Immigrant Murderer Demands Freedom and The Right to Remain in Sweden

The following was gleaned from BrottsCentralen - a Swedish publication

and translated (rather poorly) by Google

The murderer Noor Sham's demands: Frias and stay in Sweden

Noor Shams hugged (stabbed) his hotel neighbor twenty-one times in his face, throat and stomach - he left the victim to bleed in the room.

The murderer was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment and lifetime expulsion for the deceased - but he does not accept the punishment.

He wants to be released and the expulsion domain is to be demolished, showing legal documents.

The murder of the hotel in Bromma in January was discovered by the receptionist. In one of the rooms, furniture was rolling down, and the floor was stained with blood. Under the furniture lay a man dead.

Then 24-year-old Noor Shams was arrested the next day. He had scars on his hands and his blood was on a knife shaft found in the room. In the room there were also bloody palms that turned out to be from Noor Shams, now 25 years old.

The legal survey shows that Noor Shams hit the victim twenty times with the knife. Among other things, the face, throat and stomach.

What caused the murder is unclear, and according to the court there is no indication that it was planned.

The victim died, however, not immediately but was very injured and bleeding around the room for some time. According to the general practitioner, it may have taken him an hour to bleed.

What caused the murder is unclear, and according to the court there is no indication that it was planned. On the other hand, the right of Noor Shahs was indifferent to the fact that the other man could die, and thus he considered to have been intentional.

Noor Shams himself claims that he acted in self-defense, something that could not be proven or disproved. However, the right means that it is a murder because Noor Shams is the one who exercised the violence when the other was in the mood.

Noor Shams himself claims that he acted in self-defense, something that could not be proven or disproved.

In Solna District Court, Noor Shams, a Iraqi citizen, was sentenced to the murder of 14 years in prison and expulsion from Sweden.

"Already the comparison between NN's injury picture and him clearly shows that the violence by Noor Shams is more extensive and aggressive than NN may have exposed him to. In addition to bruising and scratching, his injuries can not be seen as other than superficial, "the district court writes in the judgment.

Noor Shams appealed directly to Svea Court of Appeal and wanted to be released - it was not. Instead, the court of appeal settled the verdict.

In Solna District Court, Noor Shams, a Iraqi citizen, was sentenced to the murder of 14 years in prison and expulsion from Sweden.

Now, Noor Shams has appealed to the Supreme Court. He demands first and foremost that they prosecute the Court of Appeals, release him for murder and iron out the damage. However, if he were to be guilty of guilty, he would like to be detrimental to the death of another, to gross maltreatment and to the death or death of another person.

"In any case, punishment is required" , is appealed to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Noor Shams wants him to stay in Sweden. In the appeal, Sham's lawyer Saman Paknejad writes that the client claims that the Supreme Court will "revoke the expulsion order against him".

"Very serious violation"

Noor Shams was granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden in August 2010, when he was 17 years old. In addition, he has relatives in Sweden. In order for him to be expelled, "special reasons" are required - it means both the district court and the court of appeal:

"... because Noor Shams is now convicted of a crime which is a very serious violation of both individual and public interests and because his connection to Sweden is not such as to constitute a barrier to expulsion. Against this background, he should not be allowed to stay here and the expulsion decision is thus determined " , is in court hearing.

Finally, the murderer is required to have a legal psychiatric examination.

Now, it would be nice if Swedish courts would expel immigrant rapists from the country.

Brazilian Court: Lula Barred from Presidential Election

Corruption is Everywhere - Court says - Not in Presidential Elections

By Sommer Brokaw

Supporters marched to the Supreme Court of Justice to rally in favor of the registration of the candidacy of former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for Brazil's president on Aug. 15. Since then, Brazil's top electoral court has ruled that Lula cannot run for re-election. File Photo by Joedson Alves/EPA-EFE

(UPI) -- A month before Brazilians go to the polls to vote in a presidential election, Brazil's top electoral court has ruled a popular former president jailed for corruption conviction, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, cannot run.

Capping a hearing that stretched overnight, Supreme Electoral Tribunal judges ruled 6-1 that Lula, 72, who registered weeks ago and ascended to first in polling, was not eligible to run in October.

The candidate, who served two terms as Brazil's president from 2003-2011, widely known as Lula, is a founding member of Brazil's only socialist political party, Partidos dos Trabahlhadores, the Worker's Party, but he has been in jail after receiving a 12-year sentence for corruption and money laundering earlier this year. Lula was arrested in April after Brazil's Supreme Court rejected his plea to stay out of jail while appealing the corruption case in a bid to recapture the presidency.

The ruling this week defies a request from the United Nations Human Rights Committee in August for Brazilian authorities "not to prevent him from standing for election in the 2018 presidential elections, until his appeals before the courts have been completed in fair judicial proceedings."

"I never wanted this and if it depended on me I would have avoided that destiny brought us here," said Judge Luís Barroso, who gave the majority opinion. His colleague Edson Fachin, who has jailed other politicians in a sprawling graft investigation, disagreed and said the United Nations decision should prevail.

The majority of the court agreed with Barroso that the U.N. recommendation could not supersede a "clean slate" law that bars candidates who have been convicted of serious crimes.

The decision could work to the advantage of extreme right-wing candidate Jair Bolsanaro, who is running second in the polls to Lula.

Lula's party vowed to continue to fight for his candidacy.

"This is a week that will shame the judiciary forever," the party said in a statement to The Guardian, arguing that the clean slate law only banned candidates after all appeals processes were exhausted. "Lula has a number of appeals outstanding at higher courts."