Global Justice

"So grotesque and preposterous are the principal characters in this galaxy of clowns and crooks that none but a thrice double ass could have taken them for rulers." ~Allied Officer at Nuremberg Trials

Being the optimist that I am, I was caught off guard when I woke up in the middle of the night and thought…

Nothing matters.

The impeachments, the election theft, the special counsels, the lawsuits, the coming election. Irrelevant. All of it.

Most of us have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy worrying, reading, guessing, and researching everything we can to try to figure out what is really happening in this war around us. We dream about the outcomes, varying between trusting The Plan and hating The Plan.

“Nothing matters” didn’t come from a pessimistic point of view. It came from reality. Honestly, none of what we’ve been paying attention to matters. It’s all been meant to distract us. If I’m right about what I think is coming, everything before it will be insignificant.

We’ve been anticipating what is going to happen for a long time. Throughout Trump’s first term, we would see memes that said, “SOON,” and get so excited. We were ready! After all, President Trump promised he was going to drain the swamp, lock her up. We were ready to see it happen. Dates and events came and went, and we were wrong. We told our friends, families, co-workers -- it’s coming! Soon!  

I’m one of those people. I recently told someone that I should stop showering, dress in filthy old clothes and walk through the airport yelling “It’s coming! Any day now!” I imagine that’s how I look to people who have listened to me all these years. CraZy.

COVID was the worst for me. I was convinced that, “this is it!” I caused so much anxiety in those around me because I was convinced that this was the big event I had been telling them about. It wasn’t. Not only did I feel foolish, but I also lost credibility with people whose respect mattered a great deal to me.

It was election season in 2020, and people came to me for hope and support because they were so concerned that Trump was going to lose. Not me. I trusted The Plan. I confidently told everyone to calm down. Of course he was going to win. Looking back, I should have known since I also promised those people that a RED WAVE was coming in the 2018 midterms. There was no Red Wave. Again, I lost credibility.

After the 2020 election, I was depressed, embarrassed, and thought the Marxists had finally won. It was devastating. But I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and went back to trusting The Plan. And I stopped foretelling dates. You can only look stupid so many times before you learn.

Over the last four years I became more confident, and my trust didn’t waver. No longer was I talking to people about what I thought was going to happen and when. If ‘The Plan’ is legitimate, everyone will know at the same time. It wasn’t my job to convince anyone of anything.

Yet here I am again, telling you that “This is it! It’s right around the corner. SOON!”

But this time I’m convinced it’s going to happen soon (isn’t it?). Definitely before the election (right?).

Although a lot of people still aren’t awake (we can’t wait any longer for these people to wake up), enough people can feel the weirdness in the air. Since I never learn, I’ve started talking to people again; helping them understand what I think is happening and encouraging them to research for themselves. I try not to put dates to it, but it feels like it’s coming. Another election isn’t going to give us the results we need. Another stolen election will be detrimental and will most likely lead to not-so-peaceful protests that no one wants.

Unlike my other papers where I build my case and offer a conclusion, I’m going to switch it around this time. I’m going to give you the ending first and build the case on why I feel this way.

This isn’t a new thought, but in my opinion, military tribunals are being prepared for the enemy combatants in our country who were pushing Socialism on America. As I wrote about in Welcome to The Bay Parts I and II, there are improvements being made at Guantanamo Bay that don’t make sense otherwise.

In addition to domestic military tribunals, our world is about to experience something we haven’t seen since World War II. International Military Tribunals are being prepped for those who were pushing a New World Order on us like past presidents, the WHO, NATO, UN, and others.

Not only were President Trump and the Patriots working to Make America Great Again, they’ve been working toward Making the World Great Again.

We were told to THINK BIGGER.

Tribunals

Military Tribunals and International Military Tribunals operate a little differently from each other.

Military Tribunals are military courts that try enemy combatants, members of the armed forces, and civilians working for the military. They operate outside of the criminal and civil justice systems (see the Brett Kavanaugh/Lindsey Graham video). Military tribunals are made up of military officers who act as jurors. 

