This page and all others linked to it — All copyrighted sources are quoted and used for comment and education in accord with the nonprofit provisions of: Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107. These sites are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107 and are protected under: The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ….

My Blog List

Saturday, December 15, 2012

The new Slavery - Abortion murder

All copyrighted sources are quoted and used for comment and education in accord with the nonprofit provisions of: Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107. This site is in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107 and is protected under the Fair Use doctrine. 

The new Slavery - Abortion murder.  See - Abortion is murder.

The below article is from - http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24164

slavery

The law of slavery > Master-slave legal relationships

The master-slave relationship was the cornerstone of the law of slavery, and yet it was an area about which the law often said very little. In many societies the subordination of the slave to his owner was supposed to be complete; in general, the more complete an owner's control over his slave, the less the law was likely to say about it.
A major touchstone of the nature of a slave society was whether or not the owner had the right to kill his slave. In most Neolithic and Bronze Age societies slaves had no such right, for slaves from ancient Egypt and the Eurasian steppes were buried alive or killed to accompany their deceased owners into the next world. Among the Northwest Coast Tlingit, slave owners killed their slaves in potlatches to demonstrate their contempt for property and wealth; they also killed old or unwanted slaves and threw their bodies into the Pacific Ocean. An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece, ancient India, the Roman Republic, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon England, medieval Russia, and many parts of the American South before 1830.
That was not the case in other societies. The Hebrews, the Athenians, and the Romans under the principate restricted the right of slave owners to kill their human chattel. The Code of Justinian changed the definition of the slave from a thing to a person and prescribed the death penalty for an owner who killed his slave by torture, poison, or fire. Spanish law of the 1260s and 1270s denied owners the right to kill their slaves. Lithuanian and Muscovite law forbade the killing, maiming, or starving of a returned fugitive slave. Qing Chinese law punished a master who killed his slave, and that punishment was more severe if the slave had done no wrong. The Aztecs under some circumstances put to death a slave owner who killed his slave. No society, on the other hand, had the slightest sympathy for the slave who killed his owner. Roman law even prescribed that all other slaves living under the same roof were to be put to death along with the slave who had committed the homicide.
Assault and general brutality were other concerns of the law of slavery. In antiquity slaves often had the right to take refuge in a temple to escape cruel owners, but that sometimes afforded little protection. The ancient Franks and the Germans warned owners against cruelty. The Code of Justinian and the Spanish Siete Partidas deprived cruel owners of their slaves, and that tradition went into the Louisiana Black Code of 1806, which made cruel punishment of slaves a crime. In modern societies brutality and sadistic murder of slaves by their owners were rarely condoned on the grounds that such episodes demoralized other slaves and made them rebellious, but few slave owners were actually punished for maltreating their slaves. In the American South 10 codes prescribed forced sale to another owner or emancipation for maltreated slaves. Nevertheless, cases such as State v.Hoover (North Carolina, 1839) and State v. Jones(Alabama, 1843) were considered sensational because slave owners were punished for savagely “correcting” their slaves to death.
It was not an axiom of the master-slave relationship that the former automatically had sexual access to the latter. That was indeed the case in most societies, ranging from the ancient Middle East, Athens, and Rome to Africa, all Islamic countries, and the American South. Places such as Muscovy, however, forbade owners to rape their female slaves, while the Chinese and the Lombards forbade the raping of married slave women. More problematic were sexual relations between mistresses and male slaves. Athens and Rome both put the slave to death, and Byzantine law prescribed that the mistress was to be executed and the slave to be burned alive. The Danish Virgin Islands' laws of 1741, 1755, and 1783, in an attempt to protect northern Europeans from African “contamination,” prescribed a fine of 2,000 pounds of sugar for a man who raped a black slave, and a white woman who had sexual relations with a black slave was to be fined, imprisoned, and then deported.
The labour and food regimes were central to almost every slave's life. In societies where the owner's control over his slave was total, such as the Roman Empire or the pre-1830 American South, the law said little or nothing about how long he could work him and whether his slave had a right to food and clothing. In South India the slave owner had an absolute right to whatever labour his slave was capable of rendering. In Muscovy, on the other hand, a slave owner was jailed for forcing his slaves to labour on Sunday. In Judea in 200 BCE, in Sicily in 135–32 BCE, and on the Nile in 46 CE, regulations prescribed the food rations a slave could expect. The Lithuanian Statute of 1588 and the Russians in 1603 and 1649 decreed that slaves had a right to be fed. The Danish Virgin Islands in 1755 prescribed adequate food rations. The Alabama Slave Code of 1852 mandated that the owner had to provide slaves of working age a sufficiency of healthy food, clothing, attention during illness, and necessities in old age.


Contents of this article:
·
 Introduction
·
 Historical survey
·
 Slave-owning societies
·
 Slave societies
·
 Slavery in the Americas
·
 The international slave trade
·
 Ways of ending slavery
·
The law of slavery
·
 Sources of slavery law
·
 Legal definitions of slavery
·
 Master-slave legal relationships
·
 Family and property
·
 Legal relationships between slave owners
·
 Legal relationships between slaves and free strangers
·
 Laws of manumission
·
The sociology of slavery
·
 The slave as outsider
·
 Attitudes toward slavery: the matter of race
·
 Slave occupations
·
 Agriculture
·
 Slave demography
·
 Slave protest
·
 Slave culture
·
Additional Reading
·
 General works
·
 Slavery in early history
·
 Slavery in Europe
·
 Slavery in Africa and Asia
·
 Slavery in the New World



Abortion is murder.

Abortion is murder. The legalisms are that one may commit this murder when a doctor is paid his fee for that "pound of flesh." (There is no NO difference between Shylock and abortion doctors, especially beginning with Alan Guttmacher and the Guttmacher Institute, and their murderess client baby murdering Mothers and Cain who killed Abel.) All copyrighted sources are quoted and used for comment and education in accord with the nonprofit provisions of: Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107 and in accordance with "Fair Use." source for below: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm

New York Laws

Laws of New York - This site contains the full online searchable text of the New York Penal Law, the New York Criminal Procedure Law, the New York Vehicle & Traffic Law and some of theNew York Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws.

Article 125 - NY Penal Law

HOMICIDE, ABORTION AND RELATED OFFENSES
125.00 Homicide defined.
125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms.
125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
125.11 Aggravated criminally negligent homicide.
125.12 Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.
125.13 Vehicular manslaughter in the first degree.
125.14 Aggravated vehicular homicide.
125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
125.21 Aggravated manslaughter in the second degree.
125.22 Aggravated manslaughter in the first degree.
125.25 Murder in the second degree.
125.26 Aggravated murder.
125.27 Murder in the first degree.
125.40 Abortion in the second degree.
125.45 Abortion in the first degree.
125.50 Self-abortion in the second degree.
125.55 Self-abortion in the first degree.
125.60 Issuing abortional articles.

S 125.00 Homicide defined.
  Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn
child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four
weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first
degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent
homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first
degree.


