Trump Reads the Law

Trump Lashes Out at Liberal Renegade Judges for Blocking Executive Order on Travel Restrictions

             

james hoft

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M861PkCDmT0

Top German Judges Tear To Shreds EU's Proposed TAFTA/TTIP Investment Court System

Published: February 9, 2016

Source: Tech Dirt

As Techdirt has repeatedly pointed out, one of the most problematic aspects of the TAFTA/TTIP deal being negotiated between the US and the EU is the inclusion of a corporate sovereignty chapter -- officially known as "investor-state dispute settlement" (ISDS). Techdirt isn't the only one worried about it: no less a person than the EU's Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, said last year that she "shares" the concerns here. Her response was to draw up the new "ICS" -- "Investor Court System -- as an alternative. US interest in ICS is conspicuous by its absence, but Malmström keeps plugging away at the idea, evidently hoping to defuse European opposition to TTIP by getting rid of old-style corporate sovereignty.

That plan has just received a huge setback in the form of an "Opinion on the establishment of an investment tribunal in TTIP". It comes from the German Magistrates Association, which Wikipedia describes as "the largest professional organization of judges and public prosecutors in Germany." So these are not a bunch of know-nothing hippie activists, but serious establishment figures with a deep knowledge of the law. Here's their basic position on Malmström's ICS, translated from the original German by TNI:

The German Magistrates Association [DRB] rejects the proposal of the European Commission to establish an investment court within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The DRB sees neither a legal basis nor a need for such a court. 

The clearly implied assumption in the proposal for an International Investment Court that the courts of the EU Member States fail to grant foreign investors effective judicial protection, lacks factual basis. Should the negotiating partners have identified weaknesses in this area in individual EU Member States, these should be taken up with the national legislature and clearly defined. It would then be up to the legislators and those responsible for the judiciary to provide remedy within the proven system of national and European legal protection. Only in this way can the full legal rights to which any law-seeking party in Germany and the European Union is entitled, be guaranteed. The creation of special courts for certain groups of litigants is the wrong way forward.

The judges then spell out in more detail what they see as the problems with the idea, and they are pretty damning. First, they point out that the ICS would have power over the entire European Union and its member states, and that its decisions would be binding:

The establishment of an ICS would oblige the European Union and the Member States, upon the conclusion of an agreement, to submit to the jurisdiction of an ICS and the application of certain international procedures chosen by the plaintiff.

Presumably, the same would be true of the US and its state governments, which may be why the USTR is not hugely keen on the idea. Not content with undermining the EU's political system, ICS would do the same to the EU's judiciary too:

an ICS would "deprive courts of Member States of their powers in relation to the interpretation and application of European Union law and the Court of its powers to reply, by preliminary ruling, to questions referred by those courts and, consequently, would alter the essential character of the powers which the Treaties confer on the institutions of the European Union and on the Member States and which are indispensable to the preservation of the very nature of European Union law"

The German judges go on to repeat a point many others have made: that there is simply no need for any kind of ISDS or ICS system. Here's why:

The Member States are all constitutional states, which provide and guarantee access to justice in all areas where the state has jurisdiction to all law-seeking parties. It is for the Member States to ensure access to justice for all and to ensure feasible access for foreign investors, by providing the courts with the relevant resources. Hence, the establishment of an ICS is the wrong way to guarantee legal certainty.

Finally, the judges note that one of the claimed advantages of the ICS system over the current corporate sovereignty approach, judicial independence, is illusory:

Neither the proposed procedure for the appointment of judges of the ICS nor their position meet the international requirements for the independence of courts. As such, the ICS emerges not as an international court, but rather as a permanent court of arbitration.

In other words, Malmström is simply re-branding ISDS, and trying to put lipstick on a pig.

