postimg DOT org FORWARDSLASH gallery FORWARDSLASH 3fsueq696 FORWARDSLASH

postimg DOT org FORWARDSLASH gallery FORWARDSLASH swc7qcic FORWARDSLASH

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

http COLON FORWARDSLASH FORWARDSLASH www DOT docdroid DOT net FORWARDSLASH mkgg
FORWARDSLASH letterofreference HYPHEN gulati HYPHEN drsa HYPHEN by HYPHEN monique HYPHEN
ip DOT pdf DOT html

LOOK MY CRIMINAL LAW TUTOR SAYS IM SMART

http COLON FORWARDSLASH FORWARDSLASH www DOT docdroid DOT net FORWARDSLASH mkgv
FORWARDSLASH kevinmccormacreferenceletter DOT pdf DOT html

HIGH SCHOOL TRANSCRIPT NAME OF THE SCHOOL NOW CHANGED

http COLON FORWARDSLASH FORWARDSLASH postimg DOT org FORWARDSLASH image
FORWARDSLASH ahme90w6l FORWARDSLASH

LET ME REPEAT TO YOU UN SECURITY COUNCIL AND UN SECRETARY GENERAL

THANK GOD IM A CANADIAN CITIZEN OTHERWISE THEY WOULD ALL ABSCOND

IMMUNITIES TERRORISM CORRUPTION AND STUFF

INDIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS RAPED MY IDENTITY AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT ON

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM and IN TURN IS RESPONSIBLE UNDER MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES OF
PERSECUTION OF MY ENTIRE FAMILY

A cyberweapon is a malware agent employed for military, paramilitary, or intelligence objectives.

Objectives[edit]
A cyberweapon performs an action which would normally require a soldier or spy, and which would be
considered either illegal or an act of war if performed directly by a human agent of the sponsor during
peacetime. Legal issues include violating the privacy of the target and the sovereignty of its host nation.
Such actions include (but are not limited to):

Surveillance of the system or its operators, including sensitive information, such as passwords and
private keys
Theft of data or intellectual property, such as:
proprietary information of a business
classified information of a government or military
Destruction of one or more of the following:
Data or executable code (programs) on the system, or other connected systems
Less frequently, damage to or destruction of computer hardware

In the most extreme case, damage to an electromechanical or process control system such that a serious
industrial accident results in loss of life or property beyond the system, or major economic damages.
While a cyberweapon almost certainly results in either direct or indirect financial damages to the target
group, direct financial gains for the sponsor (such as the transfer of funds) are not a primary objective of
this class of agent.

Target[edit]
Unlike malware used by script kiddies to organize botnets, where the ownership, physical location, and
normal role of the machines attacked is largely irrelevant, cyberweapons show high selectivity in either
or both of their employment and their operation. Likewise, malware employed by organized crime for
the theft of personal or financial information demonstrates lower selectivity and wider distribution.

Requirements for the term vary widely; the most common criteria seem to be for a malware agent
which:

Is sponsored or employed by a state or non-state actor.

Meets an objective which would otherwise require espionage or the use of force.
Is employed against specific targets.
Sponsor[edit]
Part of the distinction from other malware is that the agent is sponsoredthat is, Is commissioned,
developed, and/or actually usednot by a black-hat hacker or organized criminal group, but instead by
a state or a non-state actor, the latter potentially including terrorist groups and other entities proposed
in 4GW doctrines.

Constitutional Crisis and International Terrorism

Basic math deduces

STATE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS

Under the Statute, the definition of "crime of aggression" is stated as follows:

Article 8 bis[edit]
. For the purpose of this tatute, ri e of aggressio
ea s the pla i g, preparation, initiation or
execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or
military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a
manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
. For the purpose of paragraph , a t of aggressio
ea s the use of ar ed for e y a tate agai st
the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner

inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a
declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of
14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military
occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of
force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any
weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of
another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the
agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or
any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to
be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry
out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its
substantial involvement therein.

IT REQUIRES SECURITY COUNCIL REFERRAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

HOWEVER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF INDIA NOT BEING PARTY TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT AND CLEAR JUDICIAL FAILURE FOR ACTION

PERHAPS TAKE INDIA TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Article 13
Exercise of jurisdiction

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with
the provisions of this Statute if:
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the
Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the
Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or
(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

Exercise of jurisdiction[edit]
Under the Statute, the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction for the "crime of aggression" by the
Court are as defined below. With these provisions, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction over the
"crime of aggression" in one or all of the following ways.

