Part One: The Empire of the Black Robes - The Invisible Enemy - Private International Law - Building Institutions of International Law - Progressive Unification

Source: Channeling Reality

Empire of the Black Robes
(Part One)

Before the National Security Act of 1947 to reorganize our government was passed, we were one nation comprised of 49 states - republics in their own right. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that the fall of the republics began with the creation of a new entity under the rubric of National Security. The new entity was called the National Security Resources Board. Consider this scenario:

The war was over

Hostilities in Europe officially ended on May 8, 1945; peace agreements had been signed, the allied nations had created an international association of nations to serve as a forum for international discussions, the Marshall Plan had been proposed and passed in our Congress to help with the rebuilding of Europe.

The Plan was presented to the nations of Europe but to get the money, the countries of Europe - including the Soviet Union, had to agree to work collectively towards a "Common Market" which entailed the "harmonization of laws, elimination of economic sovereignty, open borders between countries and central planning for a "whole of Europe" infrastructure. Although it's never discussed in this way, a common market overlay eliminates national sovereignty.

Stalin declined to participate in the Marshall Plan. Stalin is alleged to have said in 1945:

"This is not a war as in the past: Whoever occupies a territory will also determine its societal system. Everyone introduces his own system as far as his own army can advance. It can't be any other way." -- Robert A. Selig quoting Yugoslav Milovan Sjilas.

The purpose of the National Security Council was to direct foreign policy using "economic development" money break down the laws and customs of European countries in order to build common system of law to govern all of Europe.

The following is an excerpt from the National Security Act of 1947 (Page 6) concerning the creation and purpose of the National Security Resources Board:

Sec. 103

With the war just over and in the legislation for de-mobilization of the war machine, do we really believe that the purpose of the National Security Resources Board (NSRB) was for war time mobilization?

The Invisible Enemy

The "war time mobilization" efforts were carried out under the label of civil defense. As an elementary school student in the 1950's, I remember vividly the 'Duck and Cover' exercises which scientists knew were a fraud. If you were in the zone of impact, nothing could save you - and if you weren't, then getting under your desk on command would serve no purpose.

More likely, the whole civil defense shtick was simply a ruse for another purpose and that other purpose was essentially the same as the Marshall Plan for Europe. Foreign and domestic policy were being coordinated out of the same cell - the National Security Council. It's not a stretch to think that the objective of the NSRB was to harmonize laws across the state lines - using fear initially and federal money later to turn our state officials into sock puppets who have been subverting state authority every since. With consideration for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to formalize the subversion of national sovereignty to a "common market" structure over North America, I think the verdict is in.

The term "common market" equates to a common body of law governing the entire region - regardless of national boundaries. The Uniform Commercial Code was first published in 1952 which means they started writing it ... oh gee... how about between 1947 and 1951.

 International Law

Regional "common market" associations include multiple countries. That means when a country joins a common market or creates a common market - as in the case of the United States, Mexico and Canada, they are subverting their own national sovereignty and are placing themselves in the jurisdiction of the international system of law.

"The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HccH) is the oldest international organisation based in The Hague. Since 1893 its mission has been to work towards a world in which individuals and companies can enjoy a high degree of legal security when crossing borders between countries.

Founded in 1893, The Hague Conference was the first ever international body to be established in The Hague. It is also the only legislative body among the many legal institutions in The Hague. It is the world’s leading intergovernmental organisation in the field of private international law. It has drawn up no less than 38 international treaties or conventions to help overcome legal obstacles faced by individuals and companies in cross-border relations and transactions."

The Hague Conference on Private law describes its mission this way:

 …BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN LEGAL SYSTEMS… 

Personal and family or commercial situations which are connected with more than one country are commonplace in the modern world. These may be affected by differences between the legal systems in those countries. With a view to resolving these differences, States have adopted special rules known as "private international law" rules.

The statutory mission of the Conference is to work for the "progressive unification" of these rules. This involves finding internationally-agreed approaches to issues such as jurisdiction of the courts, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in a wide range of areas, from commercial law and banking law to international civil procedure and from child protection to matters of marriage and personal status.

Over the years, the Conference has, in carrying out its mission, increasingly become a centre for international judicial and administrative co-operation in the area of private law, especially in the fields of protection of the family and children, of civil procedure and commercial law.

The Hague Conference on Private

Notice the logo is a cage

International Law (HCCH) is a global intergovernmental organisation working for the progressive unification of these rules. This involves finding internationally-agreed approaches to issues such as jurisdiction of the courts, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in a wide range of areas, from commercial law and banking law to international civil procedure and from child protection to matters of marriage and personal status. The ultimate goal of the organisation is to work for a world in which, despite the differences between legal systems, persons – individuals as well as  companies – can enjoy a high degree of legal security.

U.S. Root in International Law

In 1903, Andrew Carnegie donated $1.5 million dollars to build The Hague Palace of Peace.

 In 1910, Carnegie funded the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with Elihu Root as President. The Endowment was chartered in 1911 with Elihu Root as the first President. Root was a New York corporate lawyer whose mission was to build the institutions for international law.

Time Magazine, April 21, 1923 - concerning the Permanent Court of International Justice

"In February, 1920, the Council [of the League of Nations] appointed an Advisory Committee of Jurists, among them Elihu Root, who drew up a plan for the Court. In December of that year the Assembly of the League adopted the Committee's plan with alterations. This "statute" of the Court was subsequently ratified by a majority of the members of the League, and judges were elected." 

Elihu Root died in 1937. His obituary only hints at the power and influence this lawyer wielded.

My purpose was not to delve into international law so much as to have you look at the administrative structure of international law that has been built to subvert national sovereignty and to move access to the law farther and farther away from the people. Looking at the structures and the history, it is the conclusion of this writer, that what has been built is an Empire of the Black Robes.

The Judge

 

Vicky Davis
September 7, 2013

Wigs, Coifs, and Other Idiosyncrasies of English Judicial Attire  

by Charles M. Yablon

Professor at Law