4.- Rotate the concentration rule.

 

Since there is a political vacuum that dilutes the power of command of the leaders, the State does not have a comprehensive response capacity, we must necessarily conclude that: (A) it is limited in terms of its Power, and, (B) it is unable to fulfill all of its functions.

 

The rule of “concentration of power” establishes that: Full political activity requires the full availability of political power. To the extent that political power is restricted or conditioned, political activity will be prevented from fully developing. The State has to fulfill the functions of conduction, synthesis and forecasting that legitimize it. But, in order to be able to fully fulfill these functions, it must not be a priori denied access to decision-making levels that deal with vital issues for the political body; and, finally, for these decisions to be truly sovereign and fully responsible, their power must not be restricted by commitments, obstacles or impediments, for example, in economic matters we have to make it impossible for them to act for the benefit of the entire social group. – for example in political matters we have that the true center of power is not as it is conceived in the “political code”, such power or authority of the people has dangerously degenerated moving towards the will of the parties, the facts indicate that power (delegate) does not reside in the representatives either, by virtue of the fact that they have allowed it to remain segmented, limited and dispersed, since, whether through formal or informal channels, political power is not concentrated in public servants, that is, there is not the desired integrality of power in the nominees by popular election due to the power vacuum generated by the leaders or owners of the parties that promote a phenomenon called “partyocracy”.

 

5.-The rule of “sovereignty” is broken.

 

The principle of popular sovereignty does not recognize reciprocity in rights or limitation in obligations. The idea of ​​just disappears where there are masters and slaves: from here it follows that the principle of sovereignty, being atheist and tyrannical, is also an immoral principle, because it destroys justice. It is so true that justice and popular sovereignty cannot coexist in the world, that, once the existence of the first is recognized, the second is annihilated, because if the people can only do what justice demands of them, the people are subjects and justice is sovereign, before this truth, the sovereignty of the people is an absurdity.

 

If sovereignty resides in the general will, and the general will is the collection of particular wills, all individuals must have a part of sovereign power: if sovereign power is realized only through laws, all individuals still minors must have an active part in the making of laws.

 

The ignorant, for example, have the same rights as the wise, because they have a will like them: women have the same rights as men, because they have a will like them: children have the same rights as parents, because they have a will like them: the proletarians have the same rights as the powerful, because they have a will like them: in short, the insane must claim a part of their sovereignty, because heaven denying them reason does not deprive them of their will, and the will makes them sovereign too.

 

For example: All the congressmen are in a forum: the will has already been verified: its result is that by half plus one of all the wills a law has been approved. According to the theory of popular sovereignty, this law binds only those who have voted for it: the will is inalienable, because its alienation would be suicide: a will that submits to another will is alienated (sold), and alienated annihilate What then is the sovereignty of the people? according to the current political constitution, it is an absurdity, an impossibility. The truth is that, once the stage of an election is over, the elected congressional candidate leaves with his will, and has the possibility of doing with it whatever he sees fit without having the consent of the person who elected him, instead the voter remains with his without knowing that he was deceived. Nothing more ridiculous than recognizing in the people a power that he is not even capable of conceiving, it is impossible for him to discern and much less apply. If the sovereignty of the people is a mistake, all the political constitutions of the world are powerless to change this circumstance; but if it is a truth, constitutional laws are not needed to sustain it.

 

6.-Rotate the rule of public order.

 

The purpose of public order is the legal protection of the interests, morality, customs, and security of civil society. On the other hand, actions and omissions of the “servant politicians” have been taking place, those that fail to comply of their obligations to safeguard the principles of legality, honesty, loyalty, impartiality and efficiency of the service, which promotes a disorder of tranquility and calm to the detriment of the general interest.

 

It is against morality, good customs that the “servant politicians” commit violence against the provisions of public order, since they disregard most of the prohibitions that are established in the Law of Responsibility of Public Servants, the one that was created as a fence to limit their irregular behavior.

 

7.-Rota the rule of legal certainty.

 

In order for the person, family, possessions, property and rights of the governed to find “protection” against arbitrary interference by the rulers, safeguards were established for the correct application of the law called “guarantees of security”, are bonds (certainties) (words of honor) given by the rulers to ensure that civilians do not fall into a state of defenselessness or legal uncertainty, making equality and freedom possible.

 

Public rights are the “claims” of civilians that are asserted against the rulers when they do not fulfill their duties. It is the very fact that the authorities subordinate themselves to the stability demanded by the rules established in the law, instead their actions degenerate into conditions of defenselessness, inequality and violations of civil liberties and rights.

 

8.-Rota the protocol rule for constitutional reforms.

 

The 1917 Constitution is illegitimate from the triple legal, political and revolutionary point of view. The illegal constitution of 1917 was not made by the people or for the Mexican people.

 

The legal mechanism to have reformed the Constitution of 1857 was previously established in article 127 of the same system that says: “Article 127.- This Constitution may be added or reformed. In order for the additions or reforms to become part of the Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union, by the vote of two thirds of its individuals present, agree on the reforms or additions, and that these be approved by the majority. of the state legislatures. The Congress of the Union will compute the votes of the legislatures and declare that the additions or reforms have been approved”;

 

Article 126 of the 1857 Constitution establishes: “This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union that emanate from it and all the treaties made or to be made by the President of the Republic, with the approval of the Congress; shall be the supreme law of the entire Union. The judges of each State shall abide by said Constitution, laws and treaties, despite any provisions to the contrary that may exist in the constitutions or laws of the States.

