Civil Or Criminal, Prisoner Or Not Prisoner: Deciphering A Failed Unsophisticated Conspiracy.

Aboubakar YARI¹  &  Venus YARI²

Affiliations:

1. Biotech tropicana,IncForensics
2. Biotech tropicana,IncLITIGATOR

Abstract:

A criminal background record or prisoner status may affect a business owner’s credit in establishing promotional relations with other businesses. SuspectR is a business owner that claimed and documented a clear criminal background and no prisonertatus. Numerous claims from other sources support the contrary to suspectR claims. Here, we investigate the opposing claims of the two parties. We then balance and analyse the evidences from both sources, seeking for an unbiased conclusion.  

Keywords: Civil;  Criminal;  Status;  Law;  Rights; Ownership;  Conspiracy;  Wealth;  Power; Corruption; Competition; Concept; Evolution.

Issues:

1. Criminal or prisoner status and the ability to own and operate a business

2. Evolution of definition of a concept: The Habeas Corpus Law.

Clues:

Primary Clue: Pattern Recognition:

Repetitive appearances of prisoners of prisoner related logos at sites of business activity disturbances in a coincidence pattern that is consistent enough to exclude hazard.

* For additional clues, see appendix.

Hypothesis:

a) An analphabet “idiot” may have seen the word “prisoner” on a Habeas Corpus court order, ordering suspectR a permission to wait for travel documents at home after expiration of an administrative period allowed by law, and may have concluded that suspectR had a prisoner status.

b) The misleading information on prisoner status may have then be propagated for the purpose of disturbing suspectR business activities.

Background:

Procedural background

To live and work in CountryC, a noncitizen must apply and be granted appropriate authorizations before an immigration agency, or affiliated agencies. Once granted the noncitizen must proceed according to the terms of the authorization document. In case of violation of one or more clauses of the documents, the immigration agency has authority to cancel the documents. 

When the immigration document is cancelled, the noncitizen is removed back to his homecountry. In the removal proceedings the noncitizen has an option to challenge the findings of eligibility for removal by the immigration agency, before an immigration court that has authority to reverse or confirm the findings of the immigration agency,

A noncitizen that failed to appear in court in removal proceedings SHALL be ordered remove in “absentia” and deny all remedies provided under the removal proceedings. The alien is given one opportunity to explain in written through a letter to the immigration judge, stating the reasons for failing to appear in court. The immigration judge may reverse the “in absentia” removal order and reset the noncitizen for a new hearing if the reasons stated by the noncitizens satisfied a set of criteria, OR confirm the “in absentia” removal when the reasons are not satisfactory.

If the findings of removability is confirmed the immigration agency initiates a travel process. The noncitizen must depart from countryC, either voluntary of by force.

1. Voluntary departure

The noncitizen must request a voluntary departure before the immigration judge that issued the removal order. The noncitizen pays for his trip back to his homecountry on or before a date set by judge. Advantages include avoidance of a ten years bar to return, and possibility to return anytime the noncitizen is granted another authorization by immigration affiliated agencies abroad.

2. Forced departure

If the noncitizen is not granted a voluntary departure or failed to departure or failed to depart on or before the date set by the immigration judge, the alien is placed into a forced departure scheme.

Disavantages include a restriction of movement of the noncitizen during processing of travel documents and a mandatory 10 years bar  from returning to countryC.  

A noncitizen whose letter to explain reasons for failing to appear in court is denied is placed automatically under a forced departure scheme with a subsequent restriction of movement.  

Administrative sites for enforcing the restriction of movement status include:

1. Rent unattended schools
2. Rent or managed opened space
3. Rent section of a detention center
4. Rent section or block of a prison facility
5. Dedicated areas for the circumstances

* the key here is that the noncitizen is provided with:

• Food
• Bed, and
• Access to TV

in a controlled area to ensure that  the noncitizen can be located when the travel documents back to his homecountry are ready. Whether the noncitizen in hosted at location a, b, c, d, or e does not in anyway confers to the noncitizen a prisoner status. 

To obtain a travel document the immigration agency must  demonstrate to the embassy of the noncitizen that the noncitizen of countryC is a citizen of the destination country, within a specified time period to avoid an “arbitrary depravation of liberty” on a civil matter. Immigration proceedings in countryC is governed by civil laws NOT criminal law.  In case of abuse of the administrative timeline allowed under the restriction of movement status, the noncitizen has an option to challenge the immigration agency before a court under the Habeas Corpus law.

The Habeas Corpus Law

• Used to address arbitrary deprivation of liberty issues
• An old law, designed during the pre-immigration era in countryC
• Official definition contained the word “prisoner”
• Used by suspectR to request a permission to wait for travel documents at home after expiration of the administrative period allowed by law.

Short Story: Pre-immigration era in countryC

A group of settlers found their way to countryC. No immigration protocol. The settlers found themselves a suitable spot in the woods. They build themselves a couple of wood based cabins. A bigger wood house was built for the oldest member of the group and his family. A new-A city was born, where A is the name of their city of origin.

A couple of miles away from new-A city, another group of settlers founded the new-B city.

The two communities lived in peace and harmony. To that day, when a group of young men from city-A known to hate farming, took their horses and guns to attack new-B city, and took some of their valuable gold. Members of new-B city organized and fought back to get their properties back, causing serious damages in new-A city. 

To promote peace and prosperity, and avoid future damages the wise and elder members of new-A and new-B cities meet in a wooden area between the two cities, to initiate the sequester office containing members of both communities.

