Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Cocktails & Popcorn: Is It Just Me Or Are We Going To Have An ICJ Party In The Hague?

Related image
هر کس به حزب پاپ کورن در لاهه دعوت شده است
Well, I found three things of interest, here.

First, there is verified movement in the International Court of Justice, that the U.S. is going to be party to many more legal actions by other nations.

Secondly, the Iran v. U.S. case was initiated June 14, 2016, right around the kick off of the presidential campaigns.


Take a look on Page 4 , item #3. On 9 March 2016, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered Iran to pay more than US$10.5 billion to families of people killed in the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to a group of insurers...

 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 (“TRIA”) - U.S. Treasury Department
On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–297, 116 Stat. 2322) [TRIA]. TRIA created a temporary federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for certain insured losses resulting from a certified act of terrorism. The Secretary of the Treasury administers the program with the assistance of the Federal Insurance Office.

And then, it dawned upon me...

Thirdly, they were stealin'!


Everyone, Meet Wendy Sherman


Yes, the Iranian Settlement Agreement which "certified" an act of terrorism, is all about stealin', the exact same, tried and true, complex financial fraud schemes used to rip off the national treasures, or, in this instance, the U.S. Treasury, just like they did with TARP, making the bankruptcy, its "certification", like they did when they privatized Detroit and Puerto Rico.

Ok, it goes like this.

Thirteen individuals, where I question why only 13 and who was behind them, got together and sued Iran for 911, where Preet Bharara represented the U.S. and won.

Has my Pretty Preet addressed his "Attorney-Client Privileges" yet, because he saw all the evidence, right?

The asset forfeiture was on a bunch of properties like 650 Fifth Avenue, New York.

Well, it seems there were lots of creditors, or what looks like to me, mortgages!

And lots of them.

As a matter of fact, I really think there were soooooooo many creditors, that no one really could figure out who actually owned the real property, ya know, like that issue in Detroit foreclosures, where no one could figure out who was the rightful party to foreclose on properties that were robosigned, with fake mortgages, fake taxes, by fake corporations.

Oh, I forgot to mention that in Detroit, where those fake mortgage companies bundled fake mortgages, where most of them were wiped in quiet title actions, were also lumped up into trademarks to be used to leverage as another financial instrument, through UCC entities, registered in the States, which only fall under the jurisdiction of international law, that has been highjacked and rewritten to favor these fake Public Private Partnerships, because those fake mortgages were also levying fake taxes, which were never paid to the City, which led to the Detroit Land Bank Authority swooping in....you know the story.

Did 650 Fifth Avenue do the TARP, too?

Anyway, it seems in the Iran Settlement, one could figure out who owned the real properties, due to all the fake mortgages, so they had to settle.

So, the settlement flushed the financial entities to come out the woodwork, and guess what I found, those "financial entities" are child welfare NGOs and the financial institutions behind them, like MasterCard.

So, there was some settlement, or something, because I really do not care at this point, but it looks like those creditors agreed not to go after Terrorism Risk Insurance Claims....because they thought they were going to be slick and take it into the proper international jurisdiction of ICJ.

WHEREAS, the Settling Judgment Creditors agree to waive the argument with respect to the Defendant Properties that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) takes precedence over the forfeiture action;



Settlements are not litigated, they are negotiated, which means there may not be any of that collateral estoppel stuff, being all up under international law, now.

That TRIC, appropriately coined, came out of the Federal Emergency Manager Laws, the same Emergency Manager Laws that were crafted for the State of Michigan to be the first, pilot model, in the world, with Detroit being launched as the first "Authority" pseudo-government, or privatized nobility, or international privatized regime...I am still working on crafting one of those theoretical doctrines to toss at some "chattel law socioeconomic regurgitative pre-emancipation proclamation scholarly think tank authorities" when they go into one of those cognitive dissonance conniptions trying to defend the centuries of trafficking tiny humans, the residuals of the peculiar institution.

The same exact TRIC was used to trap TARP.

Then, I find out two years later, an action is filed in the International Court of Justice by Iran, suing the U.S. for violating the Treaty of Amity, asking for Terrorism Risk Insurance Claims.

Hmmmm.... That sounds like stealin'.

So, they give up the properties, probably for pennies on the dollar to avoid further, costly litigation, because no one could figure out who owned the properties, then go off into an international jurisdiction asking to enforce a 1955 treaty, yes, they were doing uranium back then, too, to put in an insurance claim under terrorist activities, which makes it sound like, almost, not that I am making any legal inference whatsoever, only because the Detroit Land Bank Authority is not incorporated, really similar to a quiet title action, almost, which is still fraud.

So, the ICJ argument goes like this:

The U.S. violated the treaty because it put sanctions on us as a result of terrorist activities, executed by private corporations, not the government, so we should get those Terrorism Risk Insurance Claims.

This Treaty also talks about the almighty and powerful International Monetary Fund and its powers...of money laundering, that is.

Like I have said, I have not gone too deep into this because I can always smell the fraud, and, in this instance, what I believe to be the sexiest, damn, legal pimp move in the history of mankind.
Image result for alavi foundation
NGO Child Welfare Fraud: See the cute kids.

The Alavi Foundation is a child welfare fraud NGO, keyman, money laundering entity that was engaging in political activities, as seen on their website, in the Clinton Foundation letter, on Presidential letterhead of Bill Clinton, for AIDS/HIV activities, or whatever the scheme of the week was when the letter of support was signed.