 

9.- The rule of respect for the sovereign will of the people is broken, in order to constitute a federal democratic representative Republic.

 

In Mexico we live in a “revolutionary government” represented by the armed forces and the military regime, led by civilians who rent themselves as impostors who hold office. This circumstance violates article 40 of the legitimate Constitution of 1857, which states: “It is the will of the Mexican people to become a representative, democratic federal Republic…”

 

10.- The principle of constitutional inviolability.

 

Article 128 of the legitimate and still valid Constitution of 1857 clearly establishes the principle of constitutional inviolability: “Article 128.- This Constitution does not lose its force and vigor, even when due to some rebellion its observance is interrupted. In the event that, due to a public disorder, a government contrary to the principles that it sanctions is established, as soon as the people regain their freedom, its observance will be restored, and in accordance with it and the laws that have been issued by virtue of it, thus judged, as well as those who have figured in the government emanating from the rebellion, as well as those who have cooperated with it”. Due to this provision, the acts of a military coup d’état or an armed revolution do not generate valid legal effects, that is, they are not effective, since a military mutiny is not enshrined as a legal form to access the exercise of public powers, neither can nor should the law be broken to impose their own points of view, engendered under cover of their political excitement or revenge against the former holder of power. There cannot be a legal vacuum between the government that previously existed and the establishment of the new one, since any possible intermediate situation of “overthrow” or “preparatory” for the implementation of a new regime is not recognized, furthermore, and as is the case that the judges did not qualify the election, and not being in a position to do politics,

 

Military rebellions and civil revolutions can only have a moral or historical foundation, but never legal, that is; the right to conspiracy, military mutiny or civil revolution does not exist. There has never been a “right of rebellion”, therefore, in light of the law, the plans, agreements, decrees, reforms, or determinations that the insurgents have imposed do not have validity or legal effectiveness, nor do their provisions have the character of mandatory force. , because the procedure for renewing public powers was previously established in the 1857 Constitution, which consisted of holding extraordinary elections.

 

11.- The usurpation of the mutineers.

 

The Jurisprudence of the Court establishes that: “The usurpation of Victoriano Huerta broke the mold of the 1857 Constitution, apparently it was suspended, and without application in part, but there was not and there is no subsequent law that has expressly repealed or annulled, for he, on the contrary, the leaders of the revolution recognized its validity for what exists as supreme law, even though the observance of many of its precepts is suspended.

 

12.- The attempt to reform the legitimate constitution of 1857.

 

The reforms to the legitimate Constitution of 1857 attempted by the usurpers were practically impossible because such a procedure was shielded by the insurmountable barriers of article 127 of said legislation; Although it could cover a series of points but never the one related to the ownership of the supreme constituent power, that is, for a constitutional modification to be considered as a legal and valid reform, and not as another type of diverse alteration, it was necessarily also that The ownership of the original supreme power would be rescued, that primitive power consecrated as legitimate that only corresponds to the ownership of those who exercised it with the support of the electoral suffrage of the people.

 

It is clear that the alleged “initiative to reform the Constitution of 1857”, signed by the rebel revolutionary usurper Don Venustiano Carranza, presented on December 1, 1916, was illegal; undue was also the approval of the reform initiative of January 31, 1917, by which it is intended to reform the Constitution of 1857; and unfounded the Temporary Decree of the so-called Constitution of 1917, by which it is said that it begins to rule as of May 1 of that same year; The revolutionary decree of convocation dated September 19, 1916, issued by Carranza, Chief of the revolutionary rebel forces, was also illegal, as well as the modifications to the decree of December 12, 1914 given by the rebels in the city of Veracruz,

 

The power to establish themselves as constituents that the revolutionaries meeting in Querétaro in 1917 had to have was not such, because according to the expert in law such as the teacher Luis Recasens Siches, says: “… not every substitution in power or reform to the constitution it does not represent an original production of law, nor, therefore, does it inaugurate a new legal system, nor does it represent a solution of continuity with respect to the previous order. A constitution can be modified or replaced normally and legally, that is, following the reform procedure explicitly or tacitly prevented in the previous constitution, that is, in which it is modified or replaced; and then in a way the continuity of the state legal life is broken, since a new constitutional foundation is superimposed on the previous constitutional foundation, linked with it, founded on it; so that the validity of the new constitution does not represent something primitive, it is not something radically original, it is not something new, but it derives from the validity of the preceding constitution, which serves as the foundation for the new one. As there were no elements of legitimacy, what was done in terms of the intended reforms to the 1857 constitution, was not such, since the foundation of its legal competence was denied, a new legal system, without connection with the previous one; which would represent a total rupture of the preceding legal order, even in the case of the changes that had occurred peacefully”.

 

13.- The meeting of armed rebels in the so-called “Constituent Assembly” of Querétaro.

 

There can be no uncertainty about who should be the holder of the “original constituent power”, since it is clear to us that revolutionary coup rebel intruders such as Díaz, Madero, Huerta, Carranza, Calles, Obregón, and those who have succeeded each other to date in the governments of Mexico, could not and cannot base their competence and their legitimacy on the Constitution of 1857 due to its character of “Supreme Law” referred to in article 126 of said Fundamental Letter, thus being prohibited from the right to ownership of ostentation as “original constituent power”, having lost the continuity that was essential in the previous supreme law, and in the case that concerns us, it was quite clear and notorious that the body or “constituent” power that supposedly tried to reform the Constitution of 1857, was not authorized as legitimate according to said Charter, by virtue of having competence for it for not having the ownership of the power or powers constituted that and a existed at that time, previously regulated by itself and not by way of imposing command, under cover of force of arms and violence expressly prohibited by article 17, in addition, the 218 impostors of the nefarious ” Constituent Congress of Querétaro”, were not legally able to represent anyone, because the right to alter and modify the form of government referred to in article 39 of the Constitution is “inalienable” (non-transferable), and could not be pass validly to the domain of a third party called representatives, intermediaries or agents, since such prerogative cannot be separated, separated or moved away from each of its owners who were each Mexican individual of that time, that is, the power to alter or modify the form of government is so personal that it did not admit of ruffians who called themselves constitutionalist insurgents.

