Also note that under Executive Order 12333, the FBI is restricted and has little authority outside of the United States. An Intelligence Agreement is not titled, "SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION" - that's called fraud and misrepresentation.
/
Under EO12333, the FBI is required to:
1.1(a) "...protect fully the legal rights of all United States persons, including freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy rights guaranteed by Federal law."
/
Clearly, these illegal agreements did not protect anyone's rights.
We suspect there are similar documents that were signed with the EU, NATO, and Interpol. Can someone please do the research for these? This is important.
This agreement between US and Croatia may have been made in accordance with the CLOUD Act which could have enabled agreements with other nations. The CLOUD Act came into effect in 2018.
The U.S. Constitution and numerous Supreme Court cases have defined a Treaty as being an agreement between two or more countries. Further, a Treaty requires the consent of 2/3 of the U.S. Senate - which was never done. You cannot pass a law that circumvents the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent - which is exactly what the Deep State is attempting to do.
I haven't seen the word 'treaty' used. The agreement between the US and Croatia is described as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). MOUs have to be written in accordance with the law. They cannot override the law. That is my understanding. Likewise if they are called agreements.
It does not matter what you call it. The Supreme Court already defined it, and what they are doing is negotiating a Treaty. Maybe you should read the precedent cases of the Supreme Court on this subject? We cited them above.
Treaties are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are precedent cases that establish the definition:
See, e.g., Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 11, (2014) ( “[T]reaties . . . are primarily ‘compact[s] between independent nations[.]’” ) (first set of brackets in original) (quoting Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505 (2008)); Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583, 600 (1912) ( “Generally, a treaty is defined as ‘a compact made between two or more independent nations, with a view to the public welfare.’” ) (citation omitted)); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888) ( “A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law.” ); Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson), 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884) ( “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.” ). Although sovereign nations are the primary subject of treaties, in modern practice, other entities, such as international organizations, occasionally have joined treaties. See generally James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law 115–16 (8th ed. 2012)
/
The FBI is negotiating Treaties, according to the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court. They have no authority to do so, and they are not following the U.S. Constitution which requires a vote of the U.S. Senate.
V. GARLAND , TJ's FLYER MICROWAVE WEAPONS, Up coming SUPREME COURT Case and ATTORNEY ANA TOLEDO ( email address included) with Family Advocacy Center - Domestic Violence in Albuquerque, NM today.
The Family Advocacy Center goes to SantaFe ( state capital) and fights for the those who die under domestic abuse.
Targeted Justice Inc and all Targeted Individuals fight for the those before the abused die.
The issue of fraudulent or unauthorized treaties is a very serious one. If you visit PreventGenocide2030.org you will find on its home page, as part of the 10 Million Patriot Challenge, a Legal Memorandum which lays out the compelling reasons that the US has no treaty obligation to the United Nations or any of its subsidiary organizations (such as the World Health Organization). This means that any Member of Congress NOT voting to pass the Disengaging Entirely From the United Nations Debacle Act of 2023 (HR 6645/ S 3428) is participating in a fraud on the People and is committing illegal acts. (Please take action there to tell your Congressional Members that.
That said, I do not understand how you have construed the MoU between Coatia and the US to be a Treaty.
A treaty, by definition, is an agreement between sovereign States Parties (i.e., countries) to alter their laws in accord with some principle or requirement. That is not the case here.
Agencies sign collaboration agreements all the time.
See the Vienna Confernece on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) which the State Department follows although it was never ratified by the US.
I agree that agency overstep is a huge problem, but it is critically important to use the right rope to reign them in, or get shot down, making the next attempt harder to accomplish.
Thanks for your comment, Rima. In our attorney's opinion - Treaties are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, not the UN, and not the State Dept. There are precedent cases that establish the definition:
See, e.g., Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 11, (2014) ( “[T]reaties . . . are primarily ‘compact[s] between independent nations[.]’” ) (first set of brackets in original) (quoting Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505 (2008)); Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583, 600 (1912) ( “Generally, a treaty is defined as ‘a compact made between two or more independent nations, with a view to the public welfare.’” ) (citation omitted)); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888) ( “A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law.” ); Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson), 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884) ( “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.” ). Although sovereign nations are the primary subject of treaties, in modern practice, other entities, such as international organizations, occasionally have joined treaties. See generally James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law 115–16 (8th ed. 2012)
Also, the Chevron Rule was overturned - Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws.
/
We are confident that we have a strong case to throw out the illegal agreements, signed in more than 60 countries.
Yeah since that's true and they did they are war criminals and treasonous. IF we could we all should go in and demand them to be all arrested and held on treason and war crimes. and Hold tribunals against them all. then find them guilty and hang them!
Aug 20, 2019 — ... United States Terrorist Screening Center, Charles H. Kable, and signing for Ethiopia was the Director General of the Ethiopian National ...
Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between State Security Service of Georgia and USA Terrorist Screening Center. Agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Terrorist Screening Information was signed by Charles H.
Overturned due to his right for due process! For goodness sake...Trey Gowdy is Grilling DHS Ms. Burresci about "Watchlisted people having Due Process Rights in this country!
A heroic marine, part of an elite border control unit and others killed and 10 years later it's overturned due to his Due Process Rights.
How are we still languishing in Hell? Given your brilliant lawsuit, the Chevron ruling and the overturning of a very disturbing murder case being overturned due to his rights being violated......where is our justice????
Upon the horror of discovering I was Targeted in 2017, these beautiful targets that I know of, (God only knows how many more), have passed.
Kim Straub, Melinda Fee, Linda Costanza, Michael Chapala, Lisa TI, Anne Kaspar, Liza Carlisle. How many more?? May they forever be surrounded by God's loving arms.
Also note that under Executive Order 12333, the FBI is restricted and has little authority outside of the United States. An Intelligence Agreement is not titled, "SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION" - that's called fraud and misrepresentation.
/
Under EO12333, the FBI is required to:
1.1(a) "...protect fully the legal rights of all United States persons, including freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy rights guaranteed by Federal law."
/
Clearly, these illegal agreements did not protect anyone's rights.
We suspect there are similar documents that were signed with the EU, NATO, and Interpol. Can someone please do the research for these? This is important.
This agreement between US and Croatia may have been made in accordance with the CLOUD Act which could have enabled agreements with other nations. The CLOUD Act came into effect in 2018.
The U.S. Constitution and numerous Supreme Court cases have defined a Treaty as being an agreement between two or more countries. Further, a Treaty requires the consent of 2/3 of the U.S. Senate - which was never done. You cannot pass a law that circumvents the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent - which is exactly what the Deep State is attempting to do.
We will get it thrown out...
/
I haven't seen the word 'treaty' used. The agreement between the US and Croatia is described as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). MOUs have to be written in accordance with the law. They cannot override the law. That is my understanding. Likewise if they are called agreements.
It does not matter what you call it. The Supreme Court already defined it, and what they are doing is negotiating a Treaty. Maybe you should read the precedent cases of the Supreme Court on this subject? We cited them above.
No need to shoot the messenger. I was pointing out what I noticed.
Treaties are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are precedent cases that establish the definition:
See, e.g., Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 11, (2014) ( “[T]reaties . . . are primarily ‘compact[s] between independent nations[.]’” ) (first set of brackets in original) (quoting Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505 (2008)); Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583, 600 (1912) ( “Generally, a treaty is defined as ‘a compact made between two or more independent nations, with a view to the public welfare.’” ) (citation omitted)); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888) ( “A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law.” ); Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson), 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884) ( “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.” ). Although sovereign nations are the primary subject of treaties, in modern practice, other entities, such as international organizations, occasionally have joined treaties. See generally James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law 115–16 (8th ed. 2012)
/
The FBI is negotiating Treaties, according to the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court. They have no authority to do so, and they are not following the U.S. Constitution which requires a vote of the U.S. Senate.
/
Over 60% of targeted individuals in our rosters were targeted since 2017.
In March, 2017, Mr. Kable became director of the Terrorist Screening Center. He retired on January 31, 2023, 2 weeks after we filed TJ v. Garland.
Let that sink in.
Exatamente, sou alvo desde agosto de 2017.
Dang,Ana. 😀 You are brilliant!
The people who are the signatories to these government agreements have no names!
DHS Science and Technology Directorate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHS_Science_and_Technology_Directorate
"AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ON COOPERATION IN SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY FOR HOMELAND SECURITY MATTERS"
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/agreement_us_mexico_sciencetech_cooperation_2008-04-21.pdf
"SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION Homeland/Civil Security Matters
Agreement between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICAand the NETHERLANDS"
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/agreement_us_mexico_sciencetech_cooperation_2008-04-21.pdf
"AGREEMENT ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC"
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/163476.pdf
"AGREEMENT ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN"
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/agreement_us_sweden_sciencetech_cooperation_2007-04-13.pdf
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION Agreement Between the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND"
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo86226/pdf/GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo86226.pdf
"AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
ON COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOMELAND SECURITY MATTERS"
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/agreement_us_germany_sciencetech_cooperation_2009-03-16.pdf
"SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION Agreement Between the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ISRAEL"
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/10-1130-Israel-Scientific-Cooperation.pdf
"AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE ON COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FOR HOMELAND DOMESTIC SECURITY MATTERS"
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/agreement_us_singapore_sciencetech_cooperation_2007-03-27.pdf
Nice work, Ortaine. Excellent research.
/
Hi Targeted Justice,
Shared TARGETED JUSTICE INC
V. GARLAND , TJ's FLYER MICROWAVE WEAPONS, Up coming SUPREME COURT Case and ATTORNEY ANA TOLEDO ( email address included) with Family Advocacy Center - Domestic Violence in Albuquerque, NM today.
