary rules because a unilateral scheme would cause confusion and uncertainty with the states’ rules. Furthermore, critics objected to a dual disciplinary system that punishes practitioners twice for the same conduct.

Finally, it was called an “unnecessary and impermissible intrusion” into the state law licensure process; “to bar a lawyer from practice before an agency is unheard of.”

The ABA acquiesced and suggested that EOIR and USCIS establish a system where attorneys’ misconduct is reported to the state disciplinary authority, who would then notify the agencies about sanctioned lawyers. This National disciplinary scheme, however, involves only USCIS and EOIR, excluding other federal and state agencies involved in immigration law practice.

Immigration is NOT Solely the Practice of Federal Law Nonetheless, many states bar federal immigration law practice by out-of-state licensed and foreign attorneys for the stated reason of protecting public interests, increasing professionalism, and punishing violators.

A state’s disciplinary rules ONLY bind state-licensed attorneys, so an attorney licensed outside of that state would not be bound by those rules. The issue of fairness arises, as the rules are not the same for all attorneys practicing in that state. State-licensed attorneys are subject to higher standards set by the state bar while corresponding federal standards are very low or virtually nonexistent.

Additionally, states cannot be silent when the practice of an out-of-state foreign licensed attorney involves state law. Clearly, immigration law cannot be called “pure” federal law as long as practice questions involve a wide range of state laws. In 2002, a New York licensed lawyer who had established an immigration law practice in Houston was sued by the Texas Bar’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee.

The Committee alleged that the attorney, Ms. Senanayake, violated the Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Statute by practicing law in Texas without a license. The Committee was concerned about the effect of Texas family and criminal law on Ms. Senanayake’s clients’ immigration cases.

Furthermore, the Committee raised the issue that Ms. Senanayake could not be controlled by either the Texas bar or by federal agencies. The case was ultimately dropped by the Committee.

In comparison, an article authored by the Deputy Director and General Counsel of the Oregon State Bar concluded that there is no clear answer to the question of whether an out-of-state foreign licensed attorney can establish a federal practice in Oregon without taking and passing the Oregon bar exam. After careful review of relevant case law, the Director observed that the “cases are a strong basis for concluding that an out-of-state lawyer cannot set up a bankruptcy practice in a state he is not licensed in even if the lawyer is admitted to the bar of the federal court in that state.”

The Director strongly encouraged attorneys seeking to practice in Oregon to take the bar exam so as to avoid unauthorized practice of law issues. Even more striking, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the unauthorized practice of law is “not limited to practice utilizing the common law and statutes of Maryland.” Rather, the court held that the unauthorized practice of law includes any advice to clients and preparation of any legal documents, even on the basis of federal or foreign law, by an attorney not admitted to practice in the state whose principal office is in the state. The court also stated, “the goal of the prohibition against unauthorized practice is to protect the public from being preyed upon by those not competent to practice law from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation.” The Maryland Court of Appeals was deciding a case involving a member of the District of Columbia bar who was admitted to practice in the federal court in Maryland but not in the Maryland state bar.

The attorney contended that he was free to practice “federal” and “non-Maryland” law. At the outset the court made it clear that the case involved a person who was “not admitted to practice law in Maryland holding himself out to the public as an attorney engaged in the general practice of law in Maryland from a principal office in Maryland.” The court found this to be unauthorized practice of law. “This is so whether the legal principles he was applying were established by the law of Montgomery County, the State of Maryland, and some other state of the United States, the United States of America, or a foreign nation.”

The Sperry argument failed here in Maryland principally because the unauthorized practice of law involved in the case was not limited to the practice of federal law.

Other state courts have also shown their negative treatment of out-of-state foreign licensed attorneys through advertising restrictions. A New York licensed attorney brought a case against the Florida Bar challenging the state’s advertising restrictions for out-of-state counsel.

The Plaintiff claimed that he would be charged with unauthorized practice of law if his advertisement stated either “New York Legal Matters Only” or “Federal Administrative Practice” and included an address for a Florida-based law office.

He also argued that the advertising restrictions violated his First Amendment rights. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, however, held that advertising restrictions for out-of-state counsel did not violate the attorney’s First Amendment rights. The court found that the attorney’s proposed advertisement both concerned unlawful activity and misled. There was no state or federal law, rule, or regulation that allowed non-licensed attorneys to engage in general federal administrative practice in Florida.

Another court in Florida found a New York-licensed attorney committed unauthorized practice of law for advertising his availability as an attorney in Miami telephone books, newspapers, and television with the implication that he was authorized to practice in Florida.

The court held that the defendant had knowingly created the impression that he was authorized to practice in Florida on his own because the advertisements did not indicate the defendant’s membership in the New York bar or his limited immigration law area of practice. Therefore, the attorney committed unauthorized practice of law. Clearly, as outlined in Sperry, states still have a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within state borders.

In the absence of federal legislation, states could validly prohibit non-state- and foreign licensed lawyers from engaging in federal administrative practice immigration law.1

CONCLUSION Any attempt to practice state law without admission to the state bar can be considered as unauthorized practice of law. At first blush, practicing federal immigration law is seen as a possible safe harbor for an out-of-state foreign licensed attorney. The complexity of federal immigration law and its impact on state laws, however, gives state bars a wide range of options to bring complaints against attorneys not licensed in the state based on an unauthorized practice of law statute.

Any attorney, before establishing a practice in a state where he or she is not licensed should familiarize himself or herself with that state bar’s admission and rules for unauthorized practice of law. The highest standards of the legal profession must be preserved. This is possible only under strict supervision of the regulating authorities.

Rules are set for the legal profession not just to set minimum standards of conduct, but to protect the clients, who become the victims of unauthorized practitioners.

Code 8 CFR 292.1-3. Foreign lawyers may practice in immigration law as a lawyer under the condition that: lawyers NOT certified in the US, by any supreme court, then they may only represent citizens of their country (the lawyer’s country of origin) and, in the moment the client hires her/his  services, said client is in the lawyer’s country. The client at the time of hiring the legal services of this lawyer can NOT be within the US.

