Cartas al Congreso de Gregorio Igatúa en Defensa de la Estadidad

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=4162e8b4f3&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1696855903240190106&th=178c717423a7f89a&view=att&disp=inline

Domestic and International

Legal Advice, L.L.C.

c/o Gregorio Igartua

Box 3911

Aguadilla P.R. 00605

Abogado – Notario

Attorney at Law

L.L.M. INTERNATIONAL LAW – G.W.U.               Tel. (787)891-9040

MASTER TAX LAW – G.U.L.C.                                    Cel. (787) 379-5095

                                                                                                                     e-mail: bufeteigartua@yahoo.com

                                                                                April  2, 2021

c/o email: raul.grijalva@mail.house.gov

Hon. Raul Grijalva

House Committee on Natural Resources

U.S. 2302 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

RE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR COMMITTEE ON PUERTO RICO’S   TERRITORIAL STATUS P.R. SELF DETERMINATION ACT STATEHOOD ADMISSION ACT

        Dear Congressman, Grijalva:

        I was born in Puerto Rico, U.S.A., and I am an American citizen resident of Puerto Rico. I am sending this written testimony in opposition to the proposed “Self Determination Act., which is not constitutionally viable, and to support the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. It is the only political alternative that fits in the U.S. Constitutional Framework, and it is 122 years overdue.

        As you know, Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States since 1898. For 122 years we have been under the U.S. Government discriminatory practice of being denied the right to vote in Federal Elections, and of government without the consent of the governed. (3.4 million American Citizens by birth).  We are also subject to unequal treatment in economic policies implemented by Congress for the states, which have moved Puerto Rico into bankruptcy.  Moreover, for some cases the Federal Courts apply the U. S. Constitution, and not for others. Ironically, we pay more than $3 billion dollars a year in federal taxes, more than some states and many state regions. (IRS Highlights 2020).

        The Committee of Natural Resources you preside, has expressed interest in pursuing Congressional action in the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico. I suggest that you consider as the most viable alternative that Puerto Rico be certified as an incorporated territory first, which de facto it is. Notwithstanding incorporation is not permanent, therefore Congress should simultaneously resolve to move Puerto Rico in transit to statehood at a definite date. Certification of Incorporation  would make the U.S. Constitution fully applicable, and would give us parity with federal funds as if Puerto Rico  were a state. We qualify for incorporation by having been assimilated more than any other U.S. Territory before becoming a state.  Although there may be conflicting views of what is the political relation of Puerto Rico to the United States, due to the reality that we are still not a state, Congress has assimilated us gradually since 1898 into a federalist relation to be like a de facto incorporated territory. (See:  G. Igartua, The “de facto” Incorporated Territory U.S. of Puerto Rico. A copy of the Book was mailed to you a few months ago, and one is being mailed to the Committee with this letter).

        I respectfully suggest that you consider proposing to Congress to declare Puerto Rico officially an Incorporated Territory of the United States in transit to statehood. (See Petition enclosed – Annex A). It is the only political alternative that fits into the U. S.  Constitutional framework, it is 122 years overdue. Rather than holding more hearings on what we could hypothetically be, which is discriminatory, our political and civil rights must be recognized by Congress based on what we are, 3.4 American citizens by birth residents of a de facto incorporated territory.   Incorporation was recently supported unanimously by the National Association of U.S. Mayors. (Annex B). (See also, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Rullan, 586 FS 2nd 22 (2008).

        No one in Puerto Rico wants independence, nor continue to be confused with political status alternatives which do not fit within the U.S. constitutional framework. No one in Puerto Rico wants to renounce their American Citizenship. A Republic of American citizens would be a matter of national security concern. (3.3 million Residing in Puerto Rico, 5 million residing in states). Many are confused by the daily practice of uncertainty brought by the questioning about what our rights are as American citizens, or could be. Consider within this context the “Puerto Rico Self Determination Act” proposed for American citizens after 122 years under our American flag. Were African Americans subjected, or should be subjected, to hearings on whether they would like to be slaves again, or be moved to a Country in Africa? Should Mexican Americans be asked whether they would like to renounce their American Citizenship to Mexican and be moved back to Mexico, or should their American citizenship status be questioned, as your Committee is doing with us in Puerto Rico in 2021?

