Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

There have been a few rumblings that Doc Mireles did not live up to his April agreement.  His friend Hipolito Mora has said as much, although he  is in support of Doc.  As I recall Lito was in prison when the April meeting occurred, and not at the meeting.  I had a conversation with Dr. Mireles the day of the April meetings, because I read in some publications there was an “agreement”.  He stated; nothing was signed, and the meeting was to clarify expectations, from both perspectives as the government May deadline loomed near.

(All is well, we just reaffirmed our position not to disarm until

1.  Cleaning of Michoacan of the criminals

2.   Establish public safety, and fair administration of justice

3.  liberation of imprisoned autodefensas.

This must be done in 30 days by May 11)…(Chivís)

“I am a political prisoner.”

“possession of a firearm for the exclusive use of the Army and for crimes against health, in the form of drug dealing in the variant of simple possession of marijuana and cocaine.”

Crimes that, according to his defense attorney, are false. In an interview with La Jornada, Talía Vázquez Alatorre relates details of her one-hour visit with her client in prison:

“We are [contesting] the detention order for two reasons: one, for serious violations of due process; and the other, for statements by public officials that place him as a political prisoner.”

Belguim

Dr. Mireles' defense team is preparing the amparo [protection; i.e., injunction] and an appeal [of the detention order] in parallel with a complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR):

“We have 15 business days to go against the detention order, while the legal process continues, but we intend to get to international bodies like the Human Rights Commission, where we have already begun the process.” Alfredo Castillo Fails

According to the legal file of the arguments for resolving Dr. Mireles' legal status, to which La Jornada has had access, attorney Salvador Molina Navarro makes a plea for obedience to the law and justification of self-defense based on an analysis presented by academic Jaime Cárdenas, who argues that the defendants' “are not legally responsible” given that they belong to a social movement known as the self-defense groups of Michoacán.

The defense team believes that Dr. Mireles and his three bodyguards are victims of an “illegal detention,” which was carried out without an arrest warrant and without being about either a case of flagrante delicto[caught in the act] or emergency, which contravenes Article 16 of the Constitution. They argue that Dr. Mireles Valverde suffered “acts of torture”; that the judge was negligent in failing to investigate the facts; plus Mireles was not allowed to make the proper telephone call to a defense attorney within the legally prescribed time period and, finally, that the “evidence” presented by the authority was “planted,” which makes it both false and illegal.

A nod to Doc Mireles' comment “I was armed with a chicken leg”

They point out that the 55-page text of the arguments on behalf of Dr. Mireles reads [in part]

 ”torture, such as that suffered by the accused, even since his detention, aggravated even more in the person of José Manuel Mireles Valverde, who was blindfolded without either cause or justification and made to believe that they would throw him into the sea, and even preventing the immediate communication that is an inalienable right, voids any and all of the evidence that the Public Ministry [prosecutors and investigative police under their direction] could gather in the investigation phase.” Among the arguments presented is that of appropriate and collective “legitimate defense” due to the fact that the government has not assured security in Michoacán:

“Hence, given the lack of legal security provided by State forces, society finds itself in the state of necessity. Clearly reflecting the lack of legal certainty in which residents of different sectors of the population find themselves, they feel vulnerable to attacks by organized crime on their integrity, both tax- and property-wise [not only does organized crime exact 'fees' (taxes), but seizes properties outright]. As a result of all this, and in response to an attack on their physical persons and property, they find themselves in full need of collectively defending themselves and their property. From this follows the behavior used to safeguard the peoples' assets by their taking possession of all feasible means of defense in order to repel their attackers' aggressions.

Defense attorney Vázquez insists that Dr. Mireles is a political prisoner because public officials like Alfredo Castillo, Commissioner for Public Security in Michoacán, and Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong, Secretary of Government Relations, have declared that the detainee is imprisoned for not having complied with the agreements concluded in the month of May.;

Texas

Attorney Talia Vázquez explains:

“The one who never complied with any of the agreements was Alfredo Castillo. He neither freed the imprisoned 517 members of self-defense groups just in Michoacán nor did he release Hipólito Mora before May 10. Above all, he neither achieved the arrest of La Tuta nor did he restore the rule of law. Nothing happened. Who broke the agreement was not Dr. Mireles but Alfredo Castillo. This also demonstrates that Mireles is a political prisoner.”