S 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms.
  The following definitions are applicable to this article:
  1. "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human
being who has been born and is alive.
  2. "Abortional act" means an act committed upon or with respect to a
female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether she
is pregnant or not, whether directly upon her body or by the
administering, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner,
with intent to cause a miscarriage of such female.
  3. "Justifiable abortional act." An abortional act is justifiable when
committed upon a female with her consent by a duly licensed physician
acting (a) under a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve
her life, or, (b) within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her
pregnancy. A pregnant female`s commission of an abortional act upon
herself is justifiable when she acts upon the advice of a duly licensed
physician (1) that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, (2)
within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. The
submission by a female to an abortional act is justifiable when she
believes that it is being committed by a duly licensed physician, acting
under a reasonable belief that such act is necessary to preserve her
life, or, within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her
pregnancy.

S 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
  A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with
criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.
  Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.

S 125.11 Aggravated criminally negligent homicide.
  A  person  is guilty of aggravated criminally negligent homicide when,
with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of a police officer
or peace officer where such officer was in the course of performing  his
or  her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have
known that such victim was a police officer or peace officer.
  Aggravated criminally negligent homicide is a class C felony.

S 125.12 Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.
  A person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree when
  he or she causes the death of another person, and either:
    (1)  operates  a motor vehicle in violation of subdivision two, three,
  four or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the  vehicle  and
  traffic  law  or  operates  a  vessel  or  public vessel in violation of
  paragraph  (b),  (c),  (d)  or  (e)  of  subdivision  two   of   section
  forty-nine-a of the navigation law, and as a result of such intoxication
  or  impairment  by  the  use  of a drug, or by the combined influence of
  drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, operates such motor  vehicle,
  vessel  or public vessel in a manner that causes the death of such other
  person, or
    (2) operates a motor vehicle with a gross  vehicle  weight  rating  of
  more  than  eighteen  thousand  pounds  which  contains  flammable  gas,
  radioactive materials or explosives in violation of subdivision  one  of
  section  eleven  hundred  ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law, and
  such flammable gas, radioactive materials or explosives is the cause  of
  such  death,  and  as a result of such impairment by the use of alcohol,
  operates such motor vehicle in a manner that causes the  death  of  such
  other person, or
    (3) operates a snowmobile in violation of paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of
  subdivision  one  of section 25.24 of the parks, recreation and historic
  preservation law or operates  an  all  terrain  vehicle  as  defined  in
  paragraph   (a)   of  subdivision  one  of  section  twenty-two  hundred
  eighty-one of the vehicle and traffic law in  violation  of  subdivision
  two,  three, four, or four-a of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the
  vehicle and traffic law,  and  as  a  result  of  such  intoxication  or
  impairment  by  the use of a drug, or by the combined influence of drugs
  or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, operates  such  snowmobile  or  all
  terrain vehicle in a manner that causes the death of such other person.
    If  it  is  established  that the person operating such motor vehicle,
  vessel, public vessel, snowmobile or all  terrain  vehicle  caused  such
  death  while unlawfully intoxicated or impaired by the use of alcohol or
  a drug, then there shall be a rebuttable presumption that, as  a  result
  of  such  intoxication or impairment by the use of alcohol or a drug, or
  by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or  drugs,
  such   person   operated  the  motor  vehicle,  vessel,  public  vessel,
  snowmobile or all terrain vehicle in a manner that caused such death, as
  required by this section.
  Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree is a class D felony.

S 125.13 Vehicular manslaughter in the first degree.
 A  person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree when
  he or she commits the crime of  vehicular  manslaughter  in  the  second
  degree as defined in section 125.12 of this article, and either:
    (1)  commits  such  crime  while  operating a motor vehicle while such
  person has .18 of one per centum or more by weight of  alcohol  in  such
  person's  blood  as  shown  by chemical analysis of such person's blood,
  breath, urine or saliva made  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  section
  eleven hundred ninety-four of the vehicle and traffic law;
    (2)  commits  such  crime while knowing or having reason to know that:
  (a) his or her license or his or her  privilege  of  operating  a  motor
  vehicle  in another state or his or her privilege of obtaining a license
  to operate a motor vehicle in another state is suspended or revoked  and
  such  suspension  or revocation is based upon a conviction in such other
  state for an offense which would, if committed in this state, constitute
  a  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  section  eleven  hundred
  ninety-two  of the vehicle and traffic law; or (b) his or her license or
  his or her privilege of operating a motor vehicle in the state or his or
  her privilege of obtaining a license issued by the commissioner of motor
  vehicles is suspended or revoked and such suspension  or  revocation  is
  based  upon  either  a  refusal to submit to a chemical test pursuant to
  section eleven hundred ninety-four of the vehicle  and  traffic  law  or
  following  a  conviction  for  a  violation  of any of the provisions of
  section eleven hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law;
    (3) has previously been convicted of violating any of  the  provisions
  of  section  eleven  hundred  ninety-two  of the vehicle and traffic law
  within the preceding ten years, provided that, for the purposes of  this
  subdivision,  a  conviction  in  any  other state or jurisdiction for an
  offense which, if committed in this state, would constitute a  violation
  of  section  eleven  hundred  ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law,
  shall be treated as a violation of such law;
    (4) causes the death of more than one other person;
    (5) has previously been convicted of violating any provision  of  this
  article  or  article  one  hundred  twenty  of  this title involving the
  operation of a motor vehicle, or was convicted in  any  other  state  or
  jurisdiction  of  an  offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle
  which, if committed in this state, would constitute a violation of  this
  article or article one hundred twenty of this title; or
    (6)  commits  such crime while operating a motor vehicle while a child
  who is fifteen years of age or less is a passenger in such motor vehicle
  and causes the death of such child.
    If it is established that the  person  operating  such  motor  vehicle
  caused  such death or deaths while unlawfully intoxicated or impaired by
  the use of alcohol or a drug, or by the combined influence of  drugs  or
  of  alcohol  and  any  drug  or  drugs, then there shall be a rebuttable
  presumption that, as a result of such intoxication or impairment by  the
  use  of  alcohol  or a drug, or by the combined influence of drugs or of
  alcohol and any drug or drugs, such person operated the motor vehicle in
  a manner that caused such death or deaths, as required by  this  section
  and section 125.12 of this article.
  Vehicular manslaughter in the first degree is a class C felony.