        Consider as constitutionally viable only to start holding hearings on how the American Citizens residents of Puerto Rico can have equal rights and government by the consent of the governed. (U.S. Constitution Amendments XIV and XV). Congressman Grijalva, statehood for you, for Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio, for all the members of your Committee, for all Congressmen, and statehood for us the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico. Time is of the essence.

        I respectfully request to be allowed to participate in the April 15, 2021, hearing your Committee has scheduled on this subject, and in support of our American Citizenship rights.

                                                                Sincerely yours,

                                                                s/Gregorio Igartua

        Gregorio Igartua

Note – Please provide a copy of this letter to all member of the Committee of Natural Recourses. Please make this written testimony part of the Official Record of the hearing on Puerto Rico’s Territorial Status scheduled by the Committee for April 14, 2021.

Domestic and International
Legal Advice, L.L.C.
c/o Gregorio Igartua
Box 3911
Aguadilla P.R. 00605
Abogado – Notario
Attorney at Law

L.L.M. INTERNATIONAL LAW – G.W.U. Tel. (787)891-9040
MASTER TAX LAW – G.U.L.C. Cel. (787) 379-5095
e-mail: bufeteigartua@yahoo.com

April 2, 2021

c/o email: raul.grijalva@mail.house.gov

Hon. Raul Grijalva
House Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. 2302 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR COMMITTEE ON PUERTO RICO’S
TERRITORIAL STATUS P.R. SELF DETERMINATION ACT
STATEHOOD ADMISSION ACT
Dear Congressman Grijalva:
I was born in Puerto Rico, U.S.A., and, I am an American citizen resident of Puerto Rico. I
am sending this written testimony in opposition to the proposed “Self Determination Act., which is
not constitutionally viable, and to support the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. It is the only
political alternative that fits in the U.S. Constitutional Framework, and it is 122 years overdue.
As you know, Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States since 1898. For 122 years
we have been under the U.S. Government discriminatory practice of being denied the right to vote
in Federal Elections, and of government without the consent of the governed. (3.4 million
American Citizens by birth). We are also subject to unequal treatment in economic policies

2

implemented by Congress for the states, which have moved Puerto Rico into bankruptcy.
Moreover, for some cases the Federal Courts apply the U. S. Constitution, and not for others.
Ironically, we pay more than $3 billion dollars a year in federal taxes, more than some states and
many state regions. (IRS Highlights 2020).
The Committee of Natural Resources you preside has expressed interest in pursuing
Congressional action in the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico. I suggest that you consider
as the most viable alternative that Puerto Rico be certified as an incorporated territory first, which
de facto it is. Notwithstanding incorporation is not permanent, therefore Congress should
simultaneously resolve to move Puerto Rico in transit to statehood at a definite date. Certification
of Incorporation would make the U.S. Constitution fully applicable and would give us parity with
federal funds as if Puerto Rico were a state. We qualify for incorporation by having been
assimilated more than any other U.S. Territory before becoming a state. Although there may be
conflicting views of what is the political relation of Puerto Rico to the United States, due to the
reality that we are still not a state, Congress has assimilated us gradually since 1898 into a
federalist relation to be like a de facto incorporated territory. (See: G. Igartua, The “de facto”
Incorporated Territory U.S. of Puerto Rico. A copy of the book was mailed to you a few months
ago, and one is being mailed to the Committee with this letter).
I respectfully suggest that you consider proposing to Congress to declare Puerto Rico
officially an Incorporated Territory of the United States in transit to statehood. (See Petition
enclosed – Annex A). It is the only political alternative that fits into the U. S. Constitutional
framework, it is 122 years overdue. Rather than holding more hearings on what we could
hypothetically be, which is discriminatory, our political and civil rights must be recognized by
Congress based on what we are, 3.4 American citizens by birth residents of a de facto incorporated
territory. Incorporation was recently supported unanimously by the National Association of U.S.
Mayors. (Annex B). (See also, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Rullan, 586 FS 2nd 22 (2008).