Furthermore, following the Code 8 CFR 292.1-3, meaning that, ”Any attorney means any person who is eligible to practice law in, and is a member in good standing of any bar of, the highest court of any State, any possession, any territory, or Commonwealth of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, and is not under any order suspending, enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise restricting him or her in the practice of law.”

This rule very well applies to lawyers certified in some state of the United States as an FLC, foreign law consultant, once she/he has been admitted by any state supreme court and by any state bar association, as member of a court as FLC- bar’s international law section.

But, a second analysis of this rule, very well applies to lawyers certified in some state of the United States as a FLC, foreign law consultant, following the precedent established in Sperry.

In The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 591; 373 U.S. 379, the Supreme Court found that setting forth broad definition of the practice of law was “nigh onto impossible.”  Federal statutes authorize the federal commission and agency to prescribe regulations governing the recognition and conduct of agents, foreign attorneys, and other persons representing applicants before these federal agencies. Therefore, the States, Florida- cannot prohibit this federal practice once a person is licensed by any of these federal agencies- the practice is the authorized practice of law.

In addition, a third analysis, following the precedent of Savitt, applies to lawyers certified in some US state as an FLC, foreign law consultant, when they become associated with local lawyers entering into a reciprocity agreement for the practice of law following the Savitt principles.

In The Florida Bar v. Savitt,  363 So.2d 559, the Supreme Court held that, [T]he firm [law office] and its members, associates or employees properly may conduct the following practice of law:… (e)give legal advice on the law of jurisdictions other than Florida to non-Florida clients in transaction with person residing in Florida or with  business enterprises having their principal place of business in Florida; provided that matters of Florida law, if any, are handled by members of The Florida Bar and provided that, if the lawyer giving the legal advice is not a member of The Florida Bar, the lawyer is in Florida on a transitory basis:…

Parte II. [español]

A medida que nuestra población y nuestra economía continúen ampliando los horizontes de Estados Unidos, también aumentará la necesidad de servicios de abogados extranjeros [FLC]. Los inversionistas locales de EE. UU., con proyectos comerciales en el extranjero, así como los inversionistas internacionales del extranjero que buscan oportunidades en los Estados Unidos, a menudo necesitan y, por lo tanto, se beneficiarían de la conveniencia de tener consultores legales extranjeros, abogados extranjeros, disponibles para asesorar tales preguntas.

Más que solapamientos o incluso conflictos, la actividad de los abogados extranjeros como consultores legales complementa el trabajo de los abogados locales llamados a anticipar los efectos de una transacción internacional negociada en EE. UU. O que involucre a una parte de EE. UU. Es posible que el abogado local que examina un asunto desde la perspectiva del cliente no siempre esté preparado para planificar adecuadamente todas las consecuencias legales que surjan de una transacción a realizar, ya sea en su totalidad o en parte, en una jurisdicción extranjera.

La necesidad de abogados extranjeros también se siente en el ámbito de los litigios. Los litigios pueden surgir como consecuencia natural del aumento de los negocios internacionales en los que EE.UU. juega un papel de creciente importancia en el hemisferio y más allá. Junto con el flujo de capital extranjero hacia EE. UU., Existe una afluencia paralela de ciudadanos extranjeros. Muchas de estas personas poseen o llegan a poseer propiedades en EE. UU., Incluidos bienes raíces, cuentas bancarias, cuentas de valores y otros activos. Una materia muy importante y necesaria para todo inversionista extranjero es la inmigración. Visas de trabajo, visas de inversionistas, visas profesionales y visas de intra-empresas son temas de gran necesidad para estos inversionistas, empleados profesionales, empresarios, igualmente para abogados locales quienes asisten a estas personas. Abogada/os extranjeros FLC pueden especializarse en leyes y procesos de inmigración y complementar el trabajo de los abogados locales. 

Nosotros en NAFA LAW hemos escrito sobre este tema de reciprocidad entre abogada/os extranjeros y abogada/os locales. Hemos enviando correos al- ABA, IBA, FLA BAR, y otros colegios reguladores de la practica de la abogacía, pidiéndoles que tomen acción con una iniciativa eficaz y efectiva- pero nuestros escritos y solicitudes han caído en “oídos sordos”.

La Asociación Nacional para Abogados Extranjeros (NAFA siglas en inglés), es la voz internacional de la profesión legal para abogados extranjeros, es la organización más importante para profesionales del derecho internacionales quienes desean obtener una homologación o equivalencia académica en Estados Unidos. Establecida originalmente en 1991 bajo el nombre de Abogados Licenciados, Corp., poco después en 1993 se incorpora bajo su nombre actual NAFA creada bajo la convicción de que nuestra organización integrada por los abogados extranjeros de todo mundo podría contribuir a la reciprocidad mundial con Estados Unidos para el ejercicio de la ley internacional.

Nuestra sugerencia es muy simple la cual ya es un tema de  “res judicata” desde el año 1978, y se llama: “The Florida Bar v. Savitt”- 363 So. 2d 559 (1978).

Este caso con su decisión de la Corte Suprema de Florida dio lugar a que abogados extranjeros ya licenciados en Florida como abogados consultores internacionales, puedan asociarse a partes iguales con abogados locales de Florida y con abogados estatales de otros Estados fuera de Florida, para que puedan entrar en acuerdos de trabajo por reciprocidad con ‘Acuerdos de Asociación Interestatal’, y ‘Acuerdos de Asociación Internacional’, entre abogados donde los servicios y honorarios sean distribuidos a partes iguales siempre siguiendo los principios establecidos en este caso “The Florida Bar v. Savitt”- 363 So. 2d 559 (1978).

Esta sería una verdadera estrategia de mercadeo que serviría a todos los públicos, Americanos, Hispanos.

En esta historia “res judicata” un abogado extranjero, no licenciado por la Corte Suprema de Florida, no miembro del Florida Bar, pero si licenciado en otro Estado y por otra  corte suprema de Bar de Estados Unidos, viene al Estado de Florida para abrir una firma de abogados en Miami.