 

14.- The public accusation of article 128 of the Constitution of 1857.

 

Since there was a public accusation stemming from a supreme law in article 128 of the 1857 constitution, it is obvious that the electoral political rights of the coup rebels and revolutionaries were affected, and as alleged criminals – logically – they did not have their rights. politicians safe from running as candidates, which resulted in a legal impediment for them to be elected according to article 77 of the legitimate Constitution of 1857. For example, the so-called “alias of constitutionalist chief of the revolutionary rebels” Don Venustiano Carranza along with his clique of criminals calling themselves “constitutionalists”, which translates into “defenders of the Constitution of 1857”, turned out to be anti-constitutionalists, abolitionists, absolutists, contras and radicalists of said Fundamental Charter, since such a miserable army did not He had, however, the doctrinal conviction of defending the Constitution, but rather annihilating it. to impose the rigor of its particular code called the 1917 constitution.

 

Regarding the punishment for political crimes, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court establishes the following: “Articles 6, 7, 9 and 39 of the Constitution establish the free expression of ideas, the freedom to write and publish as individual guarantees. writings on any matter, the right to associate or meet peacefully for any lawful purpose and the inalienable right of the people to alter or modify the form of their government; However, these guarantees cannot and should not be understood except within the framework of legality, or the fact that political groups of the most diverse ideologies can be organized as long as their actions are carried out within the norms established by the legal system that governs us. , without using violence or attacking the established order.

 

Source: Seventh Epoch. First Room. SJF Volume: 48 Second Part. Page: 49.

 

Between the Constitution of 1857 and that of Querétaro of 1917 there is no bond of union, since none of the precepts of that command that accepts those of that one; this establishes a completely new order of things. There is no legal authority in Mexican or international positive law, nor has there ever been in any legislation, to legitimize a coup d’état or a revolution, since Mexican laws have always provided for the specific legal means to change the political regime of government. Legal experts conclude that legally the right to a coup or a revolution does not exist, because it is not contained within the philosophy of law, this means that no law of any country has ever recognized the right to rebellion or mutiny, because in its constitutional legal rules there are suitable means that offer the legal possibility of a reform of the political order. A revolution that is associated with public disorder is not allowed in the laws of a civilized society.

 

15.- The null and illegitimate bastard constitution of 1917.

 

The “Constitution of 1917” is null and illegal from the triple legal, political and revolutionary point of view. The legal mechanism to have reformed the Constitution of 1857 was previously established in article 127 of the latter. The alleged Constitution of 1917 was not made by the people of Mexico or for the Mexican people, this is so in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court that determines that the existence of two constitutions at the same time is not valid, and that There is a valid law that has been repealed, abolished, annulled or suppressed to the Constitution of 1857, they only wanted to bury it, but, the text of the supposed constitution of 1917 does not despise any reference in that sense. The supposed Constitution of 1917 does not legally exist, and could not emerge as a new one to replace that of 1857, for the new one does not say so, nor does it indicate in it that the previous one was repealed.

 

The jurisprudence of the Coste establishes that: “There cannot be two constitutions in force and observance at the same time”.

 

The 1917 Constitution was a spontaneous abortion of the minority social sub-class turned into combatants, and in its works the passions, hatreds and resentments of that bloody neo-military caste are resented. Said Constitution is an invalid document that in no way alters the original texts of the legitimate Constitution of 1857, which is still in force.

 

The tacit or express submission of the Mexican people to the spurious constitution of 1917, as well as their invocation to defend some of their civil rights against any abuse, does not bring any benefit of legitimacy to the governments emanating from the rebellions, on the contrary, such behavior , locate their followers and collaborators in various criminal situations typified in the Penal Code.

 

16.- The thesis of the consummated criminal act.

 

There will be those who support the thesis of the “completed criminal act” as the basis of the validity and legal effects in the acts of the revolution, but such a postulate cannot have the intended effectiveness when the seizure of power occurred altering public order. (by force), to the detriment of the law, that is, criminal acts cannot be put before the provisions of public order as a basis for legitimacy, and even less so when the transformation of a political regime of government is sought, since the Mexican positive law does not guarantee such a possibility, being clear that the use of weapons and violence is not contained in Article 39 of the Constitution as a power to alter or modify the form of government.

 

17.- Of the permanent political crimes.

 

Rebellions and usurpations of power in Mexico caused by military riots and civil rebellions, of course, are crimes of a permanent nature.

 

A “permanent” crime according to the current law, is one whose criminal action allows, due to its characteristics, that it can be voluntarily prolonged in time so that it is identically a violation of the law in each of its moments. In the “permanent crimes” each and every one of its moments are of commission; circumstance that, due to successes, permanent involvement in its execution to those who are aware of the action, admitted or who by pre-ordering the action and, therefore, must respond criminally as co-authors; all of which justifies with respect to flagrancy and the immediate arrest warrant, without it being necessary to proceed with the arrest of the offender, according to article 16 of the Constitution, to have any arrest warrant or to hear the accused beforehand in court to carry it out, and the Said of the captors, it should be taken as testimonial evidence.

