I've started to read some
of the scholarly articles on the ICC's jurisdiction
e.g. Paragraph 132 in the CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT cites one article by
Dapo Akande, which we have archived
here:
http://supremelaw.org/authors/akande/
I've also archived 2 more
articles on the same subject here:
http://supremelaw.org/authors/scharf/
http://supremelaw.org/authors/sekulow/
There are many more such
articles.
The primary reason why the
People of the USA now intend to apply
for leave to intervene, is
the "not
self-executing"
Declaration which
the U.S. Senate appended to
its ratification of the ICCPR.
[ http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/reservations.htm#declarations
]
Paragraph 39 in the
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT cites ICCPR Article 7.
[ http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/covenant.htm#A7
]
The People of the USA argue
that such a Declaration is UNconstitutional
ab initio for violating the Petition Clause in the First Amendment
(Congress shall make no law
abridging the right to petition government),
and the Bicameralism Clause in the U.S. Constitution
(the U.S. House of
Representatives never voted on that Declaration).
Therefore, that "not
self-executing" Declaration is not valid domestic
U.S. law, and never was!
We filed and served a
proper MOTION for declaratory judgment
at the USDC for the Western
District of Missouri, back in November 2014,
but that Federal
"robe" failed to rule on our 2 challenges to the
constitutionality of that
"not self-executing" Declaration.
[ http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/iccpr/motion.interlocutory.htm
]
Thus, EVEN IF the ICC
DENIES our application to intervene,
such a ruling would present
an opportunity to invoke other
procedural remedies, such
as a decision by the UN Security Council
and/or a straightforward
REMOVAL to the International Court of Justice
for civil proceedings.
The general principle here
is that UNconstitutionality dates from
the moment of enactment,
NOT from any decision(s) so branding
the Act(s) in question: the legal result is the same
as if the
UNconstitutional act never happened.
Therefore, the ICCPR has
been supreme Law of the Land in the USA
ever since it was first
ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992.
Moreover, the U.S. Congress
HAS enacted domestic U.S. legislation
which expressly implemented
the Genocide Convention and
the Biological Weapons
Convention. Search the CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
for all occurrences of
"genocide" and "weapon".
[Ed: biological weapons are being deployed to commit global
genocide]
Therefore, the People of the USA also claim
rights that are secured
by those two Conventions,
under authority of the Supremacy Clause
and the Arising Under
Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
If and when the "not
self-executing" Declaration is found to be
UNconstitutional, that small step forward means that
numerous other ICCPR
provisions can also be invoked,
notably Article 2.
That Article 2 guarantees effective
remedies for violations of
rights and freedoms
expressly recognized by the ICCPR
NOTWITHSTANDING that the
violations were committed by
persons acting in some
"official" capacity.
[ http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/covenant.htm#A2
]
We are archiving relevant
documentation here:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/rose.hannah/
Hope this helps.