Sometimes the sequester will hold “prisoners” for a too long period, for minor crimes. So the wives of the prisoners had a meeting with the wise and elders of their respective communities, requesting the release of their husbands. The compassionate wise and elders of both new-A and new-B cities had another meeting in a wooden area, by the sequester office. That second meeting was fruitful. The Habeas Corpus law was enacted and a courthouse was initiated to enforce the new law and supervise the sequester office. After a curriculum check, a member of new-A city was elected as the Chief Justice. As all candidates, he didn’t have any law degree, but he had a solid background of attendance of court hearings in his city-A of origin.

As countryC grows from a couple to many new-X cities, the Habeas Corpus Law has undergone many efficiency oriented amendments, but to that day the official definition of Habeas Corpus Law contained the original word “prisoner”.

When the administrative period allowed by law, for issuance of a travel document for suspectR to travel back to his homecountry expired, suspectR used the Habeas Corpus Law requesting that he be permitted to wait for travel documents at home with his family. The court issued an order, ordering the sequester to demonstrate why suspecrtR should not be permitted to wait at home, and setting a deadline for suspectR release if no answer is received in his courthouse.

Like the original Habeas Corpus law enacted by a committee of wise and elderly of new-A city and new-B city, the court order issued on behalf of suspectR contained the word “prisoner”.

An analphabet “idiot” may have seen the court order issued on behalf of suspectR and may have concluded that suspectR has a criminal background and a prisoner status. The “idiot” may have propagated the misleading information, causing serious disturbances to suspectR business activities. 

For more on our court order containing word “prisoner” hypothesis, see the events section below.

Methods:

We re-explore the events that may provide an opportunity for transfer of the court order from the owner to non-owners, or to co-owners by regulation. We analyse the collected data seeking for clues that may explain the basis for a negligent propagation or deliberate propagation for the purpose to cause harm. We then evaluate the potential harm to interest that may be caused as a result of propagating the misleading information.

* non-owner is defined as individum or institution that acquires the document without authorization.

* co-owner is defined as individum or institution that acquires the document by regulation.

Results:

Events:

1. Site of suspectTNC

SuspectR introduced a copy of the document (further “order”) before suspectTNC in connection with an application.

2. Site of suspectOU

A copy of the order together with other documents disappear from site of suspectOU.

3. Z-Sites

SuspectR made copies of the order in Z stores that therefore had an opportunity to keep a copy.

4. X-Sites

The order may be transferred from any of the a, b, c sites to an X-site that did never have any direct connection with suspect.R.

Analysis:

A co-owner is by regulation restricted from propagating an official document. Exceptions apply for the transfer from one official file to another official file. (site a).

A non-owner who acquires a document without authorization is a potential source of malicious propagation. (sites b,c,d).

The order or affiliated data may be propagated “officially” from site a, or “unofficially” from sites b, c, and d.

Reasons for propagation may be negligent or purposeful to cause harm.

Potential harm to business credit in countryN is nil to minimal, since the “not for profit status” of the unit operating in countryN makes the unit ineligible for business credit.

Harm to ability to compete for grants is minimal since grant allowance is merit based and processing is blinded to avoid bias.

Harm to capacity building in countryN is negligible to minimal since the unit is technically more advanced than its local partner and donates more capacity than it can acquire.

Harm to ability to interact with other institutions may be substantial in environments that adhere to good governance principles. Barriers may be overcome with information and supporting data where requested.  

The primary function of the unit may be achieved with internal funds. The membership of the unit to a larger group and the interactive and supportive working principles of the group obviate any substantial threat to the unit.

Reconstruction:

SCENARIO 1: Propagation is purposeful to cause harm

1. The order has been transferred “officially” to other agencies from site a, of suspectTNC to other sites in countryN. This scenario could explain the appearances of officials of countryN at sites of business disturbances, in a non-random pattern.
2. The order has been stolen along with other documents from site b, of suspectOU, and propagated from  site b.
3. The order has been stolen along with other documents from site b, of suspectOU, transferred to a site d of susectX, and propagated from site d.
4. The order has been stolen in a Z store at site c, and propogated from site c.
5. The order has been stolen in a Z store at site c, transferred to a site d of suspectX, and propogated from site d.
6. The order has been transferred from any of the sites a, b, c, to a site d of suspectX and propagated from site d.

Scenario 2: Propagation is negligent

The order has been propagated from any of the sites a, b, c, d by negligence without intent to cause harm.

Discussion:

In this matter, suspectR claimed to have not violated any clause of authorisations documents allowing him to live and work in countryC. Instead, clauses had been violated against him. SuspectR provided documents to support his claims, thereby raising a conspiracy hypothesis.

The Conspiracy Theory:

One or more parties who may have interest to disturb suspectR business activities have propagated misleading information portraying suspectR has having a criminal background or a prisoner status to “legally analphabets” groups.

Considering the large perimeters in which suspectR encounters unreasonable business disturbances, the party or parties must be in position of power to control such large areas in time and space simulataneously.

Future work aiming to identify the parties should focus on areas of power. Little time should be devoted to hungry poor opportunists who may be sponsored by unscrupulous power holders in their desperate attempts to disturb suspectR immortal businesses.

Conclusion:

1. The order containing the word “prisoner” may have been seen by an analphabet who by ignorance concluded that suspectR had a criminal background and a prisoner status.

2. The evidences suggest a deliberate propagation of misleading information on suspectR criminal background, and prisoner status for the purpose to cause harm to suspectR business ownership and operation capabilities. However, more data is needed to establish objective links between the events.

Future Work:

Available data suggest a link between the events and business disturbances. More data is needed to establish a degree of correlation. Future work must seek for these data.  Furthermore, future work shall explore possible linkage to events in investigative reports (1)(1):2.

References:

[1] A YARI & V YARI. SMARTPolicing Police: Investigating Potential Passport-Visa Processing Links. A Case Study From The Biotech tropicana,IncFORENSICS FILES. Biotech tropicana,IncForensics, Investigative Reports, (1)(1):2, 2015;

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]