Tijuana BC: 105-110 Murders in 15 Days

Translated by Yaqui for Borderland Beat from Zeta

BC GOV “Kiko Vega ” Formally announcing his Crusade for Security

Sept 17, 2017

The statistics of bloody events in Tijuana continues to increase and seems to have no end. Malicious homicides amount to 1,169 events so far in 2017. As of the close of the edition, 105 people had lost their lives in September.

On September 12, 100 days had passed since Governor Francisco Vega de Lamadrid launched the Crusade for Security, with various initiatives to reduce violence, however in those same days 511 murders were committed.

The murdered were dismembered, calcined, signed, bagged; executed by shots or blows and have increased the number in the last seven days to 50 dead. Monday, September 11 is considered the most violent day of the year with 13 homicides. Most of the crimes were committed in the Eastern Zone of Tijuana.

“Kiko” Throngs of  Mexicali Residents chanted “Fuera Kiko” at El Grito

Recent violent acts include:

Around 08:00 hours it was reported that inside a gray trash can, was the corpse of a person. The container was located on the sidewalk of Callejón Zeta and Avenida Revolución, in the Zona Centro.
Half an hour later on Tequesquitengo Street in the Torres del Lago building, in Cerro Colorado, was the lifeless body of a subject. The victim had gunshot wounds. At the scene of the crime were located at least seven spent bullet casings.

Crimes of the Week :

On Friday 8: at a local video game place in El Florido #3, two subjects were shot dead. A dismembered body with head and limbs wrapped in a black plastic bag was found inside a green van. A 35 year old man died after being shot in El Laurel.

On Saturday 9: in Loma Bonita a young man was shot dead in the head. In a red suitcase a man’s body was found on the Tijuana-Rosarito highway. In Mariano Matamoros Norte, “Jaime” was shot in the chest. Among rubbish in Villas del Prado, the calcined corpse of a subject was found.

On Sunday 10: in Urbi Villas del Prado, a man was found dead with blunt injuries. José Amaro Flores, died after receiving several shots. Edgar David Navarro, alias “El Gordo”, 30, was killed in Colonia Emperors.
SEMEFO personnel collecting another or other bodies
with nowhere to take them
On Monday 11: thirteen people were killed. In Mariano Matamoros Centro a young woman was killed. At the 3 Leones Hotel in Centro, a 40-year-old man was shot dead. Wrapped in a blanket and with traces of violence, a 30-year-old woman was found dead in the Libertad colony. Pedro Hernández García, 22, was murdered in the  Colonia Mexico Lindo. In Loma Bonita Iván Hernández was assassinated. Marco Montejano Hernández, 27, was  executed in the Altiplano. In a state of putrefaction and with firearm injuries, three bodies were located in a balcony area of the Hacienda Las Delicias Building third floor. Juan Cervantes Carrillo, 32, was shot dead. Manuela Alvarado, 58, was executed on October 3. In Villas del Prado, Gabriel Roa Hernández, 40, was murdered. Wrapped in a blanket in the colony Reforma, a human corpse was found.

On Tuesday 12: five people were murdered including Antonio Murillo Alba, alias “Brenda”, 19, who died of knife injuries. In Colonia Delicias #3 were found half-buried bones remains of a woman. In the Colonia Emperors, a man of 30 was shot to death. In Urbi Quinta del Cedro II a man was shot dead.
On Wednesday 13: Héctor Cruz, 20, Jorge Miche Beta, 49, Héctor Rivera, alias “El Pelón”, 41 were murdered in Villa del Campo, Generation 2000, Praderas de la Gloria, Villas de Alcázar, Sánchez Taboada, respectively.

On Thursday the 14th: in Urbi Villas del Prado, a man of 45 – 50 years, was shot. In the colony Monte San Antonio, the corpse of a woman, between 25 and 30 years old, was located. The calcined body of a person was found in the Cumbres Flores Magón . In a vacant lot of Colonia El Florido the corpse of Antonio Escobar Rodriguez, 38 years was found. Inside a suitcase, the mutilated body of a man with a severed head was located on the Tijuana-Tecate Road; the victim was between 30 and 35 years old. In Lomas de San Antonio at Urbi Quinta del Centro was discovered the body of a woman of 30 years which had blows to the head. In the Encino of Villas del Álamo building  a man between 30 and 35 years was found shot to death.

Understaffed and ill- equipped Forensic and Morgue Facilities in TJ

    Meanwhile over at SEMEFO, the agency cannot keep up with the volumne of bodies piling up.

The storage facilities are lacking, the refrigerated units over flowing and many corpses are in such a rapid state of decomposition  that they may never be identified or claimed.

Note: UnoMasUno reports 110 criminal homicides

Ruling against Chapo’s motion to dismiss indictment due to improper extradition

by Chivis Martinez for Borderland Beat

click on image to enlarge
On Friday, a no surprise decision was filed in the U.S. case against Joaquin El Chapo Guzmán. U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan overruled an effort by Joaquin Guzman, challenging his extradition from Mexico to face charges in New York and Florida of international narcotics conspiracy, and the indictment against him, based on the foundation he was extradited improperly to NYC. Without touching on the evidences of the case, Guzmán’s attorneys focused on the indictment being improper, violating the extradition treaty between Mexico and the United States.