Esta acción fue inicialmente presentada por el Colegio de Abogados del Florida Bar de conformidad con el Artículo XVI de la Regla de Integración, para obtener una orden judicial que impida a los demandados Savitt and Asociados, participar en la práctica no autorizada de la ley en Florida. La petición alegaba que el demandado Savitt de la Firma Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, un bufete de abogados interestatal que tiene su oficina principal en Nueva York, abrió una oficina en Miami el 1 de abril de 1977 o alrededor de esa fecha, y que el demandado abogado Savitt, socio de la firma no está admitido al ejercicio de la abogacía en Florida, y quien fue asignado para supervisar el funcionamiento de la oficina de Miami. Además, el Florida Bar se alegó que el demandado Savitt, en el curso de sus actividades de supervisión, participó en una conducta que constituía la práctica no autorizada de la ley en este estado.

La decisión de la Corte Suprema en este caso en realidad fundó la base para la creación de acuerdos de reciprocidad entre abogados extranjeros licenciados, abogados fuera del Estados, con abogados de Florida, así permitiendo estos acuerdos de trabajo por reciprocidad que benefician a todos, abogados locales, extranjeros, y definitivamente beneficia al publico en general creando un muy amplio campo de mercadeo para estos abogados.

VER LA DECISION DE LA CORTE SUPREMA:

(1)-. En la decisión de la Corte Suprema, esta determinó que, y citamos: que la Firma de “Savitt está perpetuamente restringido y prohibido a las siguientes actividades jurídicas: Pero podrán realizar debidamente las siguientes actividades, las cuales NO constituirán la práctica no autorizada de la ley [Ver parte 2].

  • permitir que cualquiera de sus miembros, asociados o empleados que no estén admitidos en el Colegio de Abogados de Florida se dediquen a actividades profesionales en Florida; que sean distintas de las que se establecen a continuación, y sujeto a las siguientes limitaciones:

  • participación como co-abogado en litigios ante tribunales estatales y federales en Florida solo en la medida permitida por las reglas aplicables de admisión temporal PRO HAC VICE;

  • actividades profesionales transitorias “incidentales” [Véase, por ejemplo, Appell v. Reiner, 43 N.J. 313, 204 A.2d 146 (1964)] a transacciones esencialmente fuera del estado;

  • y actividades profesionales que constituyen actividades de “coordinación-supervisión” en transacciones esencialmente de varios estados en las que los miembros del Colegio de Abogados de Florida manejan asuntos de la ley de Florida [Ver, por ejemplo, In re The Estate of Waring, 47 NJ 367, 221 A .2d 193 (1966)];

  • operando como un bufete de abogados interestatal en el estado de Florida, a menos que continúe siendo una asociación plena y de buena fe que opere de acuerdo con un acuerdo de asociación que no disponga que las ganancias y pérdidas se compartan entre sus miembros únicamente sobre la base de el negocio proporcionado generado o manejado por su oficina de Florida;

  • operar la oficina de Florida sin un socio o socios de la firma, que uno de los cuales es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida, asumiendo de manera continua la responsabilidad de la supervisión de las operaciones de la oficina de Florida;

  • permitir que cualquiera de sus miembros, asociados o empleados que no sean miembros del Colegio de Abogados de Florida ejerza control de supervisión sobre cualquier asociado que opere de forma permanente fuera de la oficina de Florida que sea miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida con respecto a asuntos esencialmente involucrando la ley de Florida para personas que residen en Florida o empresas comerciales que tienen su lugar principal de negocios en Florida;

  • permitir que cualquier solicitante de admisión al Colegio de Abogados de Florida de alguna manera afiliada a la firma opere en la oficina de Florida de manera permanente de cualquier manera que no sea el papel tradicional de “asistente legal” bajo la supervisión directa y el control de un miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida; y

  • participar en otras actividades profesionales y de la manera que pueda estar prohibida en el futuro por razón de cualquier decisión judicial, o regla o reglamento de la Corte Suprema de Florida o costumbre o práctica que en lo sucesivo pueda ser promulgada o aceptada por esta Corte en respecto a la práctica jurídica no autorizada en el estado de Florida.

  • (2)-. De conformidad con las disposiciones anteriores de esta orden, la firma de abogados antes mencionada y sus miembros, asociados y-o empleados podrán realizar debidamente las siguientes actividades, las cuales NO constituirán la práctica no autorizada de la ley:

(a) [PUEDE] comunicarse, consultar y tratar con el personal en la oficina de Florida en todos los aspectos, incluida la discusión y el asesoramiento sobre asuntos legales, la preparación y revisión de documentos legales y cualquier otro acto que pueda constituir la práctica de la ley, siempre que tales actividades simplemente constituyan con asistencia o supervicios de un miembro [a la práctica libre] de El Colegio de Abogados de Florida y, si se utiliza el resultado de tales actividades, es producto de, o se fusiona con el producto de, un miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida por el cual el miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida asume la responsabilidad profesional;

(b) [PUEDE] comunicarse con los clientes y otras personas (incluidos otros abogados) siempre que se confirme inicial e inmediatamente por escrito y en todo momento se les aclare a dichos clientes y otras personas, de una manera que evite confusiones, que la persona abogado extranjero (si no es un miembro de The Florida Bar [a la practica libre]) por lo que la comunicación no es miembro de The Florida Bar y que dicha comunicación (si se trata en casos de la ley de Florida) se realiza en presencia o con la aprobación por escrito del socio abogado quien si es miembro de The Florida Bar [a la práctica libre] quien asume responsabilidad profesional por dicha comunicación y mantiene una relación directa con el cliente;

(c) [PUEDE] brindar asesoramiento legal sobre el derecho u obligación regidos por la leyes federales, según lo permitido en Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F.2d 161 (2d Cir.1966) cert. gud. 385 U.S. 987 [87 S. Ct. 597, 17 L. Ed. 2d 448] (1966); y siempre que, si el abogado extranjero que brinda la asesoría legal no es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida, el abogado se encuentra en Florida de manera transitoria e inicialmente se le ha aclarado al cliente y se le ha confirmado inmediatamente por escrito que el abogado no es un miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida;