 

When the military coup plotters and the revolutionary rebels achieved their goal and the crime of rebellion was consummated, the people of Mexico have been suffering from public disorder and the deprivation of their liberty ever since, and in that deprivation we civilians have also had from moment to moment the restrictions and impairment of our honor, our economy, etc., in such a way that, by itself, permanent crimes or those with permanent effects that are still in force.

 

The Jurisprudence of the Court provides that: “The prosecution of permanent crimes does not prescribe, as long as the unlawful state created by them does not end: As regards the beginning of the prescription, it is decisive at the time of the action, currently understood according to the outcome theory. In continuing crimes, the statute of limitations begins in the last act. In permanent crimes, when the unlawful state ends.

 

The law does not indicate a minimum or maximum number of military rebels or revolutionary civilians, whether they are called crimes against the State, against national security, against public order, against the constitutional order, conspiracy, rebellion, mutiny, and sedition, etc.; They are considered as political crimes because, due to such crimes, they evidently alter the protected legal asset that is “public order”, and the guarantee of “legal security” in its highest expression, on which it depends. , without a doubt, the respect reserved for the bodies created constitutionally to make the ends of the law a reality, within a regime of law, said order implied the fulfillment of the law in its diverse hierarchies.

 

On the punishability of political crimes, the Jurisprudence says the following: “The right to associate or meet peacefully with any lawful object and to alter or modify the form of their government; (Articles 9 and 39 of the Constitution) cannot and should not be understood except within the framework of legality, that is, groups of the most diverse ideologies can be organized as long as their actions are carried out within the norms established by the legal system that governs us. , without using violence or attempting against the established order, because at the moment in which the members of a group under the protection of those guarantees act in contravention of the principles of the Constitution, they become creditors to the sanctions that correspond to the illegality of their conduct, then, the purpose of that conduct will have to be framed necessarily and necessarily within the legality, that is, the obtaining of power through the process indicated by the laws”. Source: Seventh Epoch. First Room. Judicial Weekly of the Federation. Volume: 48 Second Part. Page: 49.

 

18.- Article 9 of the Constitution prohibits armed meetings in Querétaro.

 

“Article 9. – No one can limit the right to associate or to meet peacefully for any lawful purpose; but only the citizens of the Republic can do so to take part in the political affairs of the country. No armed meeting has the right to deliberate”.

 

The 30 military officers who as active officials met in Querétaro in 1917 were:

 

Jesus Lopez Lira. Guanajuato; Jose Maria Rodriguez y Rodriguez. Coahuila; Ignacio L. Pesqueira. From Sonora, but he was a representative of Mexico City; Antonio Norzagaray from Sinaloa, but participated as a representative of Mexico City; Francisco Figueroa Mata. Of warrior; Antonio Guerrero. From Sinaloa, but was a representative for Hidalgo; Amado Aguirre Santiago-Jalisco; Jose Manzano. Jalisco; Esteban Vaca Caderon. Jalisco; Donato Hermelindo Bravo Left. From Puebla, but he was a representative for Mexico; Uriel Aviles. From Michoacan; Gabriel Cervera Riza. From Michoacan; Martin Castrejon. From Michoacan; Jose Alvarez y Alvarez. From Michoacan; Francisco Jose Mujica. From Michoacan; Reynaldo Garza. From Nuevo Leon; Manuel Garcia Vigil from Oaxaca; Porphyry of the Castle. From Puebla; Gabino Bandera and Mata. Of warrior; Rafael Curiel Gallegos. From San Luis Potosi; Candido Aviles Insunza. From Sinaloa; Emiliano P. Navarrete Ceceña. From Sinaloa, but represented Tamaulipas; Marcelino Cadeno. From Jalisco, but represented Tepic Nayarit.; Antonio Hidalgo Sandoval. From Tlaxcala; Adolfo G, Garcia. From Veracruz; Josaphat F. Marquez. From Veracruz; Heriberto Jara. From Veracruz; Candido Aguilar. From Veracruz; Galdino H. Married. From Veracruz; Juan Aguirre Escobar. From Coahuila, but represented Zacatecas.

II.- CONSEQUENCES

 

A.- The slavery of the Mexican people subordinated to the revolutionary State.

 

In theory, the Mexican people, as groups of free individuals, cannot be slaves or prisoners in the face of those who exercise the powers of the State, but, in fact, a condition of ruling intruders who self-constituted themselves as masters of the governed was created. For a long time, the civil society of the Mexican people (the governed) do not enjoy the guarantee of full constitutional freedom, nor the protection of their legitimate laws, they live as prisoners of the coup plotters and revolutionary military kidnappers who mutinied and they took the powers of the State by force of arms, aberrant usurpations that are not backed by positive law; vulgar criminals who pass themselves off as rulers, when in truth they are mere intruders who keep Mexican citizens and their private and public assets subjugated, under their dependence and absolute control.

 

Article 2 of the Constitution of 1857 and 1917 provide the following:

 

“Article 2.- In the Republic everyone is born free. The slaves who step on the national territory, recover, by that fact alone, their freedom, and have the right to the protection of the laws.

 

B.- The supremacy of the constitutional law of 1857.