The original agreement contained the agreement that Guzmán would be extradited to either Texas or California.  However, when Guzmán was awoken for the middle of the night transfer, it was done without prior attorney notification, or prior documentation of the extradition city change.  The contention is that this action or inaction violates the confusing, ambiguous “Rule of Specialty”doctrine. Essentially, in the cases of Mexico to U.S. extraditions, within the four corners of the agreement, there can be no additions.

Remember the case of Alfredo Beltran Leyva? His appeared to be a clear violation of the Rule of Specialty. For two reasons; one, charges were added when he arrived in the U.S. and there was not a “waiver” signed by Mexico. The waiver is a caveat, stipulating to changes, post extradition.   There was not one in the Beltran Leyva case. There is a contention that there is one in Guzmán’s case but he denies there is one, or one he has ever seen or signed.

U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan wrote in his decision, that Guzmán had no legal right to challenge the New York  indictment because Mexico had not objected to it.

Cogan also said in July, in an unrelated case, the federal appeals court in Manhattan, upheld this opinion.

See below full docket text, Motion to dismiss filed on 8.13.17


“It is well-settled law in the Second Circuit law that absent protest or objection by the offended sovereign, [a defendant] has no standing to raise the violation of international law” to challenge his indictment. United States v. Suarez, 791 F.3d 363, 367 (2d Cir. 2015). In fact, one week before defendant filed his motion, the Second Circuit affirmed this legal principle in United States v. Barinas, 865 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 2017), holding that absent an express provision in an extradition treaty, a defendant has no standing to raise a Rule of Specialty violation. Here, there is no protest or objection by Mexico, nor is there an express provision in the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss the Indictment based on an alleged Rule of Specialty violation is denied. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 9/14/2017. “

Guzmán attorney Michele Gelent told reporters, Although disappointed, we still believe Mr. Guzmán’s rights were violated under the treaty and given that other circuit courts give the defendant the right to object to violations of extradition treaties, it is our hope that eventually the Supreme Court will decide this issue favorably to Mr. Guzmán.”

On September 13, 2017, Guzmán attorneys, adding insurance for a possible, filed a motion to dismiss counts;

Memorandum in support of defendant Joaquin Archivaldo Guzmán Loera’s motion to dismiss as time-barred counts ten, eleven, fourteen, and fifteen of the fourth superseding indictment  

The Court should dismiss Counts Ten, Eleven, Fourteen, and Fifteen of the Fourth Superseding Indictment (the “Challenged Counts”) because they are barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations.


Five indictments have been filed in this case. The original indictment was filed against Mr. Guzmán and five other defendants on July 10, 2009. It contained nine counts, with the last alleged criminal conduct occurring on April 30, 2005. 

The first superseding indictment (the “S-1 Indictment”) was filed against Mr. Guzmán
and one other defendant, Ismael Zambada Garcia, on September 25, 2014. It contained 21 counts.

The second superseding indictment (the “S-2 Indictment”) was filed against defendant Hector Beltran Leyva only.

The Third Superseding indictment (the “S-3 Indictment”) was filed against Mr. Guzmán and Mr. Zambada Garcia on March 9, 2016.

Finally, the current indictment, the Fourth Superseding Indictment (the “S-4 Indictment”), was filed against Mr. Guzmán and Mr. Zambada Garcia on May 11, 2016. It includes four substantive counts relevant to this motion: Counts Ten, Eleven, Fourteen, and Fifteen. 

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.” Thus, for the offenses charged in Counts Ten, Eleven, Fourteen, and Fifteen to be timely, they must have been included in an indictment filed within five years of their commission. As shown below, they weren’t.

A.Count Ten is time-barred. The statute of limitations for the offense charged in Count Ten expired on December 31, 2013. But the offense alleged in Count Ten was not charged until the First Superseding Indictment was filed on September 25, 2014. See S-1 Indictment 

Count Eleven. That was nine months too late. Count Eleven is time-barred. Count Eleven is untimely for similar reasons. For the offense alleged in Count Eleven to be timely, it had to be charged no later than February 3, 2011. But the offense alleged in Count 11 was not charged until the First Superseding Indictment was filed on September 25, 2014. See S-1 Indictment

Count Thirteen. Again, that was too late.

C. Count Fourteen is time-barred. The January–March 2004 offense alleged in Count Fourteen had to be charged no later than March 31, 2009. But it was not charged—as an independent substantive offense—until the Third Superseding Indictment was filed on March 9, 2016. See S-3 Indictment 

Count Fourteen. Thus, it is untimely. 

Count Fifteen is time-barred. Finally, the January 25, 2004 offense charged in Count Fifteen had to be filed no later than January 25, 2009. But that crime was not charged until the First Superseding Indictment was filed on September 25, 2014. See S-1 Indictment Count Eighteen. Thus, it too is barred by the statute of limitations

Below is the motion filed on the 13th of this month. There isredaction. But if you have time it is very interesting.