This attack from a very unexpected quarter is a really devastating blow for the ICS idea. It will be hard for Malmström to claim with a straight face that, unlike the current corporate sovereignty system, ICS is a real court, with all the protections that ISDS lacks, because a large number of EU experts in this area have just stated unequivocally that it isn't. The judges' opinion makes it even more likely that the US will reject the ICS idea out of hand, not least because it can now simply point to the German Magistrates Association's analysis as proof that ICS doesn't do what Malmström says it does.

That leaves the really interesting question: where does the EU's Trade Commissioner go from here? She can hardly return to the old-style ISDS for TAFTA/TTIP, since she has been busy rubbishing it in order to promote her new ICS idea. Moreover, this latest rejection comes at just the wrong time, since it is widely expected that corporate sovereignty will be one of the main items on the agenda for the next round of TAFTA/TTIP negotiations. Awkward. 

Share This Article...

Share Twitter Facebook Google+ StumbleUpon Email Pinterest Reddit

by RBN

Two Separate Judges say the Federal Government has Acted Illegally in their Attack on Oregon’s Ranchers!

February 5, 2016 in News by RBN

 

 

I have known that the United States Constitution has been undermined for some time, beginning with Abraham Lincoln. I have also know of the incorporation of the united States that is based in London, England. However, now, there are at least two Superior Court Judges, who are also common law judges under the Postmaster General of their respective regions in Alaska and Colorado, are pointing out the actions of the Bureau of Land Management and the actions of criminal politicians in the united States government to undermine the American view of government and law. This is especially enlightening with what has been going on with the Bundys, the Hammonds and the death of LaVoy Finicum.

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger and Judge Bruce Doucette issued a letter in which they exposed the illegal actions of the BLM and the unconstitutionality of what is really taking place in Oregon.

In speaking with Judge Bruce Doucette (Colorado) via telephone, he told me that this is all true and that one could reference Judge Reizinger’s website (Alaska) for more information, as well as his Facebook page.

After verifying the information did come from these judges, I’m providing you with a letter that they jointing issued on January 4, 2016. America, it’s time to wake up! Conservatives and Liberals are not going to save you from this. We, must stand against this tyranny! No presidential candidate, nor any congressman, is talking about this!

The entire idea, according to Judge Bruce Doucette is to undermine the Law of God and Christianity, which our nation was built upon, and establish a Beast, or false god of the State. Read and judge for yourselves… then make your stand!

Issued by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger

January 3, 2016

Although it may come as a surprise to many Americans we have been mischaracterized and misidentified as British Crown Subjects for the better part of a hundred years. This travesty has never been corrected; instead, the British Crown, a commercial investment organization, has kidnapped and press-ganged American land assets into the international jurisdiction of the sea and has pillaged our labor and our resources without mercy in criminal conspiracy and contempt of our Constitution. They have been aided and abetted in this activity by members of the American Bar Association and the Internal Revenue Service acting as licensed privateers.

These vipers nurtured in our bosom pretending to be our “Friends” and our “Allies” and even our “Trustees” have practiced identity theft against the American people, have involved us in their own private bankruptcies as sureties obligated to pay their debts; they have pretended that because of their fraud against us, we have “abandoned” our property including our land patents, our bank accounts, and our organic states. They have usurped against our lawful government, enslaved our people, and acted as criminals in our midst.

The corporations responsible for this behavior are no different and no better than Walmart or Sears or Burger King; they have used names like “Bureau of Land Management” or “United States Department of Agriculture” and so on under color of law.

The “Bureau of Land Management” is not an actual unit of the American government. It is a foreign corporation whose only business here is to provide us with “essential governmental services”.

The land patents to the western states are owed to the States of America and the Indigenous Tribal Governments without exception. The only ownership accruing to the Federal United States dba District of Columbia Municipal Corporation or in other corporate guises is vested entirely in the ten square miles of the District and limited to its Boundary Stones. The only ownership vested in the Federal Government in the western states or anywhere else is a lease interest in facilities that have been provided to expedite their service missions.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) facilities being occupied by American Militiamen were bought and paid for by the people of this country for the use of the BLM with the understanding that the BLM is a unit of the American government and is working in good faith for the people of this nation.