 

Article 128 of the Constitution of 1857 (136 of the constitution of 1917 particular of the revolutionary intruders), establishes the necessary precautions in case of the hypothetical violation of said fundamental letter, supposes the reasons of a public disorder, a rebellion and the establishment of governments contrary to its principles that is a reason to interrupt its validity, that:

 

“As soon as the people regain their freedom, their observance will be restored, and in accordance with it and the laws that have been issued by virtue of it, they will be judged, as well as those who have figured in the government emanating from the rebellion, as well as those who have cooperated with it”.

 

The military and revolutionary rebels did not have the right to exercise violence to claim their rights, as prohibited by article 17 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1857 cites:

 

Article 17.- No one can be imprisoned for debts of a purely civil nature. No one can exercise violence to claim his right. The courts will always be ready to administer justice. This will be free, consequently abolishing the legal costs.

 

“No one can exercise violence to claim their right.”

 

To claim any right, the “right to petition” is guaranteed in Article 8 of the Constitution.

 

Article 8.- The right of petition exercised in writing, in a peaceful and respectful manner, is inviolable; but in political matters only citizens of the Republic can exercise it. Every petition must have a written agreement from the authority to whom it has been addressed, and the authority is obliged to make the result known to the petitioner.

 

 

C.- The situation of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation SCJN.

 

In Mexico, the entire Justice System adhered to the exclusive rigor of the usurpers, those judges and magistrates who imposed a system that from its inception entered an involutionary phase, in decline and out of date; its inability to substantiate specific disputes that are currently decided by other non-jurisdictional authorities. Traditional judges find themselves immersed in the shadows of outdated laws, codes and means of delivery, under a slow bureaucratic rhythm, excessive paperwork, exaggerated and complex rituals, corruption and distrust of the parties in these institutions.

 

Supreme Court? Means among Mexicans a painful sarcasm (irony), a bitter ridicule that we should not, that we cannot conscientiously call it “supreme court”, because, throughout our judicial history, it has only been a Court of abjection and servility. This is the truth, sublime, sovereign, supreme, fair, noble or something similar, it has nothing, in reality such power has not existed in Mexico, we have only had a group of individuals lacking in principles and decorum , appointed by the intruders in turn who have done nothing but what they are ordered, and this is the moral, public and social sore (wound) that we must heal because we are committed to it as children of this country.

 

The words of José María Iglesias are updated in the minutes book of the plenary session on October 27, 1876, which he addresses as a sentence, to all the magistrates of the Court where he states the following:

 

“Lord Justices, before complicity in the crime, it is more dignified to accept dismissal or resignation in the exercise of public functions. You have failed in your duty to save and save the Constitution in any case, the fulfillment and observance of which are entrusted to you. The law itself must be subject to your examination; you judge the law according to constitutional article 126, then, will you be part of a vassal power, a defenseless and miserable power that has to suffer and accept a public disorder, provoked at the request of others? Even the most common of Mexicans has the right to oppose you against arbitrariness and despotism. Will not the collective people, the entire people, have that right when their interests are trampled by the usurpation of other powers of the Republic? What is lawful in the sight of trespassers, is it not lawful for the people? Is there protection even for criminals and will there not be for the sovereign people when they are run over and outraged? The disturbance to public order is a crime according to article 128 of the Constitution, if one of the public powers commits it, the others must not be their accomplices and have the duty to reject the crime. The constitutional powers have to be preserved intact, not harmonize with the intruding government, nor concentrate on it. There is no middle ground between complicity and innocence, between abstinence and participation in the crime. The Supreme Court will be able to waver and stain its honor with infidence and perjury, they will mock the hopes of a people, who established the Judicial Power to be the holy ark of law and justice; the magistrates will now have three terrible judges; a God, who is the supreme judge of conscience; the people, who will curse you to the edge of your grave and the court of law that is established when the observance of the constitution is vindicated. The deans of science and teachers of the Court’s law cooperated in the consummation of the crime, they have cooperated by simply keeping quiet and accepting the facts, by only working in consortium with the usurpers. You know well that there is a crime of continuous commission, such as plagiarism while the victim remains in the hands of bandits. The Supreme Court has been a receiver that has been accepting the consequences, the breaking of the legal titles of this Nation, it has participated in a liberticidal oligarchy and not in a Constitutional Republic”.

 

D.- The situation of the Attorney General’s Office.

 

Regarding the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, José María Iglesias also adds the following:

 

“What more noble function is that of the Attorney General of the Nation than the patronage of the people, when is he a victim of despotism? Who will be the Judge who hears the complaint of a people? And who is the legitimate party that he should ask for the people? The Judge can be no other than the Supreme Court, and the representative of the people can be no other than the Attorney General of the Nation whose mission is to uphold the privileges of society and the Republic. The criminal in the current circumstances are the Legislative and Executive powers; powers that are not prosecutable in fact, but morally responsible before the justice of the people. Isn’t every official told that, if he doesn’t keep the Fundamental Charter, the Nation will sue him for perfidy? Well, that demand must be effective, it must have a formula; and the formula cannot be other than the request of the Attorney General of the Republic and the intervention of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The prosecutor’s accusation should fall against the de facto government and tell them: To the ministers: Within the Mexican territory various governments contrary to the principles sanctioned by the Constitution have been proclaimed. There, the freedom and sovereignty of the people are attacked. You, Supreme Court of Justice, reprove and repair that attack, you people, save your law, and with it your honor and your life. Dictatorships and revolutions have ignored the safe and easy path of the law…. Outside the path of the law, let us not seek the aggrandizement of our country or democracy. The law does not exist, it cannot live in the midst of despotism or anarchy, let’s preserve it, save it from its bitter enemies”.