S 125.14  Aggravated vehicular homicide.
   A  person  is  guilty  of aggravated vehicular homicide when he or she
engages in reckless driving as defined by section twelve hundred  twelve
of  the  vehicle  and  traffic  law,  and commits the crime of vehicular
manslaughter in the second degree as defined in section 125.12  of  this
article, and either:
  (1)  commits  such  crimes  while operating a motor vehicle while such
person has .18 of one per centum or more by weight of  alcohol  in  such
person's  blood  as  shown  by chemical analysis of such person's blood,
breath, urine or saliva made  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  section
eleven hundred ninety-four of the vehicle and traffic law;
  (2)  commits  such crimes while knowing or having reason to know that:
(a) his or her license or his or her  privilege  of  operating  a  motor
vehicle  in another state or his or her privilege of obtaining a license
to operate a motor vehicle in another state is suspended or revoked  and
such  suspension  or revocation is based upon a conviction in such other
state for an offense which would, if committed in this state, constitute
a  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  section  eleven  hundred
ninety-two  of the vehicle and traffic law; or (b) his or her license or
his or her privilege of operating a motor vehicle in this state  or  his
or  her  privilege  of obtaining a license issued by the commissioner of
motor vehicles is suspended or revoked and such suspension or revocation
is based upon either a refusal to submit to a chemical test pursuant  to
section  eleven  hundred  ninety-four  of the vehicle and traffic law or
following a conviction for a violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of
section eleven hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law;
  (3)  has  previously been convicted of violating any of the provisions
of section eleven hundred ninety-two of  the  vehicle  and  traffic  law
within  the preceding ten years, provided that, for the purposes of this
subdivision, a conviction in any other  state  or  jurisdiction  for  an
offense  which, if committed in this state, would constitute a violation
of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the  vehicle  and  traffic  law,
shall be treated as a violation of such law;
  (4) causes the death of more than one other person;
  (5)  causes the death of one person and the serious physical injury of
at least one other person;
  (6) has previously been convicted of violating any provision  of  this
article  or  article  one  hundred  twenty  of  this title involving the
operation of a motor vehicle, or was convicted in  any  other  state  or
jurisdiction  of  an  offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle
which, if committed in this state, would constitute a violation of  this
article or article one hundred twenty of this title; or
  (7)  commits  such crime while operating a motor vehicle while a child
who is fifteen years of age or less is a passenger in such motor vehicle
and causes the death of such child.
  If it is established that the  person  operating  such  motor  vehicle
caused  such death or deaths while unlawfully intoxicated or impaired by
the use of alcohol or a drug, or by the combined influence of  drugs  or
of  alcohol  and  any  drug  or  drugs, then there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that, as a result of such intoxication or impairment by  the
use  of  alcohol  or a drug, or by the combined influence of drugs or of
alcohol and any drug or drugs, such person operated the motor vehicle in
a manner that caused such death or deaths, as required by  this  section
and section 125.12 of this article.
   Aggravated vehicular homicide is a class B felony.

S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
  A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
  1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
  2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05; or
  3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.
  Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

S 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
  A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
  1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
  2. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do
not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme
emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of
section 125.25. The fact that homicide was committed under the influence
of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance
reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree and need not be
proved in any prosecution initiated under this subdivision; or
  3. He commits upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks
an abortional act which causes her death, unless such abortional act is
justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05; or
  4. Being eighteen years old or more and with intent to cause physical
injury to a person less than eleven years old, the defendant recklessly
engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury
to such person and thereby causes the death of such person.
  Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B felony.

S 125.21 Aggravated manslaughter in the second degree.
  A  person  is  guilty  of aggravated manslaughter in the second degree
when he or she recklessly causes the death of a police officer or  peace
officer  where  such  officer was in the course of performing his or her
official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should  have  known
that such victim was a police officer or peace officer.
  Aggravated manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

S 125.22 Aggravated manslaughter in the first degree.
  A  person  is  guilty  of  aggravated manslaughter in the first degree
when:
  1. with intent to cause serious physical injury to a police officer or
peace officer, where such officer was in the course of performing his or
her official duties and the defendant knew  or  reasonably  should  have
known  that  such  victim was a police officer or a peace officer, he or
she causes the death of such officer or another police officer or  peace
officer; or
  2.  with  intent  to  cause  the  death  of  a police officer or peace
officer, where such officer was in the course of performing his  or  her
official  duties  and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known
that such victim was a police officer or peace officer, he or she causes
the death of such officer or another police  officer  or  peace  officer
under  circumstances  which  do  not constitute murder because he or she
acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, as defined in
paragraph (a) of subdivision  one  of  section  125.25.  The  fact  that
homicide   was  committed  under  the  influence  of  extreme  emotional
disturbance constitutes a mitigating  circumstance  reducing  murder  to
aggravated manslaughter in the first degree or manslaughter in the first
degree  and  need  not be proved in any prosecution initiated under this
subdivision.
  Aggravated manslaughter in the first degree is a class B felony.

S 125.25 Murder in the second degree.
  1.  With  intent  to  cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of  such  person  or  of  a  third  person;  except  that  in  any
prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that:
  (a)  The  defendant  acted  under  the  influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse,  the
reasonableness  of  which  is  to  be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's  situation  under  the  circumstances  as  the
defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall
constitute  a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,
manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime; or
  (b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing  or  aiding,  without
the  use  of  duress  or  deception,  another  person to commit suicide.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall  constitute  a  defense  to  a
prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second
degree or any other crime; or
  2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
he  recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person, and thereby causes the death of another person; or
  3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons,  he  commits
or  attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the
first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual  abuse  in
the  first  degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree,
or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance
of  such  crime  or  of  immediate  flight  therefrom,  he,  or  another
participant,  if  there  be any, causes the death of a person other than
one of the participants; except  that  in  any  prosecution  under  this
subdivision,  in which the defendant was not the only participant in the
underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant:
  (a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way  solicit,  request,
command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and
  (b)  Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing death or  serious  physical  injury
and  of  a  sort  not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding
persons; and
  (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was
armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance; and
  (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe  that  any  other  participant
intended  to  engage  in  conduct  likely  to result in death or serious
physical injury; or
  4. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
and being eighteen years old or more the defendant recklessly engages in
conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury  or  death
to  another  person  less  than  eleven years old and thereby causes the
death of such person; or
  5. Being eighteen years old or more, while in the course of committing
rape in the first, second or third degree, criminal sexual  act  in  the
first,  second  or  third  degree,  sexual  abuse  in  the first degree,
aggravated sexual abuse in the first, second, third or fourth degree, or
incest in the first, second or third degree, against a person less  than
fourteen  years  old,  he  or she intentionally causes the death of such
person.
  Murder in the second degree is a class A-I felony.