No one in Puerto Rico wants independence, nor continue to be confused with political
status alternatives which do not fit within the U.S. constitutional framework. No one in Puerto Rico
wants to renounce their American Citizenship. A Republic of American citizens would be a matter
of national security concern. (3.3 million Residing in Puerto Rico, 5 million residing in states).
Many are confused by the daily practice of uncertainty brought by the questioning about what our
rights are as American citizens, or could be. Consider within this context the “Puerto Rico Self
Determination Act” proposed for American citizens after 122 years under our American flag. Were
African-Americans subjected, or should be subjected, to hearings on whether they would like to be
slaves again, or be moved to a Country in Africa?. Should Mexican –Americans be asked whether
they would like to renounce their American Citizenship to Mexican and be moved back to Mexico,
or should their American citizenship status be questioned, as your Committee is doing with us in
Puerto Rico in 2021?
Consider as constitutionally viable only to start holding hearings on how the American
Citizens residents of Puerto Rico can have equal rights and government by the consent of the
governed. (U.S. Constitution Amendments XIV and XV). Congressman Grijalva, statehood for you,
for Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio, for all the members of your Committee, for all
Congressmen, and statehood for us the American citizens residents of Puerto Rico. Time is of the
essence.
I respectfully request to be allowed to participate in the April 15, 2021, hearing your
Committee has scheduled on this subject, and in support of our American Citizenship rights.

Sincerely yours,
s/Gregorio Igartua
Gregorio Igartua

Note – Please provide a copy of this letter to all member of the Committee of Natural Recourses. Please make this written testimony part
of the Official Record of the hearing on Puerto Rico’s Territorial Status scheduled by the Committee for April 14, 2021.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=4162e8b4f3&attid=0.1.3&permmsgid=msg-f:1696855903240190106&th=178c717423a7f89a&view=att&disp=inline

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=4162e8b4f3&attid=0.1.5&permmsgid=msg-f:1696855903240190106&th=178c717423a7f89a&view=att&disp=inline

Pro-statehood attorney: Puerto Rico could be subject to an oversight board as a state

By The Star Staff

Even if Puerto Rico were to become a state, it would still be subjected to the terms of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act and an oversight board because of the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, under Article VI, which establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

“People think that we have the board because we are a colony but it is actually the federal government intervening because of a lack of fiscal controls,” pro-statehood lawyer Gregorio Igartúa said, noting that other U.S. jurisdictions have had fiscal boards imposed on them.

The lawyer spoke with the STAR amid his frustration that “the same people” will be talking in Wednesday’s hearing on status bills.

Igartúa sent a written testimony in opposition to the proposed Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, which he said is not constitutionally viable, and to support the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act.

“It is the only political alternative that fits in the U.S. constitutional framework, and it is 122 years overdue,” he said. “As you know, Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States since 1898. For 122 years we have been under the U.S. government’s discriminatory practice of being denied the right to vote in federal elections, and of government without the consent of the governed.”

The House Committee on Natural Resources has expressed interest in pursuing congressional action on the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico. Igartúa said the most viable alternative is for Puerto Rico to be certified as an incorporated territory first, which de facto it is, on the way to becoming a state. Puerto Rico is currently an unincorporated territory. Under federal law, an unincorporated territory is an area controlled by the U.S. federal government that is not “incorporated” for the purposes of United States constitutional law. In unincorporated territories, the U.S. Constitution applies only partially.

Igartúa said Puerto Rico has been virtually assimilated into the United States.

“Notwithstanding incorporation is not permanent, therefore Congress should simultaneously resolve to move Puerto Rico in transit to statehood at a definite date. Certification of incorporation would make the U.S. Constitution fully applicable, and would give us parity with federal funds as if Puerto Rico were a state. We qualify for incorporation by having been assimilated more than any other U.S. territory before becoming a state,” he said. “Although there may be conflicting views of what the political relation of Puerto Rico to the United States is, due to the reality that Puerto Rico is still not a state, Congress has assimilated the island gradually since 1898 into a federalist relationship to be like a de facto incorporated territory.”

Rather than holding more hearings on what Puerto Rico could hypothetically be, Igartúa said the reality is that Puerto Ricans do not want to live in an independent country and a majority voted in favor of statehood in a referendum.

“Many are confused by the daily practice of uncertainty brought by the questioning about what our rights are as American citizens, or could be,” he said. “Consider within this context the ‘Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act’ proposed for American citizens after 122 years under our American flag. Were African-Americans subjected, or should they be subjected, to hearings on whether they would like to be slaves again, or be moved to a country in Africa?