 

E.- Of the sad role of political associations (political parties)

 

THE STERILE AND UNPROFITED ROLE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES (political associations), AND THEIR COMPLICITY WITH THE REVOLUTIONARY STATE, ITS INEFFECTIVE INTERVENTION TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE MEXICAN PEOPLE.

 

Summary:

 

1.- The misfortunes and disorders of the political life of the country (Mexico), are of public interest: (They concern all Mexicans).

 

2.- It is in the public interest to liberate the state from the political associations called “political parties”, and any subsequent popular mandate must temporarily or definitively cease, through the system of elected party representatives.

 

3.- It is in the public interest to restore credit to the public function, achieve expository clarity of the government project, avoiding the artificial plurality of many parties; and the marketing of the abuse of the word in the media as a factor that dumbfounds us.

 

4.- It is against the public interest that the parties do not fulfill the functions that justify their existence in order to conquer power; they conspire to preserve power, they suffer insurmountable sociological phenomena that instead of helping, supplant and dismember the state; and furthermore, they do not pass the test of majority suffrage at the polls.

 

5.- It is against the public interest that the crisis of congenital ineptitude of the great majority of the popular representatives elected through the parties, endangers the security of the tasks of the State.

 

6.- It is against the public interest, that the rights and interests of the leaders, owners and proprietors of the political associations called “parties” (the politicians), are radically opposed to the rights, goals and interests of the people and the state.

 

7.- It is against the public interest to prevent that the alternation in power of various parties does not solve the great national problems, on the contrary, due to their position of interest and adversity, they complicate them.

 

8.- The existence of political parties is neither useful nor necessary, they are only interpreters (translators) of political thoughts; intermediaries (dealers, mediators, traffickers) in the democratic transition, employment agencies for a reduced part of their membership of partners, and that as collective legal persons are not in charge of fulfilling the powers of government tasks, that falls under to the candidates elected as individual legal entities also called natural persons or human beings.

 

9.- It is against public order, against morality and natural law (of the nature of the human being), to seek democracy through the division and confrontation of similar social classes, of discrimination between those associated with various groups that in the end they belong to the same category, “the popular”, when it is established by the constitution that the form of government that any elected representative must apply must be in favor of the popular classes.

 

10.- It is against natural law, morality and public order, that in order to strengthen the image of political associations, public resources are used making their existence appear useful, when it is discovered that their philosophies, doctrines and postulates they are mere interpretations or copies of the thoughts that were achieved before.

 

11.- It is against the interest of the state, the law and public order that collective legal entities called “political associations or parties” restrict the exercise capacities of collective legal entities called “Mexican federal state, states and municipalities” .

 

12.- It is against the public interest that the popular representations sponsored by the parties compromise the stability of the common good, waste public funds, maintain an authoritarianism of the official machinery, create opportunities for corruption, encourage the deviation of power , sponsor influence peddling, fraud and abuse of the trust that was placed in their character as servants.

 

13.- It is in the public interest to receive a performance of representatives under the harmony of the law, with quality, warmth, good sense, order, sobriety and good behavior, to achieve this, the company is empowered by positive law to use, enjoy and enjoy political prerogatives, legal assets protected by the laws of the country as exclusive to their heritage, which they can make use of in order to promote a better evolution of the natural processes of man in society, in advance to prevent risks to future generations.

 

14.- It is a fraud against the law, that the vote is impersonal, that is, the voter does not vote for a citizen (a person), he votes for the representative symbol or emblem of a political association to which he belongs, which it is inappropriate, because in the selection process it means the choice of a natural person, not that of a legal person.

 

15.- The people (civil society) are empowered to intervene in defense of the nation and the state; the superior hierarchy of his investiture allows him to seek, eradicate the unhealthy behavior of the negative forces coming from the partners of the political parties.

 

16.- The peoples who already have political maturity due to the experiences they have lived, know that the state is going through a crisis caused by the lack of effectiveness of the political party system; the loss of confidence in the ideas of the men who run these institutions; they maintain a mentality of a historical sovereignty (authority) which is no longer the one that no longer understands a society that seeks to carry out a government of opinion, unique, more stable and at the same time progressive (of results), of people who validate their responsibility, so that, in the same way that the action is correlative of the force that drives it, its election and the performance of its representatives is co-extensive with public opinion.

 

17.- That by intervening as individuals (not collective) in the political life of the country, we do so in defense _ very logically _ of our rights to freedom of choice and to safeguard the general interests of the community and the state.

 

18.- The candidates associated with the parties do not know more than any moderately educated citizen, and it is clear that in order to govern well, there must only be character, which translates into self-discipline and a positively virtuous public and private life, in addition to follow to the letter the indications contained in the laws of the country, which clearly specify the instructions on how, when and in what direction to guide the actions of the conferred mandate.

 

19.- The human being has a superior investiture, is the bearer of civic virtues and can use them to achieve respect for the fundamental rights of people in society, so that, with a good performance in the exercise of command of their authority, rather than command, help restore confidence in the Mexican political system.

 

20.- It is a human, spiritual and legal duty to participate in the political life of the community by doing what is necessary to correct the imperfections of the Mexican political system, to seek that the society in which we live is as fair and social as possible, where let us be proud of a human race of public servants more balanced and sure of their responsibilities, of those who separate us from the anguish of the uncertainty of fantasies and the artificial promises of development, so that, under rational criteria, they do not lose view the true objectives for which the legal figure of the State exists.