The International Military Tribunal (IMT) was made up of judges from four countries and could only try suspects whose crimes had consequences across national boundaries. The IMT was also known as the Nuremberg Trials. It was created after World War II to prosecute Nazi leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other wartime atrocities. Crimes against humanity caught my attention. How many times have we been directed toward that particular crime?

Proposals for how to punish the Nazi leaders ranged from a show trial (the Soviet Union) to summary executions (the United Kingdom). Several prominent figures in the Allied governments, including British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, wanted to pursue a much more extreme course of action and advocated for the quick execution of German war criminals. As with many presidents, President Trump finds inspiration from Winston Churchill. In fact, he says it is a great honor to be compared, in any way, to Winston Churchill.

Many people have speculated that the Deep State criminals would be sent to Guantanamo Bay and tried in military tribunals. Some believe that the criminals have already been taken to Guantanamo Bay (I believe that) and have already been executed (I don’t believe that). It occurred to me that the disclosure we’ve been waiting for may not just be validation for the chants of “Lock Her Up” for Hillary or the satisfaction of watching former CIA Director John Brennan on trial. What if the disclosure we’ve been waiting for is much, much bigger? What if the disclosure is for international crimes and we are about to experience a bigger, more intense trial involving other countries, similar to the Nuremberg Trial?

When this idea popped in my head, to say I was moved to tears would be putting it lightly. Genuine fear came over me. Of course, I want to see these people put to justice but the enormity of what that might possibly mean humbled me. The drive to learn more about what happened after World War II was strong. YouTube offers the 1961 fictional movie Judgement at Nuremberg based on the Nuremberg Trials in Germany. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a good movie and includes classic actors like Burt Lancaster, Judy Garland and Spencer Tracy. There were parts of that movie that struck a chord in me.

When the trial begins in the movie, subtitles appear on the screen as some of the actors speak German. The movie eventually switches to English, but you understand the implied notion that different languages are being spoken. When members in the court would speak, the rest of the characters would pick up headsets to hear the translation in their language. As mentioned in The Bay, a 2023 Department of Defense contract was awarded for $99 million for translation, transcription, and interpretation services. At that time, I assumed the contract would primarily be used for transcription services for court documents.  While watching the movie, I realized my interpretation was probably incorrect.

The Nuremberg Trials marked the introduction of simultaneous translation. Since the defendants, judges and lawyers all spoke a mix of German, French, English, and Russian, a language barrier existed, but the development of a new instantaneous translation system by IBM allowed every trial participant to listen through headsets to real-time translations of the proceedings. What if the $99 million is not only for transcription services, but also for machine translation? What if the disclosure we’re waiting for will include the participation of other nations?

The movie implies that the trials were not well received by German citizens, since they were forced to testify against people they felt were only following the laws of their country. Americans weren’t interested in the trial because the crimes hadn’t been committed in our country - out of sight/out of mind. At one point in the movie is the statement, “In five years, the men you sentenced to life in prison will be free.” At the end of the movie, we learn that 99 people were sentenced to life in prison in July 1949. By the time the movie was made in 1961, not one person remained in prison.

During the trial, films were shown of bulldozers pushing emaciated corpses into mass graves, and men, women, and children being led into train cars. We know what happened to those people. At least we should.

World War II was a horrible time in the world, and I trust anyone reading this paper is aware of the atrocities of the Holocaust. For the first time in history, military, business, and political leaders were held accountable for the actions of their government and its crimes against humanity and peace.

While we were reeling from the Coronavirus pandemic (also known as the excuse for everything), President Trump declared himself a Wartime President, telling reporters that it would require a response unseen since World War II. That was an interesting choice of words. (Double meanings exist.)

In mid-1945, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States agreed to convene a joint tribunal, the Nuremberg Trials, using the London Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the crimes committed by the Nazis.

