LEMP MANSION… meeting in a ladies room.

Don’t mind the bed bugs, mind the parasites and meetings that take place in a ladies room. In or around October of 2016 my system was hacked and all my files including personal and financial …

Source: LEMP MANSION… meeting in a ladies room.

Advertisements

LEMP MANSION… meeting in a ladies room.

Don’t mind the bed bugs, mind the parasites and meetings that take place in a ladies room. In or around October of 2016 my system was hacked and all my files including personal and financial were transferred to some place remote. Both my desktop and laptop computers were left encrypted.

Upon calling my ISP (Internet Service Provider) ATT & EarthLink,{ref. # J48032044} to my surprise I found out that an unknown person(s) to me whom identified himself to my ISP as “Delancy” had successfully changed my account, name and password to my account{00000000}. Prior to this incident, I had noticed that something was wrong in my system and accounts as I was only allowed minimal access to sign in as a guest and had 1gb.

In spite of investment I made on two security software’s, I was meet with disappointment when I found out that the subjects were account administrators meaning it didn’t matter if I had install 50 security software’s since I was a guest in my own accounts. Let along the fact that every time I request a password charge, they will also get this information simultaneously as they had linked there emails to my email account. See below;

— Forwarded message ———- From: “Mail Delivery Subsystem” <mailerdaemon@googlemail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2017 3:15 PM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) To: <lazarustarchison@gmail.com> Cc: Error Icon Address not found Your message wasn’t delivered to account-security-noreply@account.microsoft.com because the address couldn’t be found. Check for typos or unnecessary spaces and try again. The response from the remote server was: 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable Final-Recipient: rfc822; account-securitynoreply@account.microsoft.com Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: dns; mx2.hotmail.com. (65.54.188.72, the server for the domain account.microsoft.com.) Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:15:36 -0800 (PST) ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Archison Lazarus

At first the scam was executed  by poking holes through drywall as my room is adjacent to the bathroom. The ladies room meetings will take place as the subject device means and ways using some sort of infrared scanner to cypher  Gateway IP address from other electronics that were connected to the Router. Per security scan performed, this subjects put a landline and a router by which they  were able to reroute my entire service, which explain a 1gb.

They configured the service by allocating specific IP addresses to their devices running on DHCP mode, and map devices to particular static IP address. (NAT mapping). Statically IP address will eventually override security settings made on my account, router and  sever address, and they manually through their router (as public pool) specified  a desire IP address for the DHCP server to issue to the desired device and issue from. The mapping is to the WAN IP Address associated with my account. Police report was made…however I am there one been chance and harassed, WHILE the culprit are given more leeway to harass, go amazon just to invite my privacy and access to the connection via their router as is link to coaxial going through my apartment.

Fuck that this ARE serious Federal Communications Law such as Wiretap Act 

a/k/a as “Title III”, which prohibits “any person,” including law enforcement, from making an illegal interception or disclosing or using illegally intercepted material. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1).

 

 

KONG: SKULL-ISLAND

Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts has said in interviews that he pitched “Kong: Skull Island” to Warner Bros. as “King Kong” meets “Apocalypse Now.” Working with an 84-year-old cinematic character, Vogt-Roberts has injected new life into the property by borrowing heavily from a Francis Ford Coppola New Hollywood classic that’s now 38 years old. The result shows its influence — it could have easily been titled “Apocalypse Kong” — but it’s surprisingly fun and fresh. It’s only March, but with the one-two punch of “Logan” and now “Kong,” have blockbusters become great again?

“Kong: Skull Island” takes place in 1973, when a motley crew of scientists, cartographers, a photojournalist and a tracker get a military escort to an unknown island from a group of soldiers on their way out of Vietnam. The plan is to check things out before the Russians do, naturally.

Kong is isn’t the only game in town on this island, as they discover from kooky, long-lost American pilot Marlow, (John C. Reilly) shot down in 1944, who survived thank

s to the native tribe. Kong is the protector against what he calls the “skull-crushers,” serpentine dragon-monsters that come up from the earth’s hollow core.

The film is as overflowing with characters as it is with prehistoric monsters, which keeps things moving at a rapid clip. When their helicopters are initially swatted out of the air by the mountain-sized primate, everyone scatters into different groups — there are the soldiers, lead by Col. Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), who goes dark, fast. Denied a satisfactory culmination to Vietnam, he swears revenge on Kong. The other group is led by the peaceniks, if you will, a British tracker named Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and photojournalist Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), who preach co-existence over obliteration.