 

21.- It supposes a conjunction of two elements because, in addition to the legal interest, there is in article 5 fourth paragraph of the Federal Constitution a legal duty to hold elected public positions; therefore, since there is a subjective right (legal interest, power or authority) given by an objective legal order (legislation) it also regulates the particular action of the individual by imposing the coercive element, that is, there is an imperative power of demand (of obligation) in based on a public interest in which a popularly elected position is for the benefit of the community.

 

22.- To fulfill the tasks of government there are laws that contain the instructions or instructions, the forms or systems, the methods, the plans, the policies, the purposes, the objectives, the goals, the strategies, in short, the indications of how , when and in what direction to direct their actions.

 

23.- The role of the parties can be relativized, taking away their privileges and importance of being the only ones in the realization of the democratic principle, and candidacies, formulas or forms without registration can be promoted.

 

24.- Civil society can liberate the State from the negative forces of the parties, and instead encourage civil society to take power. It represents a humanly moral, spiritual and legal civic duty that seeks to rehabilitate it in the fulfillment of its purposes, providing sanity to the exercise of power, avoiding the infinity of abuses, disorders, deviations, outrages, attacks on institutions, on the way government and the rule of law.

 

25.- Constitutionally, citizens have the power or prerogative (right recognized by law) to be voted, (Passive Right) is nothing more than what the legal doctrine recognizes as subjective right; that power belongs to people, (of human beings) that is, the legal interest belongs to individuals, it belongs to the heritage of their legal rights, it is part of their political rights as a human being in society.

 

26.- To exercise this prerogative, the law is optional with respect to their other right to belong or not to a political institute, that is, the law does not oblige citizens to have any membership in any party as a requirement to be a candidate for an elected position, on the contrary, the legislator also contemplated the legal hypothesis for candidates, formulas or forms without registration and independent.

 

27.- It is about making effective the right to the power to freely dispose of a person’s own will in making use of their prerogatives and their legal assets protected by law as part of their assets, taking into account the capacity that the legal norms confer on individual legal persons, to be the holder of rights and obligations or to enforce those or comply with them, as well as to exercise their acquired rights and everything that represents expectations of law or rights created in their favor by the sources of the law.

 

28.- It is a lawful action, capable of being carried out, an ideology of an individualistic nature, one that is not antisocial, one that represents the way of understanding and collaborating with society in solving its problems.

 

29.- Of the Political Societies called “Parties”, the null efficiency and effectiveness in the realization of the objectives and purposes of the State is verified.

 

30.- Civil Society. (The village). It is the one that keeps this country standing and functioning, it is the basis of productive life and it can also contribute to the development of the country’s democratic life by promoting non-party candidacies among its members that serve to integrate any National, State and Municipal representation. .

 

31.- Of the Political Organizations: Their imperfections are verified, they are a factor that influences the alteration of public order, they divide civil society into discordant social groups and for them the conflict of interests between social classes is promoted.

 

32.- Of the State and its Liberation.- It is necessary to liberate the State from the negative forces that the Party System and political societies represent.

 

F.- Of the situation of the voters.

 

So perfect have been the plans of the visible intruders that today the Mexican people continue without the sovereign authority that article 39 of the Constitution preaches, kneeling, cornered, handcuffed, divided, controlled and at the mercy of the owners of the political parties, of the unions. , of the peasant groups, dejected by the effects of a terrible globalization, naively believing that they have a great sovereign authority over what happens in the country, ignoring that in truth they are perfectly isolated and without any possibility of maintaining some kind of unity or dominion over the situation that the things that the servants do at a national and international level keep.

 

It is argued that such a serious situation is due to two strategies known as: 1.- Segmentation and, 2.- Polarization

 

These forms of control are implemented by the intruders that emerged from the coup and revolutionary movements, with them, first to strengthen the division and bitterness (grudge) between the electoral market (the electoral merchandise of the voting citizens) causing disunity from the institutions of the government with the help of political associations and electoral institutions.

 

What is Segmentation? The “segmentation” is the game with the feelings of the electorate, with it it is possible to excite the spirit of the voting citizen so that he responds to the stimuli of the electoral propaganda in a more positive way, a false scenario is put to the perception of his senses , the simulation of a battlefield (which does not really exist) so that it fosters feelings of loyalty (identification) with a certain political institute (party), so that they put up their trench, put on a color, fall in love with a cause, of a partisan symbol, of an acronym, of the charms of the “sale of hopes” of the merchant political servants.

 

To justify that in reality there is no such alleged conflict, we will say that the “democratic” form of government is perfectly established in article 40 of both constitutions (the legitimate and the false), in such a way that there can be no doubt about it. that respect, which translates into the succession or change of people, but not of the government system or regime.

 

What is Polarization? “Polarization”, for its part, is a model of communication of ideas that includes a defined process, precise objectives and goals, dynamics that must be known and promoted. Polarization collects the vital interests (affective needs) of a society and delivers it back to the voter, based on a strategic plan of communicational confrontation. The first thing that must be controlled in the electoral market is to prevent a single party from monopolizing the electorate, that is, the “anti-party vote” must be encouraged, which is an effective alternative to opposition, abstention and confusion.