(d) [PUEDE] brindar asesoramiento legal con respecto a asuntos relacionados principalmente con la práctica de la agencia administrativa federal [SON 35 AGENCIAS], y siempre que si el abogado que brinda el asesoramiento legal no es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida, el abogado se encuentra en Florida de manera transitoria e inicialmente se le dejó claro al cliente y se confirmó inmediatamente por escrito que el abogado no es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida;

(e) [PUEDE] brindar asesoramiento legal sobre la ley de jurisdicciones distintas de Florida a clientes que no sean de Florida en transacciones con personas que residan en Florida o con empresas comerciales que tengan su lugar principal de negocios en Florida; siempre que los asuntos de la ley de Florida, si algunos, son manejados por miembros del Colegio de Abogados de Florida y siempre que, si el abogado que brinda el asesoramiento legal no es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida, el abogado se encuentra en Florida de forma transitoria;

(f) [PUEDE] participar en otras actividades profesionales y de la manera que pueda ser permitida, reconocida o aceptada en el futuro por razón de cualquier decisión judicial, regla o reglamento de la Corte Suprema de Florida o costumbre o práctica que en el futuro pueda ser promulgada o aceptada por este Tribunal con respecto al ejercicio de la abogacía en el Estado de Florida.

(3)-. Al operar su oficina de Florida, la firma [de abogados no de Florida] mencionada anteriormente y cada uno de sus abogados se regirán por la orden siguiente:

(a) El Código de Responsabilidad Profesional de Florida;

(b) La firma de abogados puede usar en Florida el nombre de su firma original existente fuera de Florida, aunque ningún abogado en el nombre de la firma sea miembro de The Florida Bar [Ver, The Florida Bar, 330 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1976)];

(c) Las listas de la practica de leyes y directorios legales de la oficina de Florida incluirán en ellos solo abogados individuales admitidos para ejercer en Florida, a menos que aparezca una declaración expresa que indique qué abogados son miembros del Colegio de Abogados de Florida o, alternativamente, los que no son miembros de El Colegio de Abogados de Florida;

(d) Los anuncios profesionales que emanan únicamente de la oficina de Florida se harán únicamente en cuanto a asuntos que involucren a miembros del Colegio de Abogados de Florida;

(e) Los membretes utilizados por la oficina de Florida incluirán una lista de sus socios admitidos en Florida y pueden enumerar sus asociados admitidos en Florida; si se enumeran los nombres de abogados que no son de Florida, el membrete debe contener una declaración expresa que indique los abogados individuales que son miembros del Colegio de Abogados de Florida o, alternativamente, los que no están admitidos para ejercer en Florida; Sin embargo, no se puede mencionar la membresía de un abogado en ningún colegio de abogados que no sea Florida; el membrete de la oficina de Florida no puede incluir el nombre de un abogado que no está admitido en Florida, incluso con la divulgación del estado de no admisión, cuando el acuerdo entre el abogado y la firma no constituye una verdadera sociedad interestatal;

(f) En cualquier directorio telefónico publicado y utilizado en Florida, la firma incluirá solo a sus abogados que están admitidos para ejercer en Florida;

(g) Toda la correspondencia de la oficina de Florida que esté impresa en papel de la firma deberá estar firmada por una persona que sea miembro o asociado de la firma admitida en el Colegio de Abogados de Florida o, cuando corresponda, por una persona cuyo estado sea de lo contrario claramente indicado (por ejemplo, “abogado no admitido en Florida”, “asistente legal”, “asistente legal” o similares);

(h) Una tarjeta de presentación profesional de un abogado que lo identifique por su nombre y como abogado, dando su dirección, no puede contener una dirección de Florida si no es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de Florida.

El Colegio de Abogados de California incluye abogados que han sido educados en el extranjero. No es necesario que sean ciudadanos de EE.UU., para ser un abogado con licencia a la práctica libre general en California, pero deben completar algunos trámites adicionales.

Si un solicitante desea ejercer la abogacía libre general en California como un solicitante educado en el extranjero no admitido para ejercer la abogacía en ninguna jurisdicción de los Estados Unidos, la información y los formularios se encuentran a continuación.

Estas pautas no se aplican a los abogados que ya están admitidos a la práctica activa de la abogacía en un país extranjero o en otra jurisdicción de los EE. UU. Y están en regla.

Estos “abogados extranjeros” están calificados para tomar el Examen de la Barra de Abogados de California sin tener que completar ninguna educación legal adicional. “Ya no se requiere LLM”. Ver más: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education/Legal-Education/Foreign-Education

Práctica Federal [inmigración]: 

El Código 8 CFR 292.1-3. Los abogados extranjeros pueden ejercer en la ley de inmigración como un abogado bajo la condición de que: abogados NO certificados en los EE. UU., por cualquier tribunal supremo, entonces solo puedan representar a los ciudadanos de su país (el país de origen del abogado) y, en el momento en que el cliente contrata sus servicios, dicho cliente se encuentra en el país del abogado. El cliente al momento de contratar los servicios legales de este abogado NO puede estar dentro de los Estados Unidos.
Además, seguir esta regla se aplica muy bien a los abogados certificados en algún estado de los Estados Unidos como consultor de derecho extranjero del FLC, una vez que han sido admitido por un tribunal supremo estatal y por cualquier colegio de abogados del estado, como miembro de la sección de derecho internacional del FLC.

Pero, un segundo análisis de esta regla, se aplica muy bien a los abogados certificados en algún estado de los Estados Unidos como FLC, consultor de derecho extranjero, siguiendo el precedente establecido en Sperry.