FinCEN can follow SWIFT transactions to identify the path of campaign finance fraud, or perhaps that was already done in the DOJ OIG Report.

http://alavifoundation.us/

Evidence in violation of Article XX, Section 2 of the Amity Treaty of 1955

They were stealin'!

Bruce Lindsey generated a letter of support from the Clinton Foundation, on a completely different organization, presidential letterhead, talking about engaging in AIDS/HIV, which is not even in the scope of the original mission statement of IRS organization, which is a completely different name, mind you.

That's stealin'!


The William J. Clinton Foundation, which is not
incorporated as the Clinton Foundation
 & Alavi Foundation Financial relationship
So, the legal proceedings can go on show that these child welfare fraud NGOs are privatized, meaning they are not part of the Iranian Republic, meaning that any child welfare fraud NGO, which is connected to that Corporate Shape Shifter like the Clinton Foundation, similar to the Detroit Land Bank Authority, considering the fact that Perkins Coie Sucks having those "Attorney-Client Privileges" with both of them, because they really suck, which might be stripped having violated an international treaty.

The lawsuit is a question of privatization, and the legal existence of Public Private Partnerships.

I lifted this from the first paragraph of facts.  What you will read in the spirit of fuchsia  is the jurisdictional question of privatization and its trifurcation (I just made that up for 3), of what is a government, a governmental registered company, and those "state-owned" companies, where, in this instance is referencing a bank.

The claim states that the USA, I am assuming that SDNY settlement, or something like that, did not let them argue out in the proper jurisdiction, the ICJ.

The USA has adopted, and is implementing, a broad series of measures against Iran and Iranian companies, including Iranian State-owned companies such as the Central Bank of Iran (also known as “Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran” or “Bank Markazi”), and their property, which are in violation of the USA’s obligations under the Treaty of Amity. The USA’s violations of the Treaty of Amity include its (a) failure to recognize the separate juridical status of such entities including Iranian State-owned companies, (b) unfair and discriminatory treatment of such entities and their property, which impairs the legally acquired rights and interests of such entities including enforcement of their contractual rights, (c) failure to accord to such entities and their property the most constant protection and security that is in no case less than that required by international law, (d) expropriation of the property of such entities, (e) failure to accord to such entities freedom of access to the US courts, including the abrogation of the immunities to which Iran and Iranian State-owned companies, including Bank Markazi, and their property, are entitled under customary international law and as required by the Treaty of Amity, both with respect to jurisdictional immunities and immunities from enforcement, (f) failure to respect the right of such entities to acquire and dispose of property, (g) application of restrictions to such entities on the making of payments and other transfers of funds to or from the USA, and (h) interference with the freedom of commerce between the territories of Iran and the USA

This seems to me to be setting proper jurisdiction for all countries to do deal with all of these child welfare fraud NGOs and their financial cohorts, which looks like the international monetary system is about to be stressed the hell out, because all signs are pointing to insolvency, because they stole everything, they even stole the fake debt!

They stole the children, the land and the votes.

The People of the World get reparations by snatching back all the legacies of the children by getting rid of the privateers and repatriating its most precious treasures, the children, all ending in with the magical kiss bestowed upon the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed, to herald in the reconstruction of the kingdom.

Popcorn Party in The Hague!

But, hey, what do I know?


Stay tuned.

Iran files suit in international court against U.S. over sanctions

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Iran has filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging that Washington’s decision in May to impose sanctions after pulling out of a nuclear deal violates a 1955 treaty between the two countries, the International Court of Justice said on Tuesday.

President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran reached by his predecessor Barack Obama and other world powers, and ordered tough U.S. sanctions on Tehran.

Under the 2015 deal, which Trump sees as flawed, Iran reined in its disputed nuclear program under U.N. monitoring and won a removal of international sanctions in return.

The ICJ, which is based in The Hague and is also known as the World Court, is the United Nations tribunal for resolving international disputes. Iran’s filing asks the ICJ to order the United States to provisionally lift its sanctions ahead of more detailed arguments.

“Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of U.S. contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a tweet on Monday, referring to Tehran’s lawsuit at the ICJ.

Iran said in its filing that Trump’s move “has violated and continued to violate multiple provisions” of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, signed long before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted the U.S.-allied shah and triggered decades of hostile relations with Washington.

In a lawsuit filed by Iran in 2016 based on the same 1955 treaty, Washington argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction. The court has scheduled hearings in that case in October.

The next step in Iran’s new lawsuit will be a hearing in which the United States is likely to contest whether it merits a provisional ruling. The court has not yet set a date, but hearings on requests for provisional rulings usually are heard within several weeks, with a decision coming within months.

Although the ICJ is the highest United Nations court and its decisions are binding, it has no power to enforce them, and countries - including the United States - have occasionally ignored them.

The specter of new U.S. sanctions, particularly those meant to block oil exports that are the lifeline of Iran’s economy, has caused a rapid fall in the Iranian currency and triggered street protests over fears economic hardships will soon worsen.

The Trump administration has indicated it wants a new deal with Iran that would cover the Islamic Republic’s regional military activities and ballistic missile program.

Iran has said both are non-negotiable, and the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal including major European allies Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, remain committed to it.


Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) Preliminary Objections The Co... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
Post a Comment