User talk:Ramon FVelasquez/Archive 7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:SMCityBaliwagjf3640 01.JPG

File:SMCityBaliwagjf3640 01.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SMCityBaliwagjf3640 01.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jose Ignacio Paua Monument

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez

 Keep I object to the deletion on the ground that our Copyright law expressly contains the Extinctive prescription of 4 years unlike 3 years in American Jurisprudence; so from 2016 uploading, any and all photos of Commons can no longer be deleted much less be brought to the Special Court even by the creator artist or assigns of the artist sculptor, Dura lex sed lex; the IPO, DOJ and the Special Court will forthwith throw the case by Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash due to Prescription; even Commons lawyers will agree with our Copyright Law proviso on Extinctive prescription read in connection with the Implementing 2019 Circular on Special Courts' creation and jurisdiction over Copyright cases including FOP here; with this I register a very strong Legal objection to the Deletion regards Judgefloro (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG

File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Acasarealjf.JPG

File:Acasarealjf.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acasarealjf.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Clark

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted But a careful examination of all these photos subject of nomination for deletion - 23 May 2015, 14:14:54 and 29 January 2014, 10:20:45 29 January 2014, 10:25:23 - the Legal Bar already did set in, hence, Extinctive prescription prohibits the deletion of all these photos; there is no Iota or dust of doubt whatsoever about the freedom of these files; ;4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez
Tons of SM Malls and other Malls photos would be stricken off and erased from Commons; tons of these published photos are now absolute properties of Commons for sharing of Wisdom towards the Newer Generations to come; future researchers and users will suffer irreparable damage and injury if the The precautionary principle is misapplied, misread or misinterpreted in the altar of technicalities; due care and utmost diligence should be exerted in the process of deletion or non-deletion of these photos; besides, these photos are Commercial establishments; SM Malls Prime Holdings have advantage in advertisements and business profits by publication of their Malls in Commons and others like Flickr, Photobucket inter alia;
Once deleted, this will be not only a test case but precedent for Mass Deletions to be started again and again by the Smart One and principal-child-parent-alter account who is just watching and carefully waiting to turn these deletions to Moro-moro, a farce, so to speak;
Who can prove or guess that the Smart Guy who apologized (and who has alter or Check user accounts in Commons and using Alibi, which is the weakest defense) ...
  •  Keep I object to the deletion on the ground that our Copyright law expressly contains the Extinctive prescription of 4 years unlike 3 years in American Jurisprudence; so from 2016 uploading, any and all photos of Commons can no longer be deleted much less be brought to the Special Court even by the creator artist or assigns of the artist sculptor, Dura lex sed lex; the IPO, DOJ and the Special Court will forthwith throw the case by Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash due to Prescription; even Commons lawyers will agree with our Copyright Law proviso on Extinctive prescription read in connection with the Implementing 2019 Circular on Special Courts' creation and jurisdiction over Copyright cases including FOP here; with this I register a very strong Legal objection to the Deletion regardsJudgefloro (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Liwasang Bonifacio

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Malate Bayview Mansion 02JPG.jpg

File:Malate Bayview Mansion 02JPG.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Malate Bayview Mansion 02JPG.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Malate Bayview Mansion 01.jpg

File:Malate Bayview Mansion 01.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Malate Bayview Mansion 01.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Pan Pacific Manila

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

File:CCFPasayjf1270 01.JPG

File:CCFPasayjf1270 01.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

File:CCFPasayjf1270 25.JPG

File:CCFPasayjf1270 25.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

File:UPmuseumjf3028 06.JPG

File:UPmuseumjf3028 06.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:UPmuseumjf3028 06.JPG 120.29.107.218 05:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

File:UPmuseumjf3028 05.JPG

File:UPmuseumjf3028 05.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:UPmuseumjf3028 05.JPG 120.29.107.218 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Emilio Aguinaldo Monument in Malolos, Bulacan

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Saint Andrew the Apostle Church

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:SaintAndrewtheApostleChurchjf9825 04.JPG

File:SaintAndrewtheApostleChurchjf9825 04.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SaintAndrewtheApostleChurchjf9825 04.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:MuseoPambatajf0260 17.JPG

File:MuseoPambatajf0260 17.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:MuseoPambatajf0260 17.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:University of the Philippines School of Library and Information Studies

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Agoo Basilica

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ma-Cho Temple

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Mailajf9457 39.JPG

File:Mailajf9457 39.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mailajf9457 39.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Urgent and Fervent Appeal to Commons Community to Put On Hold the Mass Deletion Requests Non-Stop and Unlawful under the Strict Provisions of Philippines Criminal (Penal) Law on Cybercrimes-stalking : to Defer possible Mass Deletions - Erasing of Valued Photos of National Interest from the Herein User Deleter, based on Moral grounds and most certain irreparable Damage and Injury to Commons files and contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users, with all Due Respect: I am reproducint herein as part hereof My Legal Treatise for the kindness of the Commons Community to review and to Declare Null and Void Ab Initio all the Mass Deletions by herein Nominator: to wit - Judgefloro (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.


ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:


i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, thas are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Smmarilaojf.JPG

File:Smmarilaojf.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smmarilaojf.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Baliwag

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Mponce4jf.JPG

File:Mponce4jf.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mponce4jf.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

File:SMCityTarlacjf5102 10.JPG

File:SMCityTarlacjf5102 10.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SMCityTarlacjf5102 10.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Batmanjf.JPG

File:Batmanjf.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Batmanjf.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Santo Niño Exhibit, 2014 SM City Baliwag

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

File:SantoNinoSMCityBaliuagjf8723 34.JPG

File:SantoNinoSMCityBaliuagjf8723 34.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SantoNinoSMCityBaliuagjf8723 34.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Urgent and Fervent Appeal to Commons Community to Put On Hold the Mass Deletion Requests Non-Stop and Unlawful under the Strict Provisions of Philippines Criminal (Penal) Law on Cybercrimes-stalking : to Defer possible Mass Deletions - Erasing of Valued Photos of National Interest from the Herein User Deleter, based on Moral grounds and most certain irreparable Damage and Injury to Commons files and contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users, with all Due Respect: I am reproduce herein as part hereof My Legal Treatise for the kindness of the Commons Community to review and to Declare Null and Void Ab Initio all the Mass Deletions by herein Nominator: to wit - Judgefloro (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.


ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:


i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Tarlac

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robinsons Townville Pulilan

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Gandang Mabagyong Hapon sa Imo poe The Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and the Joint Force of IPO including the Bureau of Copyrights; did issue the Latest Circulars Implementing the Copyright Law of the Philippines, to wit:
  • Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases Improves Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship. participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
a) the Creator, or Copyright Holder must prove Legal Personality by preponderance of evidence, that is - Documentary proofs of the alleged in the complaint for Copyright or trademark infringement; b) the Special Court taking cognizance of the Filed with paid Docket fees Copyright case will either dismiss or try the case; c) the Case must be filed within 4 years Prescriptive period from the alleged in the complaint publication in any format whether in newspaper, internet etc.; the tolling of the period starts from the publications, here, in Uploading in Commons irrespective of the knowledge of the Complainant, Commons Uploading being Public; d) A Motion to Dismiss may strike out the Complaint upon the ground of Extinctive prescription; irrespective of the Commons Policies, the Court has the mandate to strictly follow the Peralta-IPO Circular of 2019 amending In Toto the pertinent provisions of the 1989 Rules on Evidence or previous Webinars, IPO or Bureau of Copyright issuances by the former and present Directors or Heads; even the former Issued DOJ Opinions are Ipso Facto amended to conform to the above-enumerated requirement; e) Nobody including any Nominator of Commons, including especially herein Mass Deleter, can legally and validly file or tag in Commons, a single or Mass Deletion request, without first obtaining a Special Power of Attorney from the alleged Creators, here for example, SM City SuperMalls; f) Any SPA that may be issued must must and must be submitted to Commons Permissions, and without such SPA, any and all Nominations by herein or any Deletor on FOP inter alia, arising from the alleged rights of Copyrights Holders, the Nomination is Null and Void Ab Initio; any repeated repeated and repeated references to the alleged verbal and not official (Vide: criminal violations of public officials under R.A. 6713 and R.A. 3019) and written statements are Legal Falsehoods, not countenanced by the Rule of Law vis-à-vis the Highest 1987 Constitutional Due Process and Press Freedom or Expression tightly guarded by Philippine Laws;
In the specific case of SM Supermalls including here photos of SM, suffice it to say, that SM Supermalls owns the Copyright and no artist or architect outside it did ever create or did have any moral or copyrights issues; this is so, since SM Supermalls have their own creators, architects etc. who before and after the works, waived any rights whatsoever in favor of the SM Corporation and its Holding Corporation; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


  • Urgent and Fervent Appeal to Commons Community to Put On Hold the Mass Deletion Requests Non-Stop and Unlawful under the Strict Provisions of Philippines Criminal (Penal) Law on Cybercrimes-stalking : to Defer possible Mass Deletions - Erasing of Valued Photos of National Interest from the Herein User Deleter, based on Moral grounds and most certain irreparable Damage and Injury to Commons files and contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users, with all Due Respect: I am reproduce herein as part hereof My Legal Treatise for the kindness of the Commons Community to review and to Declare Null and Void Ab Initio all the Mass Deletions by herein Nominator: to wit -
CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.


ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:


i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ramon_FVelasquez/Archive_7&oldid=547028671"