When I asked if people knew of the Nuremberg trials, not everyone did. The younger they were, the less they knew. In his opening statement before the Tribunal, Justice Robert Jackson of the United States Supreme Court said,

“The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.”

Allied leaders went to great lengths to remain fair by providing the defendants with their choice of legal counsel, as well as secretarial and translation services. The goal was to punish Germans who were guilty of horrific crimes, while educating German citizens about the true extent of the Nazi atrocities. The allied leaders wanted to convince them to take responsibility for their government’s crimes. The Americans wanted to deter similar crimes from ever recurring by establishing a precedent for international trials. The Holocaust was to serve as a reminder of the dangers of indifference in the actions of your government.

It was important that German citizens were made aware of the trial. Americans worked with the German media to report on the Tribunal. Billboards were erected with pictures of the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Films were commissioned to document the horrors of concentration camps. Dramatic posters with images of evidence from the trials were created and posted everywhere. Most Germans either denied supporting the Nazi Party or swore they couldn’t do anything about it. It was important to convince them that their ignorance was inexcusable.

From December 1946 to April 1949, twelve additional military tribunals for war crimes were held by the United States in the Palace of Justice. The defendants were high-ranking physicians, judges, business owners, military, police, and civil servants. The trials uncovered the leadership that supported the Nazi dictatorship. 

Curious how an international trial would take place in the present day, I started researching different options. The following is information on the United Nations Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice.

United Nations Human Rights Council

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization made up of 193 members around the world who gather to discuss common problems and share solutions “that benefit all of humanity.” The Human Rights Council is an area within the United Nations responsible for protecting human rights around the globe.

On June 6, 2017 then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley addressed the Human Rights Council to inform them that the United States was reevaluating our participation in the Council. The United States was hosting an event on the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in Venezuela and wanted this issue to be addressed by the Council. If they couldn’t, then Venezuela should step down from its seat. It was hypocritical to allow a nation who was accused of human rights violations to be a member on the Council. She criticized them for refusing to take action against Venezuela while it had taken biased action again Israel. If the Council was to have any credibility, it had to address its chronic anti-Israel bias.

The following year, Ambassador Haley addressed the fact that the requested changes were not made and the United States would withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. This was a powerful speech when it was delivered and it contains valuable information. (To watch or read the entire 10 minute speech, you can find it here.)  

Ambassador Haley outlined the Trump Administration’s America First policy. No longer would the United States bow to the United Nations. Since she delivered this speech, as is the case with Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, and countless others, we’ve been subjected to the psyop game of feigned animosity between Nikki Haley and President Trump and her half-hearted attempt at running for President. Was this to create an artificial divide between them to keep us distracted from this historic withdrawal?

The United States was the first country to voluntarily leave the council in its 12-year history. The reasons for leaving the council included its inability to address bias, politicization, and eligibility of known rights violators, and because it was a "cesspool of political bias." 

In a July 2018 speech to the Heritage Foundation, Nikki Haley addressed the U.S. withdrawal from the Human Rights Commission.

The Obama Administration joined the Human Rights Council in 2009, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed that the United States could improve it. Eight years later, when Haley became Ambassador, she identified several problems. The membership included some of the worst human rights violators - Cuba, China and Venezuela. Not only was Venezuela a member, but Venezuelan Dictator Nicholas Maduro was invited to speak at an assembly where he received a standing ovation.

In addition, the United States opposed the continuation of Agenda Item Seven as a permanent part of the Human Rights Council. This agenda item is devoted exclusively to Israel and is not directed at anything Israel does, but at the very existence of Israel. No other country has an agenda item devoted solely to it. “It is a blazing red siren signaling the Human Rights Council’s political corruption and moral bankruptcy.”

If the Human Rights Council is itself politically corrupt and morally bankrupt, how can they be expected to clean up political corruption and human rights abuse elsewhere? Obviously, the Human Rights Council couldn’t be tasked with undertaking an international trial for global justice.

