Next Wednesday, December 3rd, during a new federal day of action, the Assembly 'Discas En Lucha', along with Wednesday-round retirees, is calling for a gathering at Congress at 4:00 PM, inviting all struggling sectors to join us in the fight for all our demands. We demand the implementation of the Disability Emergency Law and other laws won through struggle, the reinstatement of the workers fired from ANDIS, as well as all of our demands!». They also extended the invitation to the event to other struggling sectors: «we invite workers and families from Garrahan Hospital, the entire university community, workers fighting for reinstatement and salary recomposition, people with disabilities, families, workers in the field, and the entire community to join the fight for our rights». Meanwhile, under the slogans «Return the ANDIS money» and «Implement the Disability Emergency Law», the Federal Network of Self-Convoked Mothers in Struggle will gather at 3:00 PM in front of the National Disability Agency (ANDIS), to then join the retirees' march at 5:00 PM. This day of action comes as the corruption investigation into the National Disability Agency (ANDIS) is advancing forcefully, with two entrepreneurs arrested by order of prosecutor Franco Piccardi (one of whom refused to testify from Mendoza and from whose daughter's house $700,000 was found), while there are another 15 accused, including the former director of ANDIS, Diego Spagnuolo. Simultaneously with the progress of the case, the collective injunction filed by disability organizations demanding the application of the Disability Emergency Law has been stalled. Today, as the corruption investigation into ANDIS advances (with two entrepreneurs arrested and 15 others accused, including the former director of ANDIS, Diego Spagnuolo), the collective injunction filed by disability organizations demanding the application of the Disability Emergency Law has been stalled. Constitutional lawyer Diego Armesto warned that the Executive is «trying to delay the trial by delaying the judge's resolution» and that instead of following the veto procedure, it applied what he defined as a «veto behind a veto», enacting the law but suspending its execution by decree, which has no constitutional backing, since a law passed after the rejection of a presidential veto must be applied immediately.
