..:: MAP OF WAY / To Sweden’s judiciary::..

To Sweden’s judiciary:

As I expected, Swedish judiciary did not register the follow suing as a case when I tried to give it to them for registering face to face. If I posted my request for justice, its destiny would be wastebasket.

I request justice

The majority of Sweden’s lawmakers in parliament from 2006 to 2010 who enacted a false anti-money law violated my right of sovereignty and took my freedom.

I have a simple question that I asked the lawmakers but they did not want to answer it. Now I submit the question to the judiciary and request that a court force them to answer this question:

An anti-money laundering law, without prohibiting money laundering is meaningless. If such a law is enacted everywhere in the world it is a false law. Why did you enact law (2009:62) without prohibiting money laundering?

In this relationship some explanations are necessary.

1-Winners and losers of enacting law (2009:62)

A-Winners:

The false anti-money laundering law does not prevent money laundering, so, wealthy families, wealthy persons and big companies can avoid taxes and transfer their money to tax havens. Corrupt politicians use the same system to receive bribes and commissions.

Criminals can launder their dirty money and expand their criminal activities.

B-Losers:

Honest people lose in a variety of ways. When rich avoids paying their taxes, the expense of government falls on the other citizens. Budget deficit reduce welfare and people and low-income people suffer the most. The increasing activities of criminals make society more and more unsafe. Fighting crime uses up money, meaning that there is less money to spend on welfare.

2- I have the right to receive an answer to my question for the following reasons:

a- I believe life makes right and wisdom can discover the human rights. The right of life is most important human right, followed by “right of sovereignty.”

b- My vote is my assertion of my “right of sovereignty.” It can enhance or destroy my life. If my countrymen and I directly exert our right of sovereignty, we make decisions that provide “Common Righteousness” that ensures right, justice and law for all members of our society. But in modern society the citizens cannot often exert their “right of sovereignty” directly, so they give their “right of sovereignty” in form of votes to their representatives as trustees to exert it and provide “Right-Justice-Law.”

c- The receivers of votes are responsible to voters’ “right of sovereignty” in the democratic process and create “Common Righteousness”, and “Right-Justice-Law.” This is an agreement, or more accurately, a contract between the owners of “right of sovereignty” and their representatives. If the receivers of votes do not comply with the terms of contract, the owners of “right of sovereignty” have right to ask them why.

d- Election Day is not the day that my “right of sovereignty” reaches its destination. That day is only the beginning of the journey toward right, justice and law. On that journey my “right of sovereignty” demands my vigilance to prevent detours. The ballot box and my vote should lead my “right of sovereignty” to “Common Righteousness” and provide “Right-Justice-Law.”

e- When a political system deprives me of the right to control the measures of politicians who receive my vote, there is a risk they distort my “right of sovereignty” by enacting false and façade laws. The lack of control deprives me of my freedom, which is the ability to use and exert the rights by choosing necessary moral devices. The access to Justice, when the rights of individual are ignored, abused or violated by other individual(s) is an inevitable attribute of freedom. Each right creates its relative freedom. For example if a tyrant does not let me speak, he deprives me of my “freedom of speech” and when the tyrant deprives me of my “right of sovereignty”, he deprives me of all freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

f- To understand how a false law can deprive an individual of his freedom, we need to consider the triad “Right-Justice-Law”: Law is a tool for exercising Justice and establishing order. False laws create injustice, because it makes trouble for decent citizens, without doing anything to stop criminals. The injustice cannot protect the rights of decent citizens and deprives them of their rights. The false law depriving people of their rights deprives them of their relative freedoms.

g- Law (2009:62) is a false law. The lawmakers who enacted that law cheated both the people of Sweden and the European Parliament. In annex (a report to society on how Sweden became a money laundering paradise) I have explained the story with facts and figures about this law, and I am ready to explain them orally in court and prove that law (2009:62) is a false law.

h- What it is important for me and I believe for Sweden’s judiciary is justice. Neither for me, nor for judiciary, the number and position of people who violate my rights, could not play an important role. According to this reasoning I have the right to ask the majority of the Riksdag why they violated my “right of sovereignty” by enacting a false law.

i- I trusted a group people and gave them my “right of sovereignty” and fed them with my taxes to enact laws for us and provide justice to our society. Our constitution states that their task is to enact law (chapter1, article 4: “The Riksdag enacts the laws”). With help of any definitions of law, we cannot justify law (2009:62) as a law.

j- The politicians by ignoring their task, enacted a false law, provided injustice, deprived me of my “right of sovereignty” and thereafter deprived me of my freedoms. I have the right to ask them and they shall answer me, because my “right of sovereignty” is valuable and people who receive a valuable thing are responsible for keeping it safe. When I am talking about responsibility, I mean multilateral responsibility: legal, moral and even etymological.

3- The importance of this case

To save life on Earth, we need to fight global warming. But climate change is not our sole problem. War, terrorism, poverty, corruption, organized crime, and …need national and international decision making. Sweden shall respect international agreements and laws. The representatives of all members of European Union, included Sweden’s representatives, enacted a law against money laundering and terrorist financing (Directive 2005/60/EC). The distorting EU anti-money laundering law (Directive 2005/60/EC)) to a false and façade law as Sweden enacted is not an honest mistake. It is a part of a procedure that continues.

In atmosphere of “Might” the greed of big companies forms Realpolitik. The alleged politicians are agents of Realpolitik. They have three magic tricks to avoid the laws:

a- Making a façade law that from outside seems law, but in reality it should be a compilation of words and articles that lead nowhere.

b- If people noticed this trick, and lawmakers were forced to enact a proper law, they should avoid establishing a bureaucratic organization to enforce the law.

c- If such an organization is already established, they should make it ineffective with poor management.

The process of enacting anti-money laundering law and system in Sweden has followed these three instructions. These irresponsible manners should be stopped because we can cheat each other but we cannot cheat the Earth. The holding irresponsible politicians responsible for demanding truth and transparency can nullify their three magic tricks.

Bahman Azadfar
Boras-Sweden
2015-11-06