The International Criminal Court (ICC)

In his 2018 speech to the United Nations, President Trump said, “America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination.” This speech sounded to me like he was letting them know that the United States would no longer be party to the New World Order that previous presidents had pushed for.

In addition to its withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, the United States would no longer provide support or recognize the International Criminal Court. “As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority…We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy. America is governed by Americans.” Reiterating the end of the New World Order, he said, “We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”

According to the ICC, under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other international crimes. Under President Trump's administration, the US government would not cooperate with the ICC and he threatened to take retaliatory steps against its staff and members if it investigated citizens of the US or allied countries.

In a June 2020 press conference, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Attorney General William Barr and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien addressed the situation with the ICC and announced the signing of Executive Order 13928, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated with the International Criminal Court.

In 2017, the ICC threatened to investigate American soldiers for alleged crimes in Afghanistan. “It wasn’t a prosecution of justice. It was a persecution of Americans.” Secretary Pompeo referred to the court as a “kangaroo court.”

Secretary Pompeo exposed the ineffectiveness and corruption of the court, “In 18 years of operation, the court, staffed by nearly 1,000 people, has secured only four convictions for major crimes, despite spending well over a billion dollars.” He went on to say that the judges of the ICC had sued their own court, seeking a 26 percent pay raise from their currently tax-free annual salary of “about a quarter million US dollars, give or take.”

He closed by saying, “Never forget the American commitment to real justice and accountability. From the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II to the more recent Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, the United States has always sought to uphold good and punish evil under international law.”

Secretary Esper then addressed the press and said, “There is no other force more disciplined and committed to compliance with the laws of war than the United States military, which has made lasting contributions to the cause of justice and accountability in armed conflict. For example, our military led prosecutions in historic international military tribunals, including at Nuremberg.”

Both men referenced the Nuremberg Trials and the United States role in it.

In April 2021 Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14022 revoking the sanctions on the ICC. Antony Blinken said that the United States still objected to the Court’s efforts to assert jurisdiction over countries who did not sign onto the agreement, but he was encouraged that they were considering reforming the Court.

With the corruption at the International Criminal Court brought into the light, it appears that this court won’t be conducting an international military tribunal either.

The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) resolves disputes between nations and is one of the six functions of the United Nations. All members of the UN belong to the ICJ and may initiate legal cases. The International Court of Justice is located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

The Court consists of a panel of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. For most of the court’s history, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the United States) have had a judge serving. However, for the first time in its history, judges elected to take office in 2024 will not include a Russian judge. Current members of the court include judges from Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Romania, Slovakia, Somalia, South Africa, the United States, and Uganda.

Sarah Cleveland was elected to the International Court of Justice in 2024 to serve as the Judge for the United States. Nominated under Joe Biden and Antony Blinken, she previously clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun of the Supreme Court. Reading Justice Blackmun’s bio, I was relieved to see that he was appointed by Richard Nixon, a Republican. However, after further reading, I learned that Justice Blackmun was one of the most liberal justices on the Court, and was best known as the author of the original Court opinion in Roe V. Wade.

Rather than feel discouraged, I was reminded that it shouldn’t matter if a judge identifies as liberal or conservative. Despite Obama’s blatant weaponization of our judicial system, it’s time for us to reprogram our thinking and remember that Judges are to remain impartial. If we are ever going to trust our justice system again, we have to encourage neutrality going forward. Only judges who can follow the law without bias should be appointed or elected to serve in our judicial system.

Judge Cleveland possesses a resume that seems to be an ideal match for this role at this time in our nation’s history. If we are about to witness International Tribunals, the liberals will not be able to argue her position on that court. Her experience working in international justice cannot be denied. Looking through the contributions listed in her Bio offered me great encouragement and solidified my belief that we are on the right track.  

As a panelist in the 2016 Oxford Debate, “Should There be a World Court of Human Rights,” Judge Cleveland stated her belief that a world court of human rights should not be created (38:13), mainly because it would divert needed resources from the current system. According to the court, it would need an estimated $18 million per year (45:22) to create a tribunal with basic services to fit the standards of ordinary national courts. A world court of human rights would be very expensive. It would require translation into multiple languages, a building location, and the development of new procedures to get a new court set up and running.