En el caso- The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 591; 373 EE. UU. 379, el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos determinó que ‘establecer una definición amplia de la práctica de la ley era “casi imposible”. Los estatutos federales autorizan a la comisión y las agencias federales a prescribir los reglamentos que rigen el reconocimiento, la conducta y el ejercicio de los agentes, abogados extranjeros y otras personas para representar a terceros solicitantes ante estas agencias federales. Por lo tanto, Florida no puede prohibir esta práctica federal una vez que una persona esté autorizada por una de estas agencias federales, la práctica es la práctica legal autorizada’.

Además, un tercer análisis, siguiendo el precedente de Savitt, se aplica a abogados certificados en algún estado de los EE. UU., como consultor de derecho extranjero, FLC, cuando están asociados con abogados locales que celebran un acuerdo recíproco siguiendo los principios de Savitt.

En The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559, la Corte Suprema de Florida sostuvo que la firma [oficina de abogados] y sus miembros, asociados o empleados pueden llevar a cabo la siguiente práctica legal:… (e) dar asesoramiento legal sobre la ley de jurisdicciones distintas de Florida para clientes que no pertenecen a la Florida en transacción con una persona que reside en Florida o con empresas comerciales que tienen su lugar de negocios principal en Florida; siempre que los asuntos de la ley de la Florida, si corresponde, sean manejados por miembros del Colegio de Abogados de la Florida y siempre que, si el abogado que brinda el asesoramiento legal no es miembro del Colegio de Abogados de la Florida, el abogado se encuentre en la Florida de manera transitoria: …

Seguiendo el Código Federal 8 CFR 292.1-3, lo que significa que, “Cualquier abogado- cualquier persona que sea elegible para ejercer la ley en, y es un miembro en regla de cualquier tribunal, el tribunal supremo de cualquier estado, cualquier territorio” o el Commonwealth de los Estados Unidos, o del Distrito de Columbia, y no está bajo ninguna orden de suspenderlo, sancionarlo, restringirlo, o prohibirlo de alguna otra manera en la práctica de la ley”.

Esta regla se aplica muy bien a los abogados certificados en algún estado de los Estados Unidos como consultor de derecho extranjero del FLC, una vez que han sido admitidos por un tribunal supremo estatal y por cualquier colegio de abogados del estado, como miembro de la sección de derecho internacional del Bar FLC.

A medida que nuestra población y nuestra economía continúen ampliando los horizontes de EE. UU., La necesidad de servicios de abogados extranjeros también aumentará. Los inversores locales de EE. UU. Con proyectos empresariales en el extranjero, así como los inversores internacionales que buscan oportunidades en Estados Unidos, a menudo necesitan, y por lo tanto se beneficiarán de, la conveniencia de contar con consultores jurídicos extranjeros, abogados extranjeros, disponibles para asesorar sobre tales cuestiones. .

En lugar de superponerse o incluso entrar en conflicto, la actividad de los asesores legales de abogados extranjeros complementa el trabajo de los abogados locales llamados a anticipar los efectos de una transacción internacional negociada en los Estados Unidos o que involucre a un partido de los EE. UU. El abogado local que examina un asunto desde la perspectiva del cliente puede no estar siempre preparado para planificar adecuadamente todas las consecuencias legales que surjan de una transacción que se realizará, en todo o en parte, en una jurisdicción extranjera.

La necesidad de abogados extranjeros también se siente en el campo de los litigios. Los litigios pueden surgir como consecuencia natural del aumento en los negocios internacionales, en el que EE. UU. Juega un papel de creciente importancia en el hemisferio y más allá. Junto con el flujo de capital extranjero a EE. UU., Hay una afluencia paralela de ciudadanos extranjeros. Muchas de esas personas son propietarias de propiedades en EE. UU., O llegan a serlo, incluidas propiedades inmobiliarias, cuentas bancarias, cuentas de valores y otros activos.

Tales propiedades pueden convertirse en objeto de litigio en los tribunales de los Estados Unidos, aunque no necesariamente en la legislación de los Estados Unidos. Por ejemplo, un banco de un difunto extranjero intestado extranjero no residente probablemente sea distribuido de acuerdo con la ley del domicilio de ese difunto. Un acreedor, ya sea de EE. UU. O no, puede optar por adjuntar o ejecutar una propiedad en EE. UU. Propiedad de un extranjero no residente para recuperar en una transacción que puede estar regida por la ley de otra jurisdicción.

Esto lleva la discusión a un examen de la práctica legal en los Estados Unidos hoy en el contexto de estos desarrollos. En la actualidad, casi cualquier investigación sobre las actividades de abogados [fuera del estado y] extranjeros en EE. UU. Invita a dirigirse al caso, The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559, que trata sobre una disputa entre The Florida Bar y un bufete de abogados de abogados de Nueva York que se instaló y ofició en Florida en el cual el socio asignado para supervisar la nueva oficina no fue admitido a la práctica de la abogacía en Florida.

Una de las partes clave del acuerdo de solución en el caso Savitt, relacionado con la realización de actividades que no constituyen la práctica de la ley sin licencia. Esa declaración, que seguramente dejó a algunos abogados locales rascándose la cabeza, dice lo siguiente:

El bufete de abogados y sus miembros, asociados o empleados correctamente pueden llevar a cabo las siguientes actividades, que no constituirán la práctica legal no autorizada ….. (e) dar asesoramiento legal sobre las jurisdicciones de derecho de Florida a clientes que no sean de Florida en transacciones con personas que residen en Florida o con empresas comerciales que tienen su lugar principal de negocios en Florida; siempre que los asuntos de la ley de la Florida, en su caso, sean manejados por miembros de The Florida Bar y siempre que, si el abogado que brinda el asesoramiento legal no es miembro de The Florida Bar, el abogado se encuentre en Florida de manera transitoria: … .

Por otro lado, los expertos locales han notado que, los abogados de Florida que asesoran a clientes sobre leyes extranjeras se están abriendo a la práctica no autorizada de cargos legales.