Should Mexican Americans be asked whether they would like to renounce their American citizenship … and be moved back to Mexico, or should their American citizenship status be questioned, as your committee is doing with us in Puerto Rico in 2021? Consider it constitutionally viable only to start holding hearings on how the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico can achieve to have equal rights and government by the consent of the governed.”

April 12, 2021

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Charles Schumer

Senate Majority Leader

U.S. Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy

House Republican Leader

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Mitch McConnell

Senate Republican Leader

U.S. Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer, and Leaders McCarthy and McConnell:

We, the undersigned legal and constitutional scholars, write to express our strong opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R. 2070, and its Senate companion bill, S. 865, and to register our equally strong support for the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, H.R. 1522, and its Senate companion bill, S. 780.

Like all Americans, we support self-determination. But unlike the supporters of the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, we believe that genuine self-determination requires the United States to offer Puerto Ricans a real choice. By “real,” we mean constitutional and non-territorial. Puerto Rico’s self-determination options must be constitutional, for the obvious reason that neither Congress nor Puerto

Rico has the power to implement an unconstitutional option. And they must be non-territorial, because a territorial option is not self-determination.

There are two, and only two, real self-determination options for Puerto Rico: statehood and independence. Yet the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act defies constitutional reality by calling upon Puerto Ricans to define other non-territorial options. There are no other non-territorial options. For many decades, advocates of “commonwealth” status argued that it was non-territorial. They argued that when Puerto Rico made the transition to commonwealth status in 1952, it ceased to be a U.S. territory, became a separate sovereign, and entered into a mutually binding compact with the United States. But they were wrong. Quite simply, Congress does not have the power to create a permanent union between Puerto Rico and the United States except by admitting Puerto Rico into statehood. Lest there be any doubt, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and recently refuted the controversial “compact theory.” In Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016), the Court ended seven decades of debilitating debate over the question of whether Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status created a permanent union between two separate sovereigns with an unequivocal “no”: as the Court made clear, Puerto Rico is, and always has been, a U.S. territory, and Congress retains plenary power to govern the island under the Territory Clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, §3, cl.2). And in Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment

LLC. (2020), the Court went on to explain that Congress’s creation of a federal board with substantial powers over Puerto Rico’s local government was a permissible exercise of Congress’s plenary power over a U.S. territory. In short, as long as Puerto Rico is neither a state of the Union nor an independent nation,

it will remain a territory. By inviting Puerto Ricans to define non-territorial options other than statehood or independence, the inaptly named Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act disserves its purported goal by perpetuating the pernicious myth that such options exist. They do not.

Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 & S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.2 Despite longstanding political division within Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans have long shared an overwhelming consensus on two key points: They reject territorial status and they wish to remain U.S. citizens. But while both statehood and independence would fulfill the goal of self-determination, only one of those options would guarantee U.S. citizenship: statehood. Last November, in an unmistakable effort to determine their political future, a clear majority of Puerto Ricans voted “yes” in their own referendum on

statehood. Now that Puerto Ricans have publicly and officially asked for statehood, it is time for the

United States officially to offer it. The Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act does just that.

Proceeding respectfully, cautiously, and pragmatically, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act responds to the November referendum with an offer of statehood and sets the terms for admission, but it makes admission contingent on a second referendum in which Puerto Ricans would ratify their choice.

Were they to do so, the President would issue a proclamation admitting Puerto Rico as a state within one year of the vote. If they were to reject statehood, then the island would remain a territory with the option to pursue sovereignty at any time in the future—so the Act does not force statehood on Puerto Rico in any way. In other words, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act respects the result of Puerto Rico’s referendum by responding with concrete action, while ensuring that Puerto Ricans have the first and last word on their future.

In the 123 years since the United States annexed Puerto Rico, Congress has never offered Puerto Ricans the choice to become a state. Instead, the United States has allowed Puerto Rico to languish indefinitely as a U.S. territory, subjecting its residents to U.S. laws while denying them voting representation in the government that makes those laws. We strongly support a congressional offer of statehood to Puerto Rico, and we urge Congress to pass the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act immediately.

Signed,*

*University affiliations listed for identification purposes only.