S 125.26 Aggravated murder.
  A person is guilty of aggravated murder when:
  1.  With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes
the death of such person,  or  of  a  third  person  who  was  a  person
described  in  subparagraph  (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision engaged at  the  time  of  the  killing  in  the  course  of
performing his or her official duties; and
  (a) Either:
  (i) the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the
time  of  the  killing  engaged  in  the course of performing his or her
official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have  known
that the victim was a police officer; or
  (ii) the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a
of  subdivision  twenty-one,  subdivision  twenty-three,  twenty-four or
sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10  of  the
criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the
course  of performing his or her official duties, and the defendant knew
or reasonably should have known that the victim  was  such  a  uniformed
court  officer,  parole  officer,  probation officer, or employee of the
division for youth; or
  (iii) the intended victim was an  employee  of  a  state  correctional
institution  or  was  an  employee  of  a local correctional facility as
defined in subdivision two of section forty of the correction  law,  who
was  at  the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his
or her official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have
known  that  the  victim  was  an  employee  of  a  state   correctional
institution or a local correctional facility; and
  (b)  The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the
commission of the crime; or
  2. (a) With intent to cause the death of a person less  than  fourteen
years  old, he or she causes the death of such person, and the defendant
acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a  course  of
conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior
to  the victim's death. As used in this subdivision, "torture" means the
intentional and depraved infliction of extreme  physical  pain  that  is
separate  and  apart  from  the  pain  which  otherwise  would have been
associated with such cause of death; and
  (b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of  the
commission of the crime.
  3. In any prosecution under subdivision one or two of this section, it
is an affirmative defense that:
  (a)  The  defendant  acted  under  the  influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse,  the
reasonableness  of  which  is  to  be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's  situation  under  the  circumstances  as  the
defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall
constitute  a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,
aggravated manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in  the  first
degree or any other crime except murder in the second degree; or
  (b)  The  defendant's  conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without
the use of duress  or  deception,  another  person  to  commit  suicide.
Nothing  contained  in  this  paragraph  shall constitute a defense to a
prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, aggravated manslaughter in
the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree or any other  crime
except murder in the second degree.
  Aggravated murder is a class A-I felony.

S 125.27 Murder in the first degree.
  A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
  1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of such person or of a third person; and
  (a) Either:
  (i) the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of
the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and
the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended
victim was a police officer; or
  (ii) the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a
of subdivision twenty-one, subdivision twenty-three, twenty-four or
sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10 of the
criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the
course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or
reasonably should have known that the intended victim was such a
uniformed court officer, parole officer, probation officer, or employee
of the division for youth; or
  (iii) the intended victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or was an employee of a local correctional facility as
defined in subdivision two of section forty of the correction law, who
was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his
official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known
that the intended victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or a local correctional facility; or
  (iv) at the time of the commission of the killing, the defendant was
confined in a state correctional institution or was otherwise in custody
upon a sentence for the term of his natural life, or upon a sentence
commuted to one of natural life, or upon a sentence for an indeterminate
term the minimum of which was at least fifteen years and the maximum of
which was natural life, or at the time of the commission of the killing,
the defendant had escaped from such confinement or custody while serving
such a sentence and had not yet been returned to such confinement or
custody; or
  (v) the intended victim was a witness to a crime committed on a prior
occasion and the death was caused for the purpose of preventing the
intended victim`s testimony in any criminal action or proceeding whether
or not such action or proceeding had been commenced, or the intended
victim had previously testified in a criminal action or proceeding and
the killing was committed for the purpose of exacting retribution for
such prior testimony, or the intended victim was an immediate family
member of a witness to a crime committed on a prior occasion and the
killing was committed for the purpose of preventing or influencing the
testimony of such witness, or the intended victim was an immediate
family member of a witness who had previously testified in a criminal
action or proceeding and the killing was committed for the purpose of
exacting retribution upon such witness for such prior testimony.  As
used in this subparagraph "immediate family member" means a husband,
wife, father, mother, daughter, son, brother, sister, stepparent,
grandparent, stepchild or grandchild; or
  (vi) the defendant committed the killing or procured commission of the
killing pursuant to an agreement with a person other than the intended
victim to commit the same for the receipt, or in expectation of the
receipt, of anything of pecuniary value from a party to the agreement or
from a person other than the intended victim acting at the direction of
a party to such agreement; or
  (vii) the victim was killed while the defendant was in the  course  of
committing  or  attempting  to  commit  and  in  furtherance of robbery,
burglary in the first degree or second degree, kidnapping in  the  first
degree,  arson  in  the first degree or second degree, rape in the first
degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree,  sexual  abuse  in  the
first  degree,  aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree or escape in
the first degree, or in the  course  of  and  furtherance  of  immediate
flight after committing or attempting to commit any such crime or in the
course of and furtherance of immediate flight after attempting to commit
the  crime  of murder in the second degree; provided however, the victim
is not a participant in one of the aforementioned crimes  and,  provided
further  that,  unless  the  defendant's  criminal  liability under this
subparagraph is based upon the defendant having commanded another person
to cause the death of the victim or intended victim pursuant to  section
20.00  of  this  chapter,  this  subparagraph  shall not apply where the
defendant's criminal liability is based  upon  the  conduct  of  another
pursuant to section 20.00 of this chapter; or
  (viii) as part of the same criminal transaction, the defendant, with
intent to cause serious physical injury to or the death of an additional
person or persons, causes the death of an additional person or persons;
provided, however, the victim is not a participant in the criminal
transaction; or
  (ix) prior to committing the killing, the defendant had been convicted
of murder as defined in this section or section 125.25 of this article,
or had been convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense which, if
committed in this state, would constitute a violation of either of such
sections; or
  (x) the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner
pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting
torture upon the victim prior to the victim`s death. As used in this
subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of
extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the
infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing
debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of
pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain; or
  (xi) the defendant intentionally caused the death of two or more
additional persons within the state in separate criminal transactions
within a period of twenty-four months when committed in a similar
fashion or pursuant to a common scheme or plan; or
  (xii) the intended victim was a judge as defined in subdivision
twenty-three of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law and the
defendant killed such victim because such victim was, at the time of the
killing, a judge; or
  (xiii) the victim was killed in furtherance of an act of terrorism, as
defined in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section 490.05 of this
chapter; and
  (b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the
commission of the crime.
  2. In any prosecution under subdivision one, it is an affirmative
defense that:
  (a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant`s situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall
constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,
manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime except murder in the
second degree; or
  (b) The defendant`s conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without
the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a
prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second
degree or any other crime except murder in the second degree.
  Murder in the first degree is a class A-I felony.

S 125.40 Abortion in the second degree.
  A person is guilty of abortion in the second degree when he commits an
abortional act upon a female, unless such abortional act is justifiable
pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.
  Abortion in the second degree is a class E felony.

S 125.45 Abortion in the first degree.
  A person is guilty of abortion in the first degree when he commits
upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks an abortional act
which causes the miscarriage of such female, unless such abortional act
is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.
  Abortion in the first degree is a class D felony.

S 125.50 Self-abortion in the second degree.
  A female is guilty of self-abortion in the second degree when, being
pregnant, she commits or submits to an abortional act upon herself,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05.
  Self-abortion in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.