INTER LAW4

Por otro lado, los abogados estatales con licencia y los abogados extranjeros certificados pueden asesorar a los clientes sobre varias leyes federales según el caso: Florida State v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 584, modificado, 159 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1963). El caso Sperry es bien conocido como el caso que define la práctica de la ley como:
El Tribunal Supremo consideró que establecer una definición amplia de la práctica de la ley era “casi imposible”. Los estatutos federales autorizan a la comisión y agencias federales a establecer normas que rigen el reconocimiento y la conducta de agentes, abogados extranjeros y otras personas que representan a los solicitantes ante estas Agencias federales. Una de estas agencias federales es el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos, regulación 8 C.F.R. ss 103.2 (a) (3), establece que hay tres tipos de personas autorizadas para presentar una representación legal como representantes de solicitantes o solicitantes incluyendo abogados extranjeros.

En este caso de Sperry v. Florida. Los estatutos federales autorizan a la Comisión de Patentes a establecer normas que rigen el reconocimiento y la conducta de los agentes, [abogados extranjeros] y otras personas que representan a los solicitantes ante estas oficinas federales. Sperry, que era un agente de patentes, reconocido por el Comisionado de Patentes, mantuvo una oficina en Tampa, Florida, donde se hizo público como la práctica de la ley de patentes. El Tribunal Supremo de Florida ordenó a Sperry que se comprometiera con el ejercicio de la abogacía, incluidas prohibiciones específicas de emitir opiniones legales sobre patentabilidad e infracción, y en contra de considerar que está calificado para preparar y enjuiciar las solicitudes de patente de cartas. Aplicando la Cláusula de Supremacía, el Tribunal Supremo anuló y archivó el decreto “ya que prohíbe a [Sperry] realizar tareas que son incidentales a la preparación y enjuiciamiento de solicitudes de patentes ante la Oficina de Patentes”. Según el autor de este alegato, [febrero de 1990 El Florida Bar Journal, el abogado David S. Willig], EE. UU. [Florida] se beneficiará en gran medida de la globalización de la economía mundial y el consiguiente aumento de los negocios internacionales. Frente a las preguntas cada vez más frecuentes sobre derecho extranjero que surgen en asuntos traídos a los abogados estadounidenses por sus clientes en EE. UU., Ya sean residentes o no residentes en el estado, los abogados abogados extranjeros que están a su disposición pueden ser una ayuda inconmensurable para enfrentar el desafío de nuestra futuro económico … Es por esta razón que necesitamos abogados extranjeros en calidad de consultores jurídicos extranjeros en los Estados Unidos.

Part II [english]

S COURT

ATENCIÓN LLAMADO A COLEGAS, PROFESIONALES y ENTIDADES LEGALES PUEDEN CONVERTIRSE EN DEFENSORES Y DELEGADOS DE LA CORTE AICAC-HR en DD. HH. Y MEDIADOR DE MIGRANTES

ATENCION LLAMADO URGENTE AÑO 2019 A COLEGAS, PROFESIONALES y ENTIDADES LEGALES PUEDEN CONVERTIRSE EN DEFENSORES DE DERECHOS  HUMANOS INTERNACIONAL- AICAC-HR, Y MEDIADOR DE MIGRANTES Y ARBITRAJE INTERNACIONAL.

LA CORTE IGUALMENTE SE NOMBRARÁN DELEGADOS/AS CONSEJERA/OS REPRESENTANDO LA COMISIÓN DE DD. HH. DE LA CORTE AICAC PARA CADA PAÍS DE AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE.***

SERVICIOS:

1)- Corte AICAC-HR. Arbitraje y Mediación, resuelve y maneja con éxito disputas comerciales y legales al proporcionar formas eficientes, rentables e imparciales para superar las barreras en cualquier etapa del conflicto. La Corte ofrece servicios personalizados de resolución de disputas a nivel local y global a través de una combinación de experiencia específica de la industria, servicio al cliente de primera clase, instalaciones de primera categoría y panelistas altamente capacitados.

 2)- Tu comunidad te necesita haz valer tus conocimientos en defensa del derecho y la justicia social convirtiéndote en un Defensor Oficial con la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Corte AICAC-HR, el respaldo del Comisionado General y el respaldo de la Asociación Nacional de Abogados NAFA.

Mediador de Inmigrantes Defensores de Derechos Humanos.

Abogada/os extranjeros y Paralegales, Activistas, defensores de derechos humanos pueden mediar por los extranjeros indocumentados que residen en  Estados Unidos proveyendo servicios de mediación e información oficial para muchos inmigrantes indocumentados que buscan solucionar sus problemas civiles y migratorios.

El arbitraje comercial internacional es un medio para resolver las disputas que surgen de los contratos comerciales internacionales. Se utiliza como una alternativa al litigio y está controlado principalmente por los términos previamente acordados por las partes contratantes, en lugar de por la legislación nacional o las normas de procedimiento. La mayoría de los contratos contienen una cláusula de resolución de disputas que especifica que cualquier disputa que surja en virtud del contrato se manejará mediante arbitraje en lugar de un litigio. Las partes pueden especificar el foro, las reglas de procedimiento y la ley vigente al momento del contrato

Es importante tener contacto con los consulados de los países del inmigrante. Las necesidades de los inmigrantes indocumentados son muy grandes y una buena relación con los consulados, embajadas y los Ministerios de Relaciones Exteriores del país pueden ayudar aquí para habilitar un servicio legal de información y mediación para asistir a las personas indocumentadas.

Esto NO es representación legal, es ayuda básica de mediación incluyendo traducciones al inglés de documentos necesarios, trámites de poderes y mandatos, con servicios de notario, madres y padres quienes desean reconocer a los hijos que dejaron en su país, petición de documentos necesarios e importantes en E.U.A., como del Registro Nacional de las Personas con partidas de nacimiento, para obtener pasaportes, cedulas, ofreciendo estos servicios de Mediación sin necesidad de viajar al país de origen.

A pesar que los consulados dan apoyo en esta área civil migratoria, el/la Mediador notario publico puede llevar a cabo las inscripciones notariales de matrimonios, registros de nacimientos, entre otras funciones legales permitidas por la ley notarial de E.U.A.

