Memory And Intellectual Vicissitudes Of A Mother

City Police captured a false state judicial police in Mexico with replica gun and badge

Normal

An individual who was displayed simultaneously as effective judicial police in the capital and "commander" of the Municipal Public Security Bureau in the State Mexico to intimidate passers-by, was arrested by the Ministry of Federal District Public Security (SSP-DF), Colonia Tabacalera, Cuauhtemoc.

The man, who said his name was Mario Castro Solis, age 28, drew the attention of the soldiers assigned to the Civil Protection Unit (UPC) Zona Rosa when being recharged in a car at the corner of Puente de Alvarado and Ponciano Arriaga of the colony referred to, assumed a defiant attitude toward the people who passed.

Erratic behavior also was accentuated when looking around, as if searching for someone, why the officers approached him to inquire if he had any problem and if might help.

The man, seeing them approaching, he decided to walk to avoid the encounter, which in turn led to more suspicions about his performance and encouraged the representatives of law to intercept it for inspection.

In doing so, discovered in his possession an imitation of .9 mm caliber pistol with a cartridge useful and false registration plate of the Directorate General of Municipal Public Security "Commander" hanging from a cord with the words "Attorney General District Federal.

The subject failed to show any identification to prove his personality as a corporation police officer and subsequently argued that the gun and badge were false and "only used for horseplay."

The man, gun and badge were made available to the Territorial Coordination of Public Safety and Law Enforcement CUH1, where he began a preliminary investigation.

COMPETENT BODIES TO CLAIM A COMPENSATION FOR THE MEDICAL CARE PROVIDED BY DEFECTIVE AND ADESLAS

CLAIMS OF LIABILITY OF OFFICERS FOR POOR HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE DIRECTED AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND NOT AGAINST MUFACE .

1) According to the Judgement of the 3rd Chamber of the Supreme Court dated October 27, 2010, rec. 834/2009, has no jurisdiction over the Health Department claim liability for poor health care, for the Mutual of Civil Servants (MUFACE) is not a public body and so the claim should be directed against the Ministry of Administration Public MUFACE-not against the medical treatment that was dispensed by the medical services of the private entity ADESLAS-for lack of jurisdiction of that entity to resolve liability claims.

MUFACE is not a public body with legal personality distinct public, property and cash own autonomy. Based on the RDL 4 / 2000, it therefore be MUFACE unlike any other state administration and, therefore, the Ministry of Public Administration. And it is the Ministry of Public Administration administrative body competent to resolve these claims of responsibility of officials patrim0onial public. In a similar case, the Judgement of High Court of Valencia no. 1156/2008, of November 17, 2008, dismissing the appeal be counted against the Administration of the Generalitat Valenciana for lack of standing passively in the same silence and deducted for administrative review because he had been resorted MUFACE Resolution of the Ministry of Public Administration .

2) TS understands that the claims of liability deductible by the plaintiff dated 29 January 2004 and March 3, 2005 at the Department of Health and MUFACE, whose dismissal alleged by administrative silence stands as an object of process-were sustained, in essence, that the ailments of a physical, mental or Achilles tendon rupture operated on four occasions tendionopatía chronic axonetmesis left sural nerve, mood disorder secondary to organic process, which led to his retirement permanent disability as an officer of the National Police agreed on 30 July 2003 were due to the poor treatment of the injury, consisting of rupture of the Achilles tendon, suffered in the accident in the line of duty on 2 September 1981 , and whose medical treatment, including surgical interventions that were made in the Clinica Virgen del Consuelo Valencia, was excused for medical services of the private entity ADESLAS had agreed the provision of care to staff, as the actor, belong, as mutual, to MUFACE.

TS understands that action must be dismissed as it affects the claim that it follows on the Administration of the Generalitat Valenciana based on their lack of standing to be sued and that under no circumstances may be obliged to compensate damages that the actor attaches to health care received. This is so because, as argued by the Counsel of the Government in the response to the demand and has declared the Board 3 of the TS in the Judgement number 898/2006 of 7 June (Appeal number 1371/2002) in cases such as this is not affected by any public health service demand accountability from the Administration of the Generalitat Valenciana, as no center under the same or any health benefit by it deserved reproach, can not be held accountable.

3 º) the competent administrative body is the Ministry of Public Administrations: is true, as they declared the ruling of the 3rd Supreme Court dated 3 July 2003 and May 24, 2007, in cases like the one examined in which poor health provision has been made based on that study by an entity as a concert ADESLAS keeping with MUFACE health care - there may be liability of the Directors, provided that the conditions configurators that, under Article 139 LRJAPyPAC must clear that the authority to issue the order under which it may be refused or accessed and ultimately to hear and decide the case to which it leads, it is not for MUFACE bodies, but in accordance with the provisions LRJAPyPAC Article 142.2, the Ministry to which the entity, which in this case would be the Ministry of Public Administration- and specifically to its holder.

4 º) Court Jurisdiction: The TS states that in any case, the jurisdiction to hear challenges to those resolutions of the Minister of Public Administration would have been entitled, by reason of having been dictated by him to the Board of Administrative Litigation of the National Court of luck that the appeal had been lodged against them-which, as set out above, the applicant has not made, would have carried the transfer of proceedings to the Tribunal, in accordance with provided for in Article 8 LJCA.
.

http://www.indemnizacionglobal.com/