“Their hyper-stylized confrontations with the island’s main attraction have the sizzling fury of “Apocalypse Now” (and a groovy classic rock soundtrack to match), and the movie does a better job at reimagining some of the tropes from Francis Ford Coppola’s classic than the hackneyed run-and-gun survival saga that ensues once they crash down. Of course, as soon as Kong arrives he steals the show, and none of the expansive human ensemble can compete for attention”. Eric Kohn Indie Wires.

College can be a Life altering, Superb expectice.

College Strategic Approach.

1486732933068

Despite the fact that college may seem to be overpowering at initial, it can be a life altering, superb expertise. This post has some guidance to support you get by way of school and graduate.

Continue reading College can be a Life altering, Superb expectice.

Part 2 [U]nder California law, Possession Requires Knowledge.

Justice

Based on Part 1 Publication Titled Differential differences, we point out element eccentric necessary to initiate removal proceedings as conviction not a complain or facts thereof.  Part 2 we will look at overview elements requirement for controlled substance to violate that State statue. This approach can be also applied in other areas of law that require Men’s rea.  All issues assented are opinions of the author, common sense dictate your own research.     

Unlawful possession of a controlled substance for sale requires proof the defendant possessed the contraband with the intent of selling it and with knowledge of both its presence and illegal character.”

Moreover, California does not, criminalize the mere power to control the narcotic; instead, “the offender must knowingly control it with the specific intent to sell it or to have someone else sell it”.

Sandoval-Venegas, 292 F.3d at 1107 (citation omitted).

Consequently, assuming that “L.I.O.” is applied correctly and charged under CHS § 11357 for simple possession[1]

Federal law prohibits the simple possession of any amount of a controlled substance 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) However,  It is also noted that an individual could be assessed a civil penalty for possession of a “personal use amount” of marijuana for is first two violations. 21 U.S.C. 844 a (d). Thus, the individual could be fined for possession of a “personal use amount” of marijuana twice before he would be convicted of simple possession and subject to deportation.

RESPONDENT WHAT HIS REQUIRED TO KNOW IS NOT THE SAME

AS

WHAT THE JURY MUST FIND.

As here, the crime is knowing and intentional possession of the controlled substance itself. See: United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 699-700 (5th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a conviction under § 841(a)(1) requires knowledge that the substance was a controlled substance, but rejecting the argument that knowledge of the exact drug type or quantity is an element of the offense). United States v. Abdulle, 564 F.3d 119, 125-26 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he law is settled that a defendant need not know the exact nature of a drug in his possession to violate § 841(a)(1); it is sufficient that he [or she] be aware that he [or she] possesses some controlled substance.”).

The Suspect/defendant knowledge of what controlled substance he posses has no bearing on the Jury’s finding that he did in fact posses a specific controlled substance. See: CALJIC 12.21.]                                                                                                                                                 “Elements, as distinguished from means, are factual circumstances of the offense the jury must find unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.” Omargharib, 775 F.3d at 198. (citations omitted). The elements of the offense possession with intent to sell a controlled substances are the possession thereof with knowledge of character of the substance not nature of the item (See: People v. Gory 28 Cal.2d P.453-454). Therefore possession with intent for sale controlled and knowledge thereof would be lacking and defendants would not have committed the offense charged.

For more similar content, Please Sign Up

[1] See: CHS § 11359 Jury instruction CALCRIM No.2352

DIFFERENTIAL WITH DEFFERENCES

American Flag, American Flag with eagle
Immigration reform march in San Jose. Photo by; Roshanda Cummings (o2be_me)

In Immigration, there are differential deference between a complain and conviction

PART I OF 5

“Whether a particular conviction is a [removable] offense is a question of law. “Thus, Executive Branch cannot be a substitute to judicial branch by adopting meanings based on interpretation’s that are contrary to criminal guidelines, Supreme Court and Circuits Court precedents”.                                                                                                                                 See also, Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2000)

To determine whether a conviction constitutes a predicate offense for removal purposes, we use the analytical model constructed by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990).”  Under the categorical approach, we “compare the elements of the statute forming the basis of the defendant’s conviction with the elements of the ‘generic’ offense”. Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2281 (2013).