S 125.55 Self-abortion in the first degree.
  A female is guilty of self-abortion in the first degree when, being
pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks, she commits or submits to an
abortional act upon herself which causes her miscarriage, unless such
abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section
125.05.
  Self-abortion in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 125.60 Issuing abortional articles.
  A person is guilty of issuing abortional articles when he
manufactures, sells or delivers any instrument, article, medicine, drug
or substance with intent that the same be used in unlawfully procuring
the miscarriage of a female.
  Issuing abortional articles is a class B misdemeanor.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The Beast from the Earth = The biggest crime syndicate in the world - New Church, the New World Order's Mob Bankers



This is not something that has been imbedded in the Vatican in any full blown sense for centuries. It has lurched toward it from time to time over the centuries, but it wasn't until the complete takeover of the Vatican by the Freemasons in the 1958 Conclave through the Vatican II Freemasonic/CIA mob Council 1962 - 1965 and thereafter that it went ballistic into an order of magnitude that is of absolute all encompassing Transnational Global total Satanic Antichrist control without any change of that thereafter, i.e. the Great Apostasy; see: World War III and the False Peace: LIBERATION THEOLOGY, THE VATICAN, AND THE CIA: GHOSTS AND PHANTOMS





FREEMASON WILLIAMSON DECOY

The Vatican and their Transnational Freemasonic Criminal Espionage Crime Banking: "The Secrets of the Vatican Bank"

Concordat Watch - FAQ | Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works)

Vatican Bank (Institute for Religious Works)

The IOR is built on secrecy. It keeps secret accounts, does no audits and claims to destroy records after ten years. The “murky” Vatican Bank has been making promises to three international monetary watchdogs to provide more financial transparency since 1998. To keep using the euro, it agreed in 2009 to submit to the anti-money-laundering laws of the European Union, with partial success so far. It appears to have shelved for now any attempts to get onto the OECD's “white list” of financially virtuous countries. But according to a Mexican bishop, money laundering by the Church is theologically impossible, anyway....
“The Holy See’s financial statement values St Peter’s Basilica at one euro.
The Vatican Bank...is ‘off the books’, i.e. not listed on the financial statement.” [1]
A US court described it as “murky” [2] and the last President of the Vatican Bank admits that it offers secret accounts to many who “have had problems with the law”. There are no cheque books. Everything is done by transfer, by cash or in gold bullion, so as to be untraceable. This is perfect for money-laundering. And, as if the nine-metre thick walls of its tower in the Vatican did not offer enough privacy, “God’s bank” appears to have quietly established itself in the offshore financial centre of the Cayman Islands. [3]
As the bank of an independent state, the Vatican Bank escapes scrutiny from Italy. In addition, it has an impenetrable organisation, with three separate boards of directors. And it boasts another curious feature: it is said to be “never audited”, hence funds deposited there may simply vanish without a trace. [4] The Vatican Bank even maintains that it adopts the remarkable practice of destroying all of its records every ten years. [5]
Increased international oversight
The Vatican Bank is now coming under pressure from three organisations to conform more closely to international banking rules designed to prevent fraud.
♦ In 2009, to be able to continue using the euro, the Vatican Bank agreed to submit to the anti-money-laundering laws of the European Union thus putting itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It updated its agreement with Italy and the European Commission to come closer to conforming to European Union monetary regulations against financial fraud  (Article 8) [6] and brought in a Vatican law “approximating” the EU rules at the end of 2010, in order for it to better monitor itself....  [7] (A spokesman has claimed that it is “not a bank in the normal definition of the term” and therefore expects special treatment.) [8]
♦ The Vatican Bank has been in talks with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentwhich sets transparency standards. However, more than a decade after the OECD began its investigation of tax havens in 1998, the Vatican is still not on its “white list” of countries with good records on transparency. [9]
♦ The Vatican Bank is also negotiating with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which imposes measures against money laundering and terrorist financing and has promised to adopt the anti-money laundering standards set by the FATF, but not any time soon. This lengthy process would involve the Vatican passing anti-money laundering legislation and setting up the equivalent of the Bank of Italy’s Financial Intelligence Unit to monitor IOR’s activities. [10]
Money laundering investigation
 On the one hand, it has used its “less than clear” relationship to the Vatican State to claim “sovereign immunity”. [11] This connection with the Vatican State has enabled it to avoid having to answer charges in a US court that after WWII it helped hide and launder millions of dollars of concentration camp loot. [12] And it continues ― when convenient ― to assert its immunity from scrutiny as an organ of the Vatican State. Thus in September 2010 a Vatican spokesman claimed that “The IOR is located within the territory of Vatican City State, beyond the jurisdiction and surveillance of various national banks”. [13] 
Yet, on the other hand, the IOR was discovered in 2010 to be acting as if it were an Italian bank, thus avoiding scrutiny of certain money transfers. The Italian prosecutor said that in refusing to give an Italian Bank the requested information the Vatican Bank had demonstrated “a deliberate failure to observe the anti-laundering laws with the aim of hiding the ownership, destination and origin of the capital.” [14] Although the Vatican insists this is a “misunderstanding” which can be easily cleared up, an Italian judge has twice upheld the seizure of €23 million ( $33 million) and denied the Vatican’s request for a return of the funds until mid 2011 [15]. Furthermore, in December 2010, three months after the mysterious transaction came to light, an Italian judge criticised the Vatican bank for continuing to hide the identity of its clients. [16]
There are also recent additional unrelated cases which have come to the attention of the police. In one case the agent caught shifting mysterious funds for a rich client was a priest. [17] And another priest apparently used the Vatican Bank to help his father launder the €250,000 he had obtained from European Union funding for a non-existent fish farm, a grant which was then withdrawn from his account by an uncle previously convicted for being with the mafia. [18]
At one time this would have been passed over in silence. However, although the President of the Vatican Bank, Gotti Tedeschi, (reported to be a member of Opus Dei) is a close adviser to Italy’s Finance Minister, [19] the climate of deference before the Vatican appears to be changing and the Italian authorities are becoming bolder in enforcing financial regulation on the Vatican Bank. “The era of omertà is over,” said an expert, referring to the mafia code of silence. [20] 
Tax haven investigation by OECD
The Vatican Bank is effectively “off-shore” from Italy.
IOR does not publish its accounts but is reported to hold €5bn in assets. It provides banking operations for Vatican staff, charitable operations and missions worldwide. It also serves an unknown number of private Italian account holders who use the Vatican as a tax haven. [21]
And, in addition, this “off-shore” tax haven appears to have its own “off-shore” havens. Curious is the location of two of the Church’s “independent missions”. These are missions too small to be set up as apostolic prefectures, yet which are still given autonomy, and thus are not part of any diocese. [22] There are nine “independent missions” worldwide, most of them in remote areas with a sparse Catholic population, like Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. [23] However, two of them have been hived off from pre-existing dioceses. These are theCayman Islands (left) and the Turk and Caicos Islands (right), both of them offshore financial centres.
It is difficult to use pastoral needs to explain the Vatican’s decision to excise the Cayman Islands [in 2000] from its natural Jamaican diocese of Kingston, in order to proclaim them missio sui juris [“independent missions”] under the direct control of the Holy See and entrust them to Cardinal Adam Joseph Maida, a member of the IOR board. [24]
For every person in the Cayman Islands, there are two companies and about five investment funds registered there. [25] In 1998, however, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development began cracking down on tax havens. [26] 
Q. What is a tax haven? A. Any country that offers low rates of tax to attract business is to some extent a tax haven. The real problem is that many countries refuse to release details on suspected tax dodgers to other countries. [27]
Even after a decade of prodding by the OECD, the Caymans and Turk and Caicos Islands have remained on the list of “promise to do better” tax havens. [28] Another curious fact is that in 1998, the year the OECD started to examine tax havens, the administration, (and presumably its financial records) of the “independent missions” in the Turk and Caicos Islands was moved from neighbouring Nassau away from the Caribbean to, of all places, Newark, New Jersey. [29] “Due to its proximity to New York, Northern New Jersey in particular has become susceptible to the money laundering industry.” [30] ...Guess where Newark is.
Of course, none of this has stopped the Pope from attacking tax havens for robbing the poor and laying the blame for the global financial crisis at the door of “offshore centres”. [31]
Vatican Bank tries to satisfy high-profile COE
Internal criticism of the bank was leaked in Janaury 2012, when letters from Carlo Maria Vigano, secretary general of the governorate of the Vatican, were published in Italian papers.
Much of his criticism was focused on a Vatican financial committee that includes the head of the Vatican bank, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. He said the bankers were favouring “their interests” more than the Vatican's. In one financial operation by the bankers that went wrong, the Vatican made a net loss of 2.5 million euros ($3.2 million), the archbishop said. [32]
Two further blows to the reputation of the Vatican Bank were delivered in March 2012. The US State Department for the first time listed the Vatican as potentially vulnerable to money laundering, a notch below those states for which it has solid proof of this. [33] And a few days later the large American bank JP Morgan Chase announced that it was closing the Vatican Bank's account, This account, number 1365, was a “sweeping facility,” meaning that it was emptied out at the end of each day with funds transferred to another IOR account in Germany. Over a period of about 18 months some 1.5 billion euros passed through this mysterious account. [34]
All this was followed in May by the forced resignation of the Vatican Bank’s director, Gotti Tedeschi, a member of Opus Dei who had been in charge since 2009. [35] In 2012 it was reported that the Vatican Bank had made progress in satisfying the transparency test of the Council of Europe. Perhaps predictably this involved better promises than performance: 
The 241-page report found serious problems with the agency's role as a supervisor or regulator of the Vatican's finances, giving it a failing grade. It said the agency had yet to conduct any inspections, can't sanction one of the two key Vatican financial institutions and that its role, authority and independence needed clarification. [36]
When the COE report was released Monsignor Ettore Balestrero, the Vatican undersecretary of state, was asked whether the Vatican was still trying to get onto the FATF and OECD's “white lists” of states with the highest standards in fighting money laundering. However, noncompliance with these does not carry the same penalties as can be applied by the European body: withdrawal of the right to use the euro. Nor has it prompted banks that traditionally handled the Holy See's financial transactions to sever ties, as happened when EU rules appeared to have been flouted. [37] When questioned, the Monsignor said that trying to satisfy the FATF would be next on the list and he hedged about the OECD. [38]
Bishop: It’s theologically impossible for the Church to launder money
In an unguarded moment in 2005 the Bishop of Aguascalientes in Mexico revealed how Church doctrine can let the end justify the means. Giving money to the Church, he said, “purified” it. Monsignor Ramón Godínez Flores who had studied theology and canon law in Rome explained that “It is immaterial where the donations from drug trafficking originate and it’s not up to us to investigate the source of the money.” 
The head of the Education Commission of the Mexican Bishops’ Conference (CEM) used an example to show that it doesn’t matter how money is obtained; all that counts is the “good intentions” of the donor. When the Son of God “received the homage of a woman who anointed his feet with costly ointment”, said the Bishop, “Jesus did not ask, where did you buy that perfume? He didn’t enquire where the money came from, he just accepted the homage.”
Bishop Godínez said, “Whatever donations I get, I accept with thanks.” [39]
A Church official has admitted to knowing of the Church accepting drug money. [40] And, in fact, this appears to be so widespread that the spokesman of the President used the customary term for this ―  “narco-alms”. Even the Bishop admitted, “I have known of cases, but they have been purified”. [41]
Related