Just as Secretary Pompeo did, Judge Cleveland points out that in 2016, the International Criminal Court had an outrageous budget, large number of staff and very few convictions.

In closing she says that if you were asked by your government to vote its limited resources toward the creation of such a court, “I would ask you to vote against the world court for human rights (48:26).”

Her 2005 essay, Hamdi Meets Youngstown: Justice Jackson’s Wartime Security Jurisprudence and the Detention of Enemy Combatants contains many connections to the past and relates to the future trials I expect are coming. The Hamdi ruling is the ruling discussed at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing in regard to the detention of “enemy combatants,” and is what I believe is the justification to hold US citizens at Guantanamo Bay. Second, Justice Jackson was the US Judge appointed to the Nuremberg trials, and she cites his opinions in this essay.

Although she doesn’t seem to wholeheartedly agree with prior interpretations of Justice Jackson’s decisions by others, I made note of the following, which seems to apply when considered in context to the J6 insurrection that wasn’t and the spread of Socialism in America:

Jackson viewed the dangers to liberties created "among ourselves" from wartime hysteria as equal to, if not greater than, the outside threats that inspired them. "Wartime psychology," he knew, "tends to break down any right which obstructs its path. In words that he could equally have directed at the current detention of alleged terrorist enemy combatants, he wrote in 1952 that: “[t]he Communist conspiratorial technique of infiltration poses a problem which sorely tempts the Government to resort to confinement of suspects on secret information secretly judged. I have not been one to discount the Communist evil. But my apprehensions about the security of our form of government are about equally aroused by those who refuse to recognize the dangers of Communism and those who will not see danger in anything else.” (Pages 17-18)

In my opinion, the International Court of Justice is the court that will deliver the Global Justice we so badly need.

Global Justice

If the theory in this paper is correct, and our world is about to witness historic International Military Tribunals, what crimes would be brought before an international court?

An atrocity crime is a violation of international criminal law that falls under three legally defined crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity contains a wide-ranging group of crimes which include enslavement, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, and other depravities. It wouldn’t just be Jeffrey Epstein, Hollywood, and P Diddy scandals. International trials would contain international crimes and unfortunately, human trafficking is a worldwide crime. I imagine most of us would be satisfied if these crimes were finally brought into the light and prosecuted.

If COVID was developed in a lab and intentionally released, would that be considered an international war crime? The entire world was affected by the pandemic in one way or another. Would the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, China, Anthony Fauci, and others be prosecuted? What about the doctors and pharmacists who refused to prescribe Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine? What about governors who sent infected patients to nursing homes, or coroners who falsified death certificates?  

Would the governments behind the many color revolutions in our world be brought before an international tribunal? What about the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, which led to the Benghazi attacks? Would that be brought before an international tribunal? Wouldn’t we all cheer it on if it was?

There are a lot of injustices that citizens throughout the world have had to suffer. Do you think it’s outside the realm of possibility that we may finally see justice for them? We were told to think bigger. What is bigger than that? The healing that would descend on our world is indescribable.

This is a sensitive subject, but I have to mention it. For many years, there has been speculation that the September 11th attacks did not happen the way we’ve been told. Could it really have been an “inside job” conducted with help from the United States government? This is a horrifying thought. I used to think that we would never know, because people couldn’t handle the truth. But if it were true, would it be considered an atrocity? While watching the emaciated corpses of victims in Nazi Germany bulldozed into a ditch, I understood the true meaning of atrocity. After the Nazis were defeated, the United States government was determined to expose those atrocities in order to prevent them from recurring. If the September 11th attacks were committed by our government, shouldn’t we be told that to prevent it from happening again? If we were exposed to that horror, could anyone shamelessly say, “I don’t care about politics?”

I think this is going to be bigger than we can imagine…

God bless you and God bless America.