  1. a) Statue of conviction is categorical match to the generic predicate offense that is; if the statute of conviction criminalizes only as much (or less) conduct than the generic offense. “A state statute is a categorical match to the generic federal statute if it proscribes the same amount of or less conduct than the federal statute. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 588-89; see also Aguilera-Rios, 754 F.3d 1105, 2014 WL 4800292, at *6-7 (citing Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678, 1686-87, 185 L. Ed. 2d 727 (2013)). “If the statute of conviction ‘sweeps more broadly than the generic crime, a conviction under that law cannot [categorically] count as [a qualifying] predicate, even if the defendant committed the offense in its generic form.'” {if a conviction categorically constitutes a predicate offense the inquiry ends, if not we move to step two}.
  2. b) We ask if the statute of convictions comparatively “overboard” element is divisible if not, then our inquiry ends, because a conviction under an indivisible overboard statute can never serve as a predicate offense. The “elements-centric, ‘formal categorical approach'” precludes this court from delving into the facts disclosed by the record of conviction other than to determine “which statutory phrase was the basis for the conviction.” See Descamps, 133 S.Ct. At 2284-86/ note fn[1]

With emphasis; California Health & Safety Code § 11359 is indivisible and use of “L.I.O.[2]” in a statue is categorical overboard, which precludes application of the modified categorical approach. As explained, to determine whether a statute is divisible, we consider whether “an element of the crime of conviction contains alternatives, one of which is an element of its Federal analogue,  Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077, 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) recently held that a disjunctive statute is divisible, only if it contains multiple alternative elements, as opposed to multiple alternative means.

More specifically under Rendon [id] “[o]nly when state law requires that’ to convict the defendant and the jury must prove and agree unanimously that defendant committed a particular substantive offense contained within the disjunctive worded statute are we able to conclude that the statute contains alternative elements and not alternative means. A statute is ‘indivisible” if it does not have alternative elements and criminalizes a “broader swath of conduct than the relevant Federal law does. Descamps 133 S.Ct at 2282. If a statute is not divisible, then courts cannot apply the modified categorical approach to determine the facts underlying an individual’s particular conviction. Descamps, 133 S.Ct. At 2283, because the Jury must specifically find the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed a controlled substance, marijuana is alternate means of satisfying the controlled substance’s element.

To arguement can be raised that; the drug listed by reference in CHS § 11360 (a) or 11359 “L.I.O.” is not “element” because “a jury need not find the specific type of drug involve in a case requiring proof of possession. Instructions for 11359 reflect as much in/ See: CALJIC 12.21. [(The people do not need to prove that defendant knew which specific contained substance (he/she possessed].

       Agreeing to buy a controlled substance does not by itself, mean that a person has control over the substance.] Furthermore thus, the inconsistent use of the term “marijuana” is prejudice…as the penalty in § 1170 (h) under the State is the same, it makes no different during the plea hearing whether respondent possessed hashish, hashish oil or concentrated cannabis[3]. See: People v. Romero, 55 Cal.App.4th 147, 156 64 Cal .Rptr 2d 16 (1997). Concerns the mens rea for possession, not whether the specific drug is an element.   

Please Sign Up and Stay informed.

[1] . A statute is divisible if it sets forth “multiple, alternative versions of the crime,” thereby “effectively creat[ing] “several different crimes.” Id. at 2284-85 (citation omitted). A statute is “indivisible” if it does not have alternate elements and criminalizes a “broader swath of conduct” than the relevant federal law does. Id. at 2282

[2] Lower Included Offense

[3]The drug provisions found in 21 U.S.C. 841 are bifurcated into distinct parts which define the crime and then establish penalties which correspond to the quantity of the drug. Penalty provisions demonstrates that hashish should not be treated the same as marijuana Section 841 (b)(1)(D)( Arguably under 841 (b)(1)(D) penalty provision demonstrates that Congress did not intend marijuana and hashish to be treated in the same manner , even though hashish is not statutorily defined, the penalty distinction is based upon the greater potency of the hashish derivative of the “cannabis sativa” plant, To equate these two drugs in the exception clause of  the Act e.g (241)(a)(2)(B)(i) would be to ignore the importance of this penalty distinction and the clear intent of Congress that these drugs be treated differently.)

HANDS THAT ROCK THE CRADLE

        We can all take this moment and credit all the woman’s around the world as they continue to be preeminent force of change.

To my mother;

As I was born with the scent of the wild and a smell of Gorillas, I thank you every minute of it or else I should had not make it so far. You Rock!
From works of William Rose Wallace:  I recite back the following words;
“Infancy’s the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mother’s first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow–
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world”. (W.R. Wallace)

Salute To All Woman’s

Continue reading HANDS THAT ROCK THE CRADLE