NAIS and the International Criminal Court

There are times when I am researching a subject that something just jumps out at me because it is out of place, seemingly unconnected to the issue, or seems totally irrelevant. Sometimes, gut instinct tells me to pursue it and see where it leads. This is what happened with an unusual comment made By Bruce Knight of the USDA.

On June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, said, "We have to live by the same international rules we're expecting other people to do." (end quote)

Knight was referring to the return and adherence to the International Criminal Court: a global court which cedes itself the right to act with impunity and with no adherence to national or local laws, but only to the laws it has created itself... and not for your benefit.

Bruce Knight was promoting the National Animal Identification System known as NAIS. What could the International Criminal Court have to do with that?

In every instance in the Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises. A "Premises" has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property indicates exclusive private ownership and is protected by the Constitution.

This is where the return to the ICC comes in. The ICC is in part modeled on the Vienna Diplomatic Relations Conventions http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

where [premises] is defined globally and with a global use intended with no recognition afforded to the rights of private individuals, national laws or protections, or the rights or recognition to private property ownership.

[At this point we have to remember the use of UN Agenda 21 mandates regarding rules and guidelines in NAIS, and now we add one more point of interest to 21: It calls for the complete ownership of all lands to be held by the [state] citing land as a source of wealth and one that should not be held by the common individual.]

Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court

3.1.2 Ownership and control of property privileges Description

"premises to mean the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary (connected to or existing as) thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purpose of...". The word "premises" includes a place and a conveyance in this section. Conveyance is the transfer of ownership of real property from the original owner to another... such as land....such as what happens when you sign up for Premises ID under NAIS and CONVEY ownership and control of your land and livestock to the USDA acting as agent for the federal government.

[Now we know how and why the word [premises] was used. The word premises is not only a redefinition of ownership and control within our legal system, but now under the International Criminal Court is also globally recognized and eliminates our private property rights and makes our own laws unavailable to us.]

Sect 3.2.1 cont.

As reflected in the discussions of the ICC Preparatory Commission Working Group, "the concept of legal capacity means that States (countries, provinces, commonwealths, or sovereign nations) will not subject the Court to national jurisdiction or legislation, and the Court will consult national authorities when it needs to act. Implementing legislation should not restrict the Court in the exercise of its functions or fulfillment of its purpose and should reflect the fact the Court is not subject to national law."

States may need to ensure steps are taken to guarantee the Court will have the capacity that may be necessary to exercise its functions and fulfillment of its purpose in that State, such as the capacity to contract, acquire and dispose of property and participate in national legal proceedings."

http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ICC%20Reports/APIC_Guide_ENG.pdf

There is far more to this, but you get the idea: Bruce Knight was advocating a return to the International Court System because it would facilitate the NAIS. It would do this by ignoring Constitutional laws and rights, substituting global efforts to seize privately held lands and material property and any suits brought against state or federal agencies attempting to force NAIS would now be directed to the ICC.....where the individual is not recognized as owning or controlling property.

Think they can't get away with this? Well..here is a law from 1949 that says they can and you can't do anything about it.

Agreement on Privilege and Immunities of the Organisation of American States.

http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/c-13.html

(c) 2009 Marti Oakley