 

The ritual for the habit of the “utilitarian vote” (selfish-interested vote) continues to exalt the ambitions (psychological defects) of the electorate in seeking the maximum benefits in the promises made by the candidates, by the way, those who are seen by messianic media and prophetic works best, the ideas are sold and introduced to their minds by the media, especially radio and television. Spaces are opened to generate mixed feelings regarding the acceptance or rejection of a candidate’s personality, historical ideas of his past, of his private life are sold and the aspects of his imperfections (defects) are scrutinized in detail because at the end of After all, the purpose is that the voter responds to the intention of convincing him to give in all his elections, all his votes with a high degree of unwavering loyalty, that he always sees in his party the best virtues and in others, the worst. disadvantages.

 

In short, the image of a saving partisan institution is planted and cultivated in the electorate, a kind of ego-partisan-centrism as the infallible whole in the universe, their ambitions (hope) are exalted, what it is about is that the adherence be perpetual, thus guaranteeing the continuity of the unwary in the electoral game.

 

Now, how can the people distance themselves from this situation? Is the Constitution itself not a contract of adhesion made unilaterally by the people? Why should a sovereign have the responsibility to go to an electoral process? , that would deny their supreme authority because a sovereign cannot have legal responsibility, that would damage their hierarchy, that is why the Mexican people are exempt from submitting to constitutional law, and this can be proven very easily; for example: article 31 of the legitimate Constitution of 1857 says:

 

Article 31.- It is the obligation of all Mexicans: I.- To defend the independence, territory, honor, rights and interests of their country.

 

The foregoing means the care of some values ​​or legal assets that are already his and are part of the assets acquired from him; and with regard to paying the expenses incurred by the services and the servants, it is a fair right to pay for the services rendered, which in reality does not imply submission to the law or to the authorities.

 

G.- Of the situation of the working class.

 

The rebels and their accomplices devised articles 25, 26, 27 and 123 whose content differs substantially from their original texts contained in the 1857 constitution.

 

Thus, under the rigor of the code called “Political Constitution of 1917” imposed by the intruders, particularly what refers to the current articles 25, 26, 27 and 123, the “Monopolistic Public Capitalist System of the State” was consecrated, because of this way, and under those crafty rules, the mutineers made the State owner of all the national patrimony for their particular perverse interests, and those of their subordinate private concessionaires, also treacherous capitalists, assuring in the Penal Code sanctions to everything that in some way way put at risk his private patrimony that should be national; In this way, the first part of the “Legal Defense System of the assets of the State Capitalist Political Society of Impostors” is completed.

 

In a second phase, by its Regulatory Law, that of its article 123, the Federal Labor Law, in which capitalist production relations are enshrined, a clear “Employee Exploitation System” was established, defining the privileges that intruders self-confer as owners of State assets, corporately and institutionally controlling the rights of association and strike of the workers, turning it into a complicated procedure in which, in the end, it will only be the competence and absolute decision of them and the “representatives” from the workers.

 

The phenomenon of “Corporate Control of the State over the Workers” occurs using the representatives of the labor groups can be easily verified, since the legal regime of the Mexican Unions is subject to government control, proof of this are articles 365 and 366 They cite: “In order for a union to be considered legally constituted, it must be registered with the Board of Conciliation and Arbitration…, article 374 defines that “only legally registered unions have legal personality and capacity”; article 377 obliges unions to provide reports on changes in leadership and modification of statutes; 384 obliges union federations and confederations to place their registration and legalization in the hands of the Ministry of Labor.

 

In this way, the unions are absolutely subject to the intruders who became owners of public capital, but they also had to become owners of the will of the representatives of those unions, for that an organizational structure figure of the “Union Inverted” that is, its formation would not depend from the bottom up, but from the top down and this can also be easily verified, since since 1931 a special type of unionism was developed, and a regime of corporate control was established in the following way :

 

I.- The capitalist impostors of the monopoly of state assets, gave registration packages to their “leaders” simple troupes, traitors, servile and docile who were central as the CTM, CROC, CROM, and others.

 

II.- With their secure “registers”, the “leaders” behind the backs of the workers, in complicity with the intruders, placed themselves at the service of private capitalist companies, as a guarantee of submission and as the only ones authorized to sign collective contracts.

 

This is how the current “Prison Unions” were formed, this is how the workers were left out of any dealings with the company and without union life. Any attitude of protest by the workers is reason for the application of the dreaded “Exclusion Clause” by the union, dismissal by the company, repression by State institutions of the mutineers, and sometimes even political assassinations or imprisonment.

 

But not everything ends here, that submission of union representatives to state and private capitalism, had to ensure their economic survival through the mandatory contribution of workers to union funds, it could not happen as in other countries, where the workers receive their full salary and then, they themselves, voluntarily and consentingly, set aside the amount that corresponds to their union dues, and in an act of free expression of will they deliver it; and when a worker is not satisfied, he is simply free to change his union and stop paying the dues. This does not happen in Mexico, because the rebels devised a “Mandatory Union Contribution System” against the will of the workers and against the prohibition of wage deductions contained in section VI of Article 110 of their spurious Federal Labor Law. . In this way, Mexican workers never receive their full salary, but the intrusive capitalist boss who runs the State in cahoots with the private capitalist boss and the servile “representatives” of the unions, are authorized to deduct such fees that they ” official leaders” fix and in this way these fraudsters find it more pleasant to assume an increasingly servile position to the employer who physically gives them the money from the dues and forgets about the interest in acting for the benefit of the workers, who in no case can refuse to the discount, in this way the union economy becomes a source of enrichment.

 

The “exclusion clause” contained in article 395 of its Federal Labor Law, as a means of repression in favor of the official “leaders” and of the public companies of the State and private companies of the capitalists, is extremely serious and implies another form of oppression against workers.