Defense by the Public Defender

DEFENSE CONCERNING THE PROOFS PROVIDED BY

TRIBUNAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS

 

CASE 17

MEDITAZEN & RICARDO JAVIER OCAMPO (MASTER LOVE)

 

By Public Defender “Sekkha Dhamma”

 

Objections:

Evidence 1:

To make events that are discussed and are intended to be considered as sexual offenses are valid, it is necessary that the Grievances are presented as corresponding Evidence in charge of the Offended party, as well as the resolution to the Investigations or even the Judgment issued by the competent Authority, this presented in this Case as “Documentary” which by itself and in that condition make full evidence.

It is necessary to provide the legal-administrative documentary evidence that the Accused was arrested and was also imprisoned.

Otherwise, this Proof is only considered a presumption or mere news without disrupting the actual background with legal basis.

 

Evidence 2:

The Judgment that is argued, should be attached in “Documentary” as Proof, in addition that the ruling may be challenged and be determined Definitely or Interlocutorily if the Judgment was dictated in terms of Law and with sufficient Evidences and Arguments. Therefore, the legal challenge should also be attached in document.

On the other hand, Spiritual Fraud is not a Criminal Offense, it is an ethical violation of proceeding of a certain figure who claims to be as representative, leader, guide … and this procedure should be qualified by people who in turn are qualified for it. Ethical proceeding within the practice is easy to identify but difficult to qualify and even more to quantify, I think the difference can be seen when that proceeding is tainted with any criminal conduct.

 

Evidence 3:

The alleged extra normal or paranormal powers and the spiritual condition of Enlightened that the Accused holds does not impact the legal aspect, but it does in spiritual ethics if different or offensive to other dogmas, practices or beliefs, because there is no authority, universal process and ruling that are formally established and able to check or test an individual with those characteristics, it only fits out of this spiritual realm the scientific or empirical verification in order to observe and obtain observable results. Those qualities when they are real can only be identified by someone who is at such a spiritual level, and should not be correct to affirm or deny the condition of another individual since the fact to say this would be unethical and egoic. Ultimately, such an individual can be identified but it would break the same spiritual standards than those of the one who boasts with alleged exalted qualities.

 

Evidence 4:

The omission of the Accused’s criminal status does not legally oblige to express it in verbal, written or digital presentations which formulates and publicizes his support, teaching and mission; only a moral person, association, source of work or governmental and non-governmental institution, “all of them with a legal and social capacity” can request the criminal records of a citizen, but this one in no way is obliged to be exposed, therefore, this Evidence only can express the nonconformity toward the Accused concerning their background and requiring he expresses the legal situation by presenting in his Foundation.

 

Evidence 5:

Regarding false Zen and false Dharma it can be said that the teaching and educational body have experienced adaptations throughout their development and passage by different cultures and societies, and that adaptation and changes suffered do not presuppose falsehood in their various transmissions.

Meditazen and its Representative exhibit their teaching, their vision and object according to their origin and training, and that does not adjudicate any responsibility because the transmission is heterodox or different from the original doctrine.

 

Evidence 6:

The fact by showing himself as a divinity worthy of being worshiped is a presentation and requirement to his followers or worshippers to internally consolidate the institution’s social structure and thus make themselves known; spiritual fraud can only be seen from a different perspective that contravene a standard, what is singular is that all dogma, practice, spirituality or religion has different qualities and sometimes they are opposite each other, therefore, if there are followers, practitioners or believers, their platforms exist for that mass ideological diversity, and it is not spiritual fraud while it complies with the function to satisfy and develop their members.

Self-adoration is not a criminal offense or a religious crime, because it is not contained in a Penal Code nor is there a Religious or Spiritual Code, much less it contains it.

Public Defender

SekkhaDhamma

Mexico,  June 30, 2016.-

 

One thought on “Defense by the Public Defender

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s