However, according to the public and private records, the BLM is not in fact any part of our lawful government at all and has not been so for decades. It is a privately owned foreign “governmental services corporation” operating under color of law; it has no business interfering in the activities of the ranchers and farmers, occupying government facilities under conditions of fraud, or otherwise presenting false claims of interest, ownership, or authority.

The Hammonds and the Bundy Family are Priority Creditors of all the governmental services corporations which are now or which have operated in this country in the past. They are tax exempt and their “vessels in commerce”— meaning the various trusts and public utilities operated under their NAMES without their knowledge or consent— are all tax-prepaid. They and their countrymen are owed the patent to all land within the geographically defined boundaries of their respective states, free and clear of liens, encumbrances, or other presumptions against their property rights by foreign corporations operating under conditions of self-interested fraud.

BLM employees are here to provide “essential governmental services”. Those services do not include acting as undeclared commercial mercenaries operating under color of law and against the best interests of their employers and benefactors. Any federal employee offering to harm or interfere in the normal occupations of their employers, that is, the people of this country, or to prohibit their employer’s customary use of the land and resources they are heir to is acting as an Outlaw in contempt of the Public Law and the actual Constitution and is subject to arrest under the Bounty Hunter provisions of the United States Statutes-at-Large.

Being employed by BLM like being employed by JC PENNY confers no special authority, grants no immunity, and is not a license to undertake any activity that would otherwise be unlawful—including trespassing on private property, making fraudulent claims, and racketeering under armed force. The rule for federal employees and law enforcement officials including “Federal State” and “Federal County” officials is that if you can’t do it in your private capacity, you can’t do it at all.

Members of the Press Corps are similarly reminded of their responsibility to safeguard public safety and obey the Public Law, including their obligation not to incite, misrepresent, or engage in insurrection against the lawful government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is not a country of the corporation, by the corporation or for the corporation. Anyone needing to be reminded of that fact should question both their education and their sanity.

The highest Law Officer in this country is the County Sheriff who has accepted the public office, received his bond, and taken his Oath. He is enabled to deputize as many men as he needs to enforce the Public Law within the borders of his county and may require the use of any and all equipment and facilities paid for with public funds in pursuit of these ends. He works directly for the people of his county and is accountable only to them.

All federal employees are guests of the people of each county and state. So long as they pursue their lawful duties and do not inappropriately presume upon, threaten, harass, or otherwise offer to harm their hosts, over-reach their lawful jurisdiction, or make false claims against land assets they are owed safe conduct and support. The moment they breach the peace, break the Public Law, offer contempt against the Constitution, engage in operations under color of law—including trespass on private property, cattle rustling, armed racketeering and so on, they are subject to arrest like any common felon.

The people of this country are the employers, benefactors, and Priority Creditors of all federal corporations, all federal employees, all federal contractors, and all federal officials. The people did not grant their hirelings any power to harass them, indebt them, mischaracterize them, change their political status, seize upon their property, defraud them, trespass upon them, or engage in any other criminal activity whatsoever.

It must be squarely recognized that the burning of barns is arson. The theft and removal of livestock is cattle rustling. The bringing of false claims of indebtedness and obligation is fraud. The presentation of weapons, especially tactical weapons, employed in any of these activities is assault and attempted racketeering under force by undeclared private mercenary forces. It is now easy to recognize that these are crimes masquerading as “law enforcement”.

The private in-house laws of corporations must remain in accord with the Public Law or those corporations must be liquidated as crime syndicates and their assets distributed to those they have harmed and to their lawful creditors. This includes the BLM, the UNITED STATES, the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, the STATE OF OREGON, or any other corporation found to be operating in violation of the Public Law and their own charter.

Any questions may be addressed to:
Judge Anna Maria Riezinger
(907) 250-5087
Judge Bruce Doucette
(720) 338-0394

 http://subterrnews.blogspot.com/2016/02/by-rbn-two-separate-judges-say-federal.html