Estos servicios y labor de Mediación puede mejorar la vida de los clientes con estos trámites que los ayudan a obtener un pasaporte, una cedula de identidad, un poder de notario, asistencia en mediar entre los clientes y su consulado o con su embajada, y muchos otros poderes en mejora de su estatus migratorio, su situación civil y, en especial de la reunificación familiar.

Colegas, abogados, paralegales, investigadores, activistas y público general, hoy la Corte AICAC, la Comisión IHRCJPI y la Asociación de abogados NAFA, por medio de la Oficina de Comisionado General, hacen un llamado urgente para certificar a 24 nuevos Defensores de Derechos Humanos de la Corte en Estados Unidos e Internacionales.

Maria Francisca Rodriguez, center, holds her son Gustavo Martinez, 1, as people surrounding her applaud her during a news conference Monday July 25, 2016, at La Union del Pueblo Entero's headquarters in San Juan, Texas. Rodriguez is one of several members of a lawsuit involving the State of Texas over identification requirements to receive their children's birth certificates. Texas settled the case on Friday and will now allow more forms of identification for birth records. (Nathan Lambrecht/The Monitor via AP)
Esto es una prioridad urgente para la Comisión a que estos Defensores y Delegados de la Comisión de la Corte logren confrontar la injusticia sistémica en las políticas y sistema legal. Trabajamos con individuos perseguidos y violentados por criminales, sus familias y comunidades, personas actualmente o anteriormente perseguidas, inmigrantes encarcelados, para promover la igualdad y la libertad humana.

Que significa “AICAC-HR”, es la Comisión Internacional de Derechos Humanos de Investigaciones Judiciales y Policiales de la CORTE AICAC.

Cual es la Misión de AICAC-HR: promoción de la formación y el desarrollo de la supremacía democrática del derecho y la justicia social a nivel internacional y nacional; promoción de la objetividad, validez y justicia de las decisiones de los órganos estatales y municipales; erradicación de la discriminación en diversas esferas de la vida social; garantizar la estricta observancia de los derechos civiles, las libertades y los intereses; presentación de herramientas alternativas de asistencia jurídica y solución de problemas legales y conflictos a la sociedad; lucha contra la corrupción y la burocracia irracional en los órganos estatales; aumentar el nivel general de tolerancia social, moralidad y cultura; desarrollo progresivo y general de las relaciones públicas.

El arbitraje puede ser “institucional” o “ad hoc”.

Los términos del contrato determinarán el tipo de arbitraje. Si las partes han acordado que una institución arbitral administre la disputa, se trata de un arbitraje institucional. Si las partes han establecido sus propias reglas para el arbitraje, se trata de un arbitraje ad hoc. Las partes, que son responsables de decidir sobre el foro, el número de árbitros, el procedimiento que se seguirá, y todos los demás aspectos de la administración del arbitraje, llevan a cabo los arbitrajes ad hoc.

Los tipos de ley que se aplican en el arbitraje incluyen los tratados internacionales y las leyes nacionales, tanto procesales como sustantivos, así como las normas procesales de la institución arbitral pertinente. Las adjudicaciones arbitrales anteriores tienen autoridad persuasiva, pero no son vinculantes. Los comentarios académicos, o “doctrina”, también se pueden aplicar.

Cual es la Competencia de AICAC-HR- tiene una amplia competencia de protección de derechos humanos correspondiente a la misión declarada y los propósitos de la actividad, limitada por la conveniencia funcional y la admisibilidad legal de la implementación de ciertas acciones.

Dentro de la estructura de AICAC-HR tiene competencia exclusiva especializada y el derecho a llevar a cabo de manera independiente acciones relevantes en nombre de AICAC. Los funcionarios de AICAC no pueden interferir en este proceso (excepto en los casos en que la actividad de IHRCJPI y las decisiones tomadas por sus jefes pueden causar daños materiales o no relacionados con la propiedad de AICAC, sus miembros, socios o clientes). En tal situación, la AICAC puede vetar cualquier decisión de los órganos rectores o funcionarios del AICAC-HR y plantear una cuestión de relevar a personas específicas de sus puestos.  Dentro de su competencia, AICAC-HR actúa en nombre y en interés de la AICAC sin poder notarial ni ningún otro documento adicional.

DAME DE JUSTICIA

El Comisionado General de AICAC-HR, Dr. Humphrey H. Pachecker [ceo NAFA] es el jefe del Consejo Administrativo y el más alto funcionario del AICAC-HR. El Comisionado General es elegido por los miembros del Consejo de Administración durante el período de su mandato. El Comisionado General tiene el derecho de representar a AICAC-HR en sus relaciones con terceros, firmar documentos en nombre del AICAC-HR y tomar decisiones operacionales de manera independiente que requieran la posterior aprobación del Consejo Administrativo. El Comisario General tiene el voto decisivo en las reuniones del Consejo de Administración.

Conviértete en un miembro Defensor de Derechos Humanos del IHRCJPI. Personas, abogados, profesionales y entidades legales pueden convertirse en miembros de AICAC-HR.

El costo de esta certificación de Defensor de Derechos Humanos de la Corte y NAFA, con un taller corto de capacitación de 3 días 12 horas académicas en TODO EN LINEA, está drásticamente reducido solo por los próximos días del costo regular, es un ahorro de $790.00. TODO EN ESPAÑOL Y UN SOLO PAGO EN LINEA.  

La situación actual en las Américas en el tema de violaciones de derechos humanos es crítica y todos podemos hacer la diferencia. Inscríbete hoy con la Corte y NAFA, para certificarte y puedas ayudar a tu comunidad y a personas abusadas.

