Swordsmyth
08-08-2018, 09:01 PM
Globalist organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank want absolute and completely immunity from all laws, all over the world, even as UN officials and “peace” troops rape tens of thousands of women and children while hiding behind diplomatic immunity (https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/29687-uk-parliament-mass-un-child-rape-just-tip-of-the-iceberg). Incredibly, in a ruling with enormous implications, a U.S. court agreed with the idea that these sorts of international institutions should be completely above the law in all cases — a level of immunity beyond that afforded even to foreign governments. But in a court filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently agreed to hear the first-ever case on the scope of immunity for international organizations, the U.S. government is asking the high court to reverse the ruling purporting to grant “absolute” immunity to the World Bank and other globalist outfits. Legal experts say the outcome will be hugely important.
The case in question concerns the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) and its operations in India. According to a lawsuit against the IFC filed by a group of local fishermen and farmers from Gujarat, India, the IFC funded the creation of a power plant that devastated the local community. Among other problems were the severe damage to private property, the destruction of livelihoods, and threats to the health of local residents. U.S. federal courts in Washington, D.C. recognized the “dismal” situation the World Bank-backed power plant had caused. However, both the district court and the appeals court for Washington, D.C., where the World Bank is based, held that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The reason: The World Bank, as an international organization, is entitled to absolute immunity from the law.
And that is why this case — regardless of the particular facts involved in this particular dispute — is so incredibly important. “The actual facts of this World Bank case are not really important here; the question is whether or not these International Organizations should have SO MUCH immunity that they are ABOVE THE LAW anywhere and everywhere in the world,” explained attorney Peter Gallo, a former UN investigator turned whistleblower who now works with the Switzerland-based non-profit Hear Their Cries to protect children from UN rapists. “That was not what the signatories of the treaty signed up for in San Francisco in 1945. It is mission creep — and the idea that the UN is more than just an association or a grouping of countries; but that is really a superior sort of world government.”
Pointing to the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities, Gallo said the current situation of absolute immunity was never intended. In Article V Section 18, the international agreement does make UN officials immune from legal processes relating to their words and all acts performed in an official capacity. To Gallo, at least, that is “fine.” For instance, if a UN staff member in Sudan were to provide shelter to a person the Sudanese regime would prefer to see homeless, then that staff member ought to be immune from prosecution, because the sheltering was performed as part of that official’s job. But what about when UN staff members rape women and children? “It isn't part of any UN staff member’s official duties to be having sex with anyone,” Gallo explained. “So why does the UN afford them the protection of immunity under the 1946 Convention?” The other relevant agreement is the 1945 International Organisations Immunity Act.
In the immunity case set to be considered by the Supreme Court, the World Bank is arguing that it has absolute immunity from legal liability in all cases. Even foreign governments and their diplomatic staff do not receive such protections. “We are pleased the [U.S.] Government has weighed in against absolute immunity,” said attorney Rick Herz with the left-wing “EarthRights International,” which is helping represent the plaintiffs in the case. “We are optimistic the Court will use this opportunity to clarify that the law must be read to mean what it says: international organizations are entitled only to the same immunity as foreign governments.... International organizations like the IFC are not above the law and must be held accountable when their projects harm communities. The notion of ‘absolute immunity’ is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and it is contrary to the IFC’s own mission as an anti-poverty institution. We are glad the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case and hope it will correct this error.”
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/29747-globalists-seek-absolute-immunity-from-law-us-fights-back
The case in question concerns the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) and its operations in India. According to a lawsuit against the IFC filed by a group of local fishermen and farmers from Gujarat, India, the IFC funded the creation of a power plant that devastated the local community. Among other problems were the severe damage to private property, the destruction of livelihoods, and threats to the health of local residents. U.S. federal courts in Washington, D.C. recognized the “dismal” situation the World Bank-backed power plant had caused. However, both the district court and the appeals court for Washington, D.C., where the World Bank is based, held that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The reason: The World Bank, as an international organization, is entitled to absolute immunity from the law.
And that is why this case — regardless of the particular facts involved in this particular dispute — is so incredibly important. “The actual facts of this World Bank case are not really important here; the question is whether or not these International Organizations should have SO MUCH immunity that they are ABOVE THE LAW anywhere and everywhere in the world,” explained attorney Peter Gallo, a former UN investigator turned whistleblower who now works with the Switzerland-based non-profit Hear Their Cries to protect children from UN rapists. “That was not what the signatories of the treaty signed up for in San Francisco in 1945. It is mission creep — and the idea that the UN is more than just an association or a grouping of countries; but that is really a superior sort of world government.”
Pointing to the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities, Gallo said the current situation of absolute immunity was never intended. In Article V Section 18, the international agreement does make UN officials immune from legal processes relating to their words and all acts performed in an official capacity. To Gallo, at least, that is “fine.” For instance, if a UN staff member in Sudan were to provide shelter to a person the Sudanese regime would prefer to see homeless, then that staff member ought to be immune from prosecution, because the sheltering was performed as part of that official’s job. But what about when UN staff members rape women and children? “It isn't part of any UN staff member’s official duties to be having sex with anyone,” Gallo explained. “So why does the UN afford them the protection of immunity under the 1946 Convention?” The other relevant agreement is the 1945 International Organisations Immunity Act.
In the immunity case set to be considered by the Supreme Court, the World Bank is arguing that it has absolute immunity from legal liability in all cases. Even foreign governments and their diplomatic staff do not receive such protections. “We are pleased the [U.S.] Government has weighed in against absolute immunity,” said attorney Rick Herz with the left-wing “EarthRights International,” which is helping represent the plaintiffs in the case. “We are optimistic the Court will use this opportunity to clarify that the law must be read to mean what it says: international organizations are entitled only to the same immunity as foreign governments.... International organizations like the IFC are not above the law and must be held accountable when their projects harm communities. The notion of ‘absolute immunity’ is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and it is contrary to the IFC’s own mission as an anti-poverty institution. We are glad the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case and hope it will correct this error.”
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/29747-globalists-seek-absolute-immunity-from-law-us-fights-back