Curzio Maltese, “The Secrets of the Vatican Bank” (“Scandali, affari e misteri: tutti i segreti dello Ior”), La Repubblica, 26 January 2008, translated by Graham Hunter. 
Elisabetta Povoledo, “Transfer of Vatican Official Who Exposed Corruption Hints at Power Struggle”, New York Times, 26 January 2012.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/world/europe/archbishop-viganos-transfer-hints-at-vatican-power-struggle.html
Notes
1. “Book Review: Render unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church”, National Secular Society, 17 June 2011.http://www.secularism.org.uk/book-review-render-unto-rome-the.html
2. Judgement of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court, 12 April 2005. “Court clears way for suit against the Vatican Bank for Nazi gold”, San Jose Business Journal, 18 April 2005. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/04/18/daily9.html 
3.“The Secrets of the Vatican Bank”, translated from La Repubblica, 26 January 2008.
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showdoc.php?org_id=843&doc_id=1821  
4. John Loftus, former US Department of Justice prosecutor with the Nazi-hunting OSI unit, quoted by Jonathan Levy, “The Vatican Bank”, ed. Russ Kick,Everything You Know Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies, 2002, p. 19.
http://books.google.com/books?id=T75G7hLlk80C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=loftus+%22osi+unit%22&source=web&ots=ABfGVLzusl&sig=SeGIC9RubNBDZGHwzRXVsUEh96U#PPA20,M1

5. “Declaration of Avvocato (lawyer) Franzo Grande Stevens in support of defendant IOR's (Institute for Religious Works', i.e., Vatican Bank's) motion to dismiss plaintiff's third amended complaint”, 30 October 2000, Turin, Case No. C-99-4941 MMC, United States District Court, Northern District of California, § 21, “It is the custom and practice of the IOR not to retain records after ten years”. http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/vatpr.html 
6. Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Vatican City State, 17 December 2009,  Article 8 and the Annex.http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/world/outside_euro_area/documents/2010-01-01-vatican_monetary_agreement.pdf

7. EU Directives are not directly applicable end even EU states (which the Vatican is not) must transpose the requirements into their national legislation.