Solo tienes que llenar el formulario anexo, hacer el pago en línea con tu tarjeta de crédito y debito y enviar tu formulario con tu foto de regreso vía el correo electrónico siguiente: nafalegal@ymail.com Ver anexo aquí algunos otros colegas latinos ya certificados Defensores de Derechos Humanos. https://spark.adobe.com/page/sgvxXD7neSUp6/

TODO EL PROGRAMA DE CAPACITACION ESTÁ BASADO EN- LA COMISION DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS IHRCJPI.  DE LA CORTE AICAC- Y TAMBIEN INCLUIDO- ONU DERECHO INTERNACIONAL – DECLARACION UNIVERSAL DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS- https://www.humanium.org/es/derechos-humanos-1948/

POR TODO EL PROGRAMA Y LA CERTIFICACION, NO MÁS PAGOS. TODO A DISTANCIA Y EN LINEA DESDE SU COMPUTADORA, ESTUDIOS, CERTIFICACION, Y PAGO. AL FINAL EL CERTIFICADO ORIGINAL DE LA CORTE SE LE ENVIA POR CORREO REGULAR Y ELECTRONICO TAMBIEN. 

PRIMERO TIENE QUE LLENAR EL FORMULARIO DE REGISTRO EL CUAL ESTA ANEXO- SEGUIDO HACER EL PAGO EL CUAL PUEDE HACERLO EN LINEA. LUEGO DE COMPLETADO ESTE PRIMER PROCESO TENDRÁ EL DERECHO A COMENZAR EL PROGRAMA PARA SU  CAPACITACION- EN LINEA Y A DISTANCIA -PARA CONVERTIRSE EN DEFENSOR EN DERECHOS HUMANOS. 

BAJA Y LLENA ESTE FORMULARIO DE INSCRIPCION PARA TOMAR ESTE CURSO EN DERECHOS HUMANOS.#-1 HAZ CLIC AQUI [pdf]: AAA-Application Form AICAC – NAFA – HR  #-2 HAZ CLIC AQUI:A1-A1-A-INSCRIPCION NAFA[1] (2) Formulario en word- haz clic aquí:AAA-Application Form AICAC (2) 

Nombramiento de Delegados Consejeros [Delegadas Consejeras], uno para cada país de América Latina y el Caribe.

La Comisión General de Derechos Humanos de la Corte AICAC-HR está ofreciendo la oportunidad de nombrar a Delegados Consejeros [Delegadas Consejeras], uno para cada país de América Latina y el Caribe, representantes de la Comisión de DD HH como la persona encargada de máxima autoridad de las gestiones y dirección administrativa en ese país determinado con la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Corte AICAC IHRCJPI, respondiendo directamente al Comisionado General.

La función del Delegado Consejero es representar a sus ciudadanos compatriotas en cualquier lugar que se encuentren, también convocar asambleas de forma periódica donde, entre todos bajo la supervicios del Delegado Consejero, expongan las iniciativas, violaciones o inquietudes que hayan podido surgir.

Representación: Esta es, sin duda, la función principal y más importante del Delegado Consejero, representar a sus ciudadanos compatriotas siendo el enlace entre ellos y el Comisionado General en Estados Unidos. Ante cualquier problema, violación o iniciativa que surja entre los sus ciudadanos compatriotas, a niveles nacionales. Promover  la objetividad, validez y justicia de las decisiones de los órganos estatales y municipales; buscar la erradicación de la discriminación en diversas esferas de la vida social; garantizar la estricta observancia de los derechos civiles, las libertades y los intereses; presentación de herramientas alternativas de asistencia jurídica y solución de problemas legales y conflictos a la sociedad; lucha contra la corrupción y la burocracia irracional en los órganos estatales; aumentar el nivel general de tolerancia social, moralidad y cultura; desarrollo progresivo y general de las relaciones públicas y cuál será el camino a seguir.

Competencia- poderes.

Delegado Consejero de AICAC-HR tendrá una amplia competencia de protección de derechos humanos correspondiente a la misión declarada y los propósitos de la actividad, limitada por la conveniencia funcional y la admisibilidad legal de la implementación de ciertas acciones.

Dentro de la estructura de la Comisión General AICAC, tiene competencia exclusiva especializada y el derecho a llevar a cabo de manera independiente acciones relevantes en nombre de AICAC. Los funcionarios de AICAC no pueden interferir en este proceso (excepto en los casos en que la actividad y las decisiones tomadas por sus Delegados Consejeros puedan causar daños materiales o no relacionados con la propiedad de AICAC, sus miembros, socios o clientes. En tal situación, la Comisión General AICAC, puede vetar cualquier decisión de los órganos rectores o funcionarios Delegados y plantear una cuestión de relevar a personas específicas de sus puestos.

Dentro de su competencia, AICAC-HR actúa en nombre y en interés de la AICAC sin poder notarial ni crear ningún otro documento adicional.

El costo del nombramiento de este funcionario- Delegados Consejeros [Delegadas Consejeras], para cada país de América Latina y el Caribe, representantes de la Comisión de DD HH – es un total de dos mil dólares $2,000.00.

Esto incluye además, de los poderes ejecutivos antes nombrados, y el apoyo de la Comisión de DD HH, lo siguiente:

Material de apoyo, capacitación en Derechos Humanos Derecho Internacional;

  • Membrete para cartas oficiales de la Comisión [modelos para reimprimir].
  • Tarjetas personales de presentación [modelos para reimprimir].
  • Sobres oficiales de la Comisión [modelos para reimprimir].
  • Sello Oficial de tinta el cual da validez a los documentos oficiales del Delegado [modelo para crear].
  • Material, documentos y soporte en caso que la oficina del funcionario- Delegados Consejeros [Delegadas Consejeras], en su país requiera hacer registro de acta mercantil a las oficinas foráneas.

Las acciones de los Delegados Consejeros cuales pudieran estar fuera de las acciones descritas en su competencia- poderes, estas acciones deben primero ser llevadas ante la Oficina del Comisionado General para recibir aprobación antes de tomar dicha acción.

arrow

PAGAR VIA BANCO PAY PAL CON TU TARJETA DE CREDITO – DEBITO O CHEQUE. Homologación. Revalida. Estudios. Trabajos. Abogacía. En Estados Unidos. Puedes pagar por estos servicios a NAFA y UNPAM Universidad, usando la forma segura y conveniente de PAY PAL. SIMPLEMENTE HAZ CLIC A ESTE ENLACE https://www.paypal.me/nafagroup

EXPEND-1621 008