Posted on 05/14/2005 5:57:08 AM PDT by nextthunder
U.S. JUDGE SETS PRECEDENT FOR UNITED NATIONS SOVEREIGNTY OVER AMERICA
MNA—A U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of the United Nations over the U.S. Congress this week, setting precedent that, at least in federal courts, the U.N. is sovereign.
At issue are documents and audiotapes submitted under Congressional subpoena by former U.N. Oil for Food investigator Robert Parton. The information reportedly demonstrates proof positive that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s stories are conflicting regarding the world’s largest bribery scandal.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina in Washington issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) after the United Nations filed a petition to block the Parton congressional supeonas. The ten-day TRO gives both sides, according to the judge, some time to resolve the matter. The ex-FBI agent quit the U.N.-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee in April, reportedly because he believed it ignored evidence critical of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
The U.N. said that Parton, a former FBI agent, signed a letter of agreement with the Independent Investigative Committee on July 6 to become a "senior investigative counsel" and he began work on Aug. 9. On Aug. 18, Parton signed an agreement with the United Nations that included a clause prohibiting him from communicating with the media or with any government about material that the committee had not made public.
But Parton kept records to protect himself because the investigation’s report, in Parton’s estimate, was short of the truth. Parton told Fox News, “"Although I sought to avoid any public discussion of these issues, I had repeatedly voiced my concerns internally to the IIC and wanted to retain a record of my efforts so that, if it ever became necessary, I could establish that I was not associated with the path the IIC committee chose to take and I could be in a position to defend myself against risks that I knew existed as a result of the IIC committee's actions."
The court order comes in the wake of so-called Independent Investigator Paul Volcker’s (who was appointed by and is compensated by the U.N.) demands for Congress to return the Parton records and to not subpoena any more information or testimony. Volcker said the integrity of the probe into the $64 billion Oil-for-Food program was at stake and lives may be in jeopardy if details of the investigation are leaked.
Volcker’s unverified statement that lives may be at stake, if anything, has double meaning. American lives already have been lost. The U.S. military was committed to a war in Iraq based on false information. Sources often point to the weapons of mass destruction that were never found, although satellite pictures show Russian truck convoys hauling off tons of items across the Syrian border hours before the American attack in March 2003. Given the revelation that the U.N. Security Council was deeply involved with Saddam Hussein, and subsequent exposure that Russia in particular was doing under the table business with Hussein, the U.S. Congress has every Constitutional right to investigate the Oil for Food program.
The U.S. State Department supports the Congressional inquiry, but is deferring to the court on this latest judicial development. Acting Spokesman Tom Casey said State supports the Volcker work, “but we also believe it's important for the U.S. Congress to be able to have a look at this issue and make sure that it is comfortable with the facts and that it understands what happened…There is some ongoing litigation involved in that and I think I'll just leave it to the courts then to deal with it at this point, rather than trying to describe it for you further.”
Bottom line: Court authority seems to be trumping both the Executive Branch and Congressional authority in the Constitutional balance between the three branches of government. Article III of the Constitution gives the power to Congress over the courts. Question is: will the Congress of the United States allow the federal court system to hand U.S. sovereignty over to the United Nations. In this particular instance, it appears the precedent has been set. Taking this concept a few steps further, the United Nations seems positioned well to stand between the U.S. and its foreign policy objectives, including but not limited to, its longstanding relationship with Israel and the balance of power in the Middle East.
Here we have proof of illegal, fraudulent acts by the UN leadership with our money and some Judge moves to keep it from being entered.
I am sorry...but spank the FBI agent's hand (very lightly) for violating his agreement with the UN...and then give him the highest civilian medal available for remaining true to his duty as a citizen and a Federal employeee...a duty to the United States and the Constitution which supercedes said UN agreement.
The UN is an anti-American institution and should be sent packing from our shores and our membership in it, and our monetary support of it should have ended decades ago.
[The precedent for a UN takeover of American territory is called "KOSOVO"]
That is the truth!
Time we withdrew the nomination of Mr Bolton as ambassador and sent in the marines instead.
CWII
Actually, the US