Jack M. Balkin

Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment

Yale Law School

Christopher P. Banks

Professor, Political Science

Kent State University

Evelyn Benvenutti Toro

Professor of Law

Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law

Jessica Bulman-Pozen

Betts Professor of Law

Faculty Co-Director, Center for Constitutional Governance

Columbia Law School

Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &

S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.3

Kathleen Burch

Professor of Law

Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School

Guy-Uriel E. Charles

Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law

Duke Law School

Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law

U.C. Berkeley School of Law

Cornell W. Clayton

C.O. Johnson Distinguished Professor of Political Science

Director, Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Service and Public Policy

Washington State University

David S. Cohen

Professor of Law

Thomas R. Kline School of Law

Drexel University

Andrés L. Córdova

Professor of Law

Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law

Erin F. Delaney

Professor of Law

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Walter Dellinger

Douglas Maggs Emeritus Professor of Law

Duke University

Carlos Días Olivo

Professor of Law

University of Puerto Rico School of Law

Michael C. Dorf

Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law

Cornell Law School

Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &

S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.4

Stephen M. Feldman

Jerry W. Housel/Carl F. Arnold Distinguished Professor of Law

and Adjunct Professor of Political Science

University of Wyoming

Martin S. Flaherty

Leitner Family Professor of International Law

Fordham Law School

and Visiting Professor

School of International and Public Affairs

Princeton University

Barry Friedman

Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law

New York University School of Law

Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Professor of Law, Class of 1950 Herman B. Wells Endowed Professor

Maurer School of Law

Indiana University

Lauren Gilbert

Professor of Law

St. Thomas University College of Law

Leslie F. Goldstein

Judge Hugh M. Morris Professor Emerita of Political Science and International Relations

University of Delaware

David Golove

Hiller Family Foundation Professor of Law

New York University School of Law

Mark A. Graber

University System of Maryland Regents Professor

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

Jonathan Hafetz

Professor of Law

Seton Hall University School of Law

Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &

S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.5

Helen Hershkoff

Herbert M. and Svetlana Wachtell Professor of Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties

New York University School of Law

Gary J. Jacobsohn

H. Malcolm Macdonald Professor of Constitutional and Comparative Law

University of Texas at Austin

Randall L. Kennedy

Michael R. Klein Professor of Law

Harvard Law School

J. Andrew Kent

Professor of Law and John D. Feerick Research Chair

Fordham Law School

Mark R. Killenbeck

Wylie H. Davis Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Arkansas

Stephen R. Lazarus

Associate Professor of Law

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Lawrence Lessig

Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership

Harvard Law School

Sanford V. Levinson

W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair and

Professor of Government

University of Texas at Austin

Ira C. Lupu

F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law Emeritus

George Washington University Law School

Martha Minow

300th Anniversary University Professor

Harvard University

Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &

S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.6

Samuel Moyn

Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence

Yale Law School

Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus

George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History

Columbia Law School

David Pozen

Vice Dean for Intellectual Life and Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law

Columbia Law School

Richard Primus

Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor

The University of Michigan Law School

Kermit Roosevelt

Professor of Law

University of Pennsylvania Law School

Lawrence Sager

Alice Jane Drysdell Sheffield Regents Chair

University of Texas at Austin

Rogers M. Smith

Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science

University of Pennsylvania

Girardeau A. Spann

James & Catherine Denny Professor of Law

Georgetown University Law Center

Kate Stith

Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law

Yale Law School

Geoffrey R. Stone

Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law

The University of Chicago

Letter from Legal and Constitutional Scholars in Support of the Puerto Rico Admission Act, H.R.1522 &

S.780, and in Opposition to the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, H.R.2070 & S.865 – p.7

Nelson Tebbe

Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law

Cornell Law School

Laurence H. Tribe

Carol M. Loeb University Professor and

Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus

Harvard Law School

Stephen I. Vladeck

Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts

University of Texas School of Law

Kenji Yoshino

Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law

New York University School of Law

Lo ultimo en política de Puerto Rico/USA

Para trabajar por la Estadidad: https://estado51prusa.com Seminarios-pnp.com https://twitter.com/EstadoPRUSA https://www.facebook.com/EstadoPRUSA/

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Para trabajar por la Estadidad: https://estado51prusa.com Seminarios-pnp.com https://twitter.com/EstadoPRUSA https://www.facebook.com/EstadoPRUSA/
Para trabajar por la Estadidad: https://estado51prusa.com Seminarios-pnp.com https://twitter.com/EstadoPRUSA https://www.facebook.com/EstadoPRUSA/