State referral, proprio motu

Security Council referral

Article 15 bis
Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13,
paragraphs (a) and (c), subject to the provisions of this article.
The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after
the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.
The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject
to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for
the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.
The Court may, in accordance with article 12, exercise jurisdiction over a crime of aggression, arising
from an act of aggression committed by a State Party, unless that State Party has previously declared
that it does not accept such jurisdiction by lodging a declaration with the Registrar. The withdrawal of
such a declaration may be effected at any time and shall be considered by the State Party within three
years.
In respect of a State that is not a party to this Statute, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction over
the ri e of aggressio whe o
itted y that tates atio als or o its territory.
Where the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation in
respect of a crime of aggression, he or she shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a
determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. The Prosecutor shall notify the
Secretary-General of the United Nations of the situation before the Court, including any relevant
information and documents.
Where the Security Council has made such a determination, the Prosecutor may proceed with the
investigation in respect of a crime of aggression.
Where no such determination is made within six months after the date of notification, the Prosecutor
may proceed with the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, provided that the Pre-Trial
Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression in
accordance with the procedure contained in article 15, and the Security Council has not decided
otherwise in accordance with article 16.
A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the
Courts ow fi di gs u der this Statute.

This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to
other crimes referred to in article 5.[5]
Article 15 ter[edit]
Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13,
paragraph (b), subject to the provisions of this article.
The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after
the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.
The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject
to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for
the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.
A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the
Courts ow fi di gs u der this tatute.
This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to
other crimes referred to in article 5.

DIRECT VIOLATION OF UN CHARTER

INDIA IS IN CONTRAVENTION BY DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE UN CHARTER CHAPTER 7 ARTICLE 42 BY

INSTITUTING THEIR OWN PARTIAL INTERRUPTION OF COMMUNICATION

INTERNATIONAL TREATY VIOLATIONS

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

UNDER UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION I WISH TO DEPORT THE PRESIDENT AND PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA
ALL THOSE WITH IMMUNITIES AND OTHER CONCERNED PARTIES TO BELGIUM FOR CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
UNDER ARTICLE 2 FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Enforced disappearance is defined in Article 2 of the Convention as
the arrest detention abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by
persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization support or acquiescence of the State
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or
whereabouts of the disappeared person which place such a person outside the protection of the law.

Universal jurisdiction is a controversial principle in international law whereby states claim criminal
jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the
prosecuting state regardless of nationality country of residence or any other relationship to the
prosecuting country The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a
crime against all which any state is authorised to punish The concept of universal jurisdiction is
therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are erga omnes or owed to the
entire world community as well as the concept of jus cogens
In 1993 Belgium passed a law of universal jurisdiction to give its courts jurisdiction over crimes against
humanity in other countries

INDIA HAS VIOLATED ARTICLE 3 THE FOLLOWING TREATY PREVENTING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
BETWEEN MEMBER STATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS Adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946
Article III
FACILITIES IN RESPECT OF COMMUNICATIONS
SECTION 9 The United Nations shall enjoy in the territory of each Member for its official
communications treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of that Member
to any other Government including its diplomatic mission in the matter of priorities EQUALS rates and
taxes on mails EQUALS cables EQUALS telegrams EQUALS radiograms EQUALS telephotos EQUALS
telephone and other communications; and press rates for information to the press and radio No
censorship shall be applied to the official correspondence and other official communications of the
United Nations

United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property

I WISH TO REVOKE INDIAS STATE IMMUNITY

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL AND UN SECURITY COUNCIL ARE IN VIOLATION OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS
THAT BEING RISHI GULATI LOCATED AT 2518 RUGBY RD MISSISSAUGA ONTARIO CANADA L5B1T2 AND
SOME ARTICLES FOR MY ENTIRE FAMILY
I HEREBY WISH TO MAKE PERSONALLY LIABLE ALL UN OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE AND THE UN SECRETARY
GENERAL AND UN SECURITY COUNCIL
1
2
3
5
7 important violation
9
12 important violation
13 part 1
14 part 1 asylum from persecution provided to my entire family
15 part 2 the UN Secretary General made my countrys authorities become invisible
21 part 1 and part 2 22
26 part 2

28
29 part 2

Individual Specific Charges

Criminal Conspiracy
Cyber stalking
Conspiracy to Inflict violence
National Terrorism
Criminal Intimidation
Protection Racketeering police forces fail nationally unreliable too criminal
Crimes of Aggression
Obstruction of justice
Perverting the course of justice
Concealing and harboring offenders
Mass Aggravated identity theft on terrorism which includes back dated documents
Corruption Charges of Abuse of Authority Contempt of Authority Amass wealth