The Family Advocacy Center goes to SantaFe ( state capital) and fights for the those who die under domestic abuse.
Targeted Justice Inc and all Targeted Individuals fight for the those before the abused die.
Stay Strong 😊 everyone .
The issue of fraudulent or unauthorized treaties is a very serious one. If you visit PreventGenocide2030.org you will find on its home page, as part of the 10 Million Patriot Challenge, a Legal Memorandum which lays out the compelling reasons that the US has no treaty obligation to the United Nations or any of its subsidiary organizations (such as the World Health Organization). This means that any Member of Congress NOT voting to pass the Disengaging Entirely From the United Nations Debacle Act of 2023 (HR 6645/ S 3428) is participating in a fraud on the People and is committing illegal acts. (Please take action there to tell your Congressional Members that.
That said, I do not understand how you have construed the MoU between Coatia and the US to be a Treaty.
A treaty, by definition, is an agreement between sovereign States Parties (i.e., countries) to alter their laws in accord with some principle or requirement. That is not the case here.
Agencies sign collaboration agreements all the time.
See the Vienna Confernece on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) which the State Department follows although it was never ratified by the US.
I agree that agency overstep is a huge problem, but it is critically important to use the right rope to reign them in, or get shot down, making the next attempt harder to accomplish.
Thanks for your comment, Rima. In our attorney's opinion - Treaties are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, not the UN, and not the State Dept. There are precedent cases that establish the definition:
See, e.g., Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 11, (2014) ( “[T]reaties . . . are primarily ‘compact[s] between independent nations[.]’” ) (first set of brackets in original) (quoting Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505 (2008)); Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583, 600 (1912) ( “Generally, a treaty is defined as ‘a compact made between two or more independent nations, with a view to the public welfare.’” ) (citation omitted)); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888) ( “A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law.” ); Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson), 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884) ( “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.” ). Although sovereign nations are the primary subject of treaties, in modern practice, other entities, such as international organizations, occasionally have joined treaties. See generally James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law 115–16 (8th ed. 2012)
Also, the Chevron Rule was overturned - Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws.
/
We are confident that we have a strong case to throw out the illegal agreements, signed in more than 60 countries.
Thank you for your warning about Covid in 2010:
"The Globalist Agenda in 10 Minutes" w/Dr. Rima Laibow & Rt Mj Gn Bert Stubblebine
https://www.bitchute.com/video/pB6uu0Yj0MiF
Yeah since that's true and they did they are war criminals and treasonous. IF we could we all should go in and demand them to be all arrested and held on treason and war crimes. and Hold tribunals against them all. then find them guilty and hang them!
No answer or????
https://et.usembassy.gov/the-united-states-and-ethiopia-sign-agreement-to-exchange-terrorist-screening-information/
Aug 20, 2019 — ... United States Terrorist Screening Center, Charles H. Kable, and signing for Ethiopia was the Director General of the Ethiopian National ...
Nice work, Jill. Thank you.
/
Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between State Security Service of Georgia and USA Terrorist Screening Center. Agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Terrorist Screening Information was signed by Charles H.
Jun 27, 2017
https://ssg.gov.ge/en/news/255/Intergovernmental-Agreement-was-signed-between-State-Security-Service-of-Georgia-and-USA-Terrorist-Screening-Center-#:~:text=27%2D06%2D2017-,Intergovernmental%20Agreement%20was%20signed%20between%20State%20Security%20Service%20of%20Georgia,was%20signed%20by%20Charles%20H.
https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Legal-framework/Cooperation-agreements/Cooperation-agreements-Governments-and-public-authorities
This is with the FBI but from 2011. You cannot open the document without downloading it, so this link is to the list.
With Georgia (the country)
https://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/3918_june_30_2017/3918_edit.html
I just heard this on FOX News this morning. How is this possible?
https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/sentence-overturned-border-agents-killing-that-exposed-fast-and-furious-sting-arizona/75-13bdc969-8d4a-43f7-8098-01564c6026ef
Overturned due to his right for due process! For goodness sake...Trey Gowdy is Grilling DHS Ms. Burresci about "Watchlisted people having Due Process Rights in this country!
A heroic marine, part of an elite border control unit and others killed and 10 years later it's overturned due to his Due Process Rights.
How are we still languishing in Hell? Given your brilliant lawsuit, the Chevron ruling and the overturning of a very disturbing murder case being overturned due to his rights being violated......where is our justice????
Upon the horror of discovering I was Targeted in 2017, these beautiful targets that I know of, (God only knows how many more), have passed.
Kim Straub, Melinda Fee, Linda Costanza, Michael Chapala, Lisa TI, Anne Kaspar, Liza Carlisle. How many more?? May they forever be surrounded by God's loving arms.