Jeffrey Donovan and Lorenzo Totaro, “Pope to Bind Vatican to Money-Laundering Law, EU Says”, Bloomberg News, 29 October 2010.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/-papal-act-set-to-commit-the-vatican-to-money-laundering-laws-eu-says.html 
8. “Vatican Finances Aboveboard, Affirms Aide”, Zenit, 23 September 2010. http://www.zenit.org/article-30465?l=english 
9. Guy Dinmore, “The Vatican: A murky See”, Financial Times, 24 September 2010. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c7e5606-c802-11df-ae3a-00144feab49a.html#axzz150QiGLfh 
10. Guy Dinmore, “Sicily probe adds to Vatican bank pressure in Rome”, Financial Times, 3 November 2010. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a207e64-e736-11df-880d-00144feab49a.html#axzz14zXPKrYj 
11. Judgement of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court, 12 April 2005. “Court clears way for suit against the Vatican Bank for Nazi gold”, San Jose Business Journal, 18 April 2005. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/04/18/daily9.html 
12. “Lawsuit charges that Nazi gold funded Vatican ratlines”, Concordat Watchhttp://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=890&kb_header_id=6151 
13. “Vatican Finances Aboveboard, Affirms Aide”, Zenit, 23 September 2010. http://www.zenit.org/article-30465?l=english 
14. “Prosecutors: Vatican Bank Defying Laundering Laws”, The Associated Press, 22 October 2010. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=11947823 
15.  “Vatican's Move to Financial Transparency Rewarded”, Zenit, 2 June 2011. http://www.zenit.org/e-32737
16. “Italian judge upholds seizure of Vatican assets”, The Associated Press, 20 December 2010.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40754048/ns/world_news-europe/
“Vatican bank sets up money-laundering unit hoping to escape scandal”, Guardian, 29 December 2010.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/29/vatican-bank-money-laundering-authority
“Vatican Creates Financial Watchdog”, The Associated Press, 30 December 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/12/30/world/europe/AP-EU-Vatican-Bank.html
“Pope acts to tackle money-laundering in Vatican”, Agence France Press, 31 December 2010. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20101230/tbs-pope-acts-to-tackle-money-laundering-5268574.html
17. Lorenzo Totaro, “Vatican Bank Probe Extended to Suspect Clergymen Accounts, Corriere Says”, Bloomberg News, 21 October 2010.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/vatican-bank-probe-extended-to-suspect-clergymen-accounts-corriere-says.html  
18. Guy Dinmore, “Sicily probe adds to Vatican bank pressure in Rome”, Financial Times, 3 November 2010. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a207e64-e736-11df-880d-00144feab49a.html#axzz14zXPKrYj 
19. Paola Totaro, “Vatican in shock as its bankers investigated”, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 September 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/world/vatican-in-shock-as-its-bankers-investigated-20100922-15mzu.html

20. Rachel Donadio, “With Bank Inquiry, Vatican Confronts Modern Life”, New York Times,  28 September 2010.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/world/europe/30vatican.html 
21. Guy Dinmore, “Sicily probe adds to Vatican bank pressure in Rome”, Financial Times, 3 November 2010. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a207e64-e736-11df-880d-00144feab49a.html#axzz14zXPKrYj 
23. Catholic Dioceses in the World by Type: Independent Missions (Missions “sui iuris”)  http://www.gcatholic.com/dioceses/data/type-miss.htm 
24. “The Secrets of the Vatican Bank”, translated from La Repubblica, 26 January 2008. http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showdoc.php?org_id=843&doc_id=1821 
25. Iain Dey, “Last orders: Is the sun about to set on tax havens?” The Times, 8 March 2009.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5864693.ece 
26. “Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue” [title of OECD report, 1998], Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmful_Tax_Competition:_An_Emerging_Global_Issue 
27. Iain Dey, “Last orders: Is the sun about to set on tax havens?” The Times, 8 March 2009.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5864693.ece 
28. Willem Buiter, “Non-doms and tax havens: the Chancellor’s good fortune”, Financial Times, 29 February 2008.http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/02/non-doms-and-tax-havens-the-chancellors-good-fortune/ Officially it’s called “Jurisdictions Committed to Improving Transparency and Establishing Effective Exchange of Information in Tax Matters”.
29. “Roman Catholic Mission Sui Iuris Of Turks And Caicos” http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Roman_Catholic_Mission_Sui_Iuris_of_Turks_and_Caicos 
30. James B. Johnston, “An Examination of New Jersey’s Money Laundering Statutes”, Seton Hall Legislative Journal, Vol. 30.1, 2005, p. 2.http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=james_johnston 
31. “Pope attacks tax havens for robbing poor”, Guardian, 7 December 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/pope-benedict-vatican-tax-havens-credit-crunch
32. “Top archbishop 'denounces Vatican corruption' ”, AFP, 25 January 2012. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcJstSgPS-bwlQLRjIWf9BXE5vJQ?docId=CNG.3248d6bb9b1f306d64ddfceb443a1871.8c1
33. “US sees Vatican as potential money laundering hub”, AFP, 7 March 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/us-sees-vatican-potential-money-laundering-hub-235850767.html 
The 2012 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (volume 2) has three categories for the list of 190 countries vulnerable to money-laundering activities: of primary concern, of concern and monitored. The Vatican has been placed in the second category, "of concern". (pp. 31, 33)https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=702517
34. “Vatican bank image hurt as JP Morgan closes account”, Reuters, 19 March 2012. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/uk-vatican-bank-idUKBRE82I0P820120319
“ 'Cliente a rischio'. JPMorgan chiude il conto dello Ior”, Il sole 24 ore, 18 March 2012. http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/finanza-e-mercati/2012-03-18/morgan-chiude-conto-143759.shtml
35. “God’s bankers:A beleaguered papacy is embroiled in intrigue. Some scent a succession struggle”, Economist, 7 July 2012.http://www.economist.com/node/21558249
Sandro Magister, “The Hunt for Thieves in the Vatican”, Chiesa, 31 May 2012. http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350256?eng=y
“Cardinals split on whether to sack head of Vatican Bank”, AFP, 2 June 2012. http://www.thejournal.ie/cardinals-split-on-whether-to-sack-head-of-vatican-bank-472636-Jun2012/
36. “Vatican Passes Key Financial Transparency Test”, Associated Press, 18 July 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-card-vatican-transparency-released-16799879
The press release fo the COE itself carries a less sanguine title:
“Council of Europe report calls on the Holy See to strengthen supervisory regime”, Council of Europe, 18 July 2012. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=DC-PR079(2012)&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE
See also:
Mutual Evaluation Report – Executive Summary
Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrrorism
The Holy See (including Vatican City State) 4 July 2012
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/moneyval/Evaluations/round4/MONEYVAL(2012)17SUMM_HS_en.pdf
Mutual Evaluation Report – Executive Summary
Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrrorism
The Holy See (including Vatican City State) 4 July 2012
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/moneyval/Evaluations/round4/MONEYVAL(2012)17_MER_HS_en.pdf
Mutual Evaluation Report – Annexes
Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrrorism
The Holy See (including Vatican City State) 4 July 2012
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/moneyval/Evaluations/round4/MONEYVAL(2012)17ANN_HS_en.pdf
37. “Vatican Urged to Strengthen Bank Controls”, Wall Street Journal, 19 July 2012.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304039104577534370025033112.html
38. “Vatican Passes Key Financial Transparency Test”, Associated Press, 18 July 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-card-vatican-transparency-released-16799879
39. “La Iglesia católica dice purificar las limosnas del narcotráfico en México”, AFP, 20 September 2005. http://www.absurddiari.com/s/llegir.php?llegir=llegir&ref=7837
40. “Admite Iglesia recibir narco limosnas”, Terra TV, 10 April 2007. http://www.terra.com.mx/articulo.aspx?articuloid=170552
41. “México: Obispo acepta que Iglesia reciba narcolimosnas”, Reuters, 21 September 2005. http://archivo.abc.com.py/2005-09-21/articulos/205752/mexico-obispo-acepta-que-iglesia-reciba-narcolimosnas




Concordat Watch

Concordats  human rights — separation of church and state 

Concordat Watch is an online resource containing dozens of concordat translations, (most appearing in English for the first time), as well as related documents, general background articles and expert commentary. The Vatican finds many uses for its concordats: in May 2012 the Italian bishops said that their concordat excused them from having to report to the police suspected cases of child abuse by fellow priests.
What are concordats? Concordats are international treaties with the Vatican that may range from granting little more than diplomatic recognition to a legally binding commitment to observe key aspects of Vatican doctrine and to have taxpayers subsidise the Church. Because the state may be put under pressure to enforce these Vatican policies, Concordat Watch also includes material on church-state separation, (political, but not religious secularism). This site is about worldly power.

What’s the harm?


1. Once in place, concordats are removed from democratic control forever               
 Laws can be changed by parliaments, but concordats can’t. That's because they’re supposed to be international treaties, that is, agreements between a real country and the Holy See (the Vatican).
Even in democracies there is only a brief period, when the legislature has any say over a concordat. That is the time between when the treaty text is revealed and when the ratification vote takes place. This can sometimes be only a matter of days, which does not allow proper legal scrutiny of a very complicated document. A number of other legislative tricks may be used to help get the concordat through: sixteen of these are revealed here. Once the concordat is ratified it is set in stone. That's because treaties cannot be changed unilaterally. Any alteration requires the consent of the Vatican.
And in a dictorship it's still worse. The concordat may be rubber-stamped by the military junta or even go through with no ratification at all, for the signature of the dictator or his foreign minister is enough. Yet when the dictator is toppled, his concordat remains.  Read more
2. Concordats can ensure a never-ending transfer of state funds to the Church
Sometimes the money transfer is justified as compensation for church property nationalised as long as 200 years ago. Concordats can lock in inflation-adjusted payments that cannot be ended unless the Vatican agrees.
Concordats often shift funds to the church by requiring that Catholic schools,  hospitals and other agencies must be paid for by the state. This gives the Church the say over what is taught and what services are offered, without having to pay the tab. A concordat can also help Church agencies get tax exemptions, even for Church-run commercial enterprises. And, despite all the state money flowing in, a concordat can ensure that the finances of the Church are kept secret. Read more
3. Concordats can infringe on human rights
By giving advantages to one religious group, concordats can violate the requirement that all citizens and all religions be treated equally. Occasionally concordats have outlawed divorce, even for non-Catholics. Concordats can also anchor other parts of Canon (or church) Law by stipulating that this is to be used within Church institutions. However, since these also include social agencies, many non-clerics and even non-Catholics may find themselves legally obliged to obey Church rules.  Read more

 Featured Topics  










₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪











All of the above is connected to all the below.


None: PHARMAKEIA (DRUG USE) IS DAMNED BY GOD
PHARMAKEIA (DRUG USE) IS DAMNED BY GOD PHARMAKEIA (DRUG USE) IS DAMNED BY GOD







All heresies and evils, especially of the Antichrists give rise to all the social and moral breakdown that leads to all sorts of evils - one of the chief evils is drugs - pray that God destroys the drug dealers, for they are part of the Liars, murderers and thieves condemned by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we always must Abide in the true God only and support the police against transnational tyranny for - What is behind Nazism aka the New World Order, the ancient northern European Thule cult allied with the same kind of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cult, is this - the Double Eagles of the ancient Mesopotamian Mediterranean Houses of the Dragon and their descendants - the Illuminati and the Zionists and the 1001 Club and the Pan Europeans and the Triad and the Narco Terrorists and their political drug trafficking.

Here is another reference - Christmas 2010 - to the evils that include the Narco-Terrorist games and must be stopped. Anyone who tries to defend any drug use is vile and totally wrong. The condemnation of drugs IS COMPLETE and totally scriptural. They are damned. Always. Pray that God destroy the Narco-Terrorist games for they are The return of ancient murdering lies and that includes ALL drugs. They are all evil. Such people think that the persecutions that the early Church underwent to provide a moral base to society are a joke. LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT IS A LIE FROM HELL. The ancient Christian Martyrs are beloved of God for they spread abroad His Gospel and justice for all people. Here is just a small part of the suffering endured by the early Martyrs to spread God's word and His justice:

The Piazza del Campidoglio, situated on the Capitoline Hill, has always been the privileged seat of divinity and power. Although it is the lowest and least extensive of the Seven Hills of Rome, in the early 6th century B.C. there stood the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, by far the most important temple of ancient Rome. It was this false god, Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, that was placed in the temple in Jerusalem in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (second century before Christ). That was the abomination of desolation prophesied by the Book of Daniel and then fulfilled once in the Old Testament in the time of Antiochus and quoted later as the type of the final abomination of desolation by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.”

Diocletian, the worst persecuting emperor of the early centuries of the Church, was the Pontifex Maximus of the Roman Religion (as were the emperors in general) that was used as the excuse by the Jews behind the scenes to prompt the Romans to murder the early Christian Martyrs. That Roman Religion centered on Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus on the Capitoline hill and the Seven Hills of Rome and the Pontifex Maximus (the Roman High Priest – the Emperor) and Emperor worship. To take the “Mark of the Beast” i.e. the teserea and the libellus to worship the emperor meant to apostatize from Christ and be damned – to not take it meant to be killed by the Roman authorities. That is the bloody meaning of 666. The mark of extreme imperfection – each digit is one short of the perfect number 7.

Anyone who thinks they can excuse themselves from the judgment of God is wrong. Instead we pray against all evil especially Narco-evil - Traditional Catholic Prayers: World War III and the False Peace: Prayer against evil - in this prayer against evil including against "pharmakeia" refers to against all drugs and they are all DAMNED.

_________________________________




None: The Justice of God: The Beast of the Sea (Antichrist Israel – Juden Zionist abomination with Military Prowess that the world stands in awe of) DAMNED FOREVER BY GOD





None: HSBC - drugs, terrorism and money launderer front, charged by Law Enforcement
1001 Club 
CARROLL FOUNDATION TRUST CASE
for the people and by the people ...died
HSBC
The Day the U.S. Government of the people
the Octopus

None: The Day the U.S. Government of the people, for the people and by the people ...died
















None: Operation Fast and Furious
Attorney General Eric Holder coverup DOJ Drug Cartels executive privilege Fast and Furious Obama,Operation Gunwalker The Honorable Darrell Issa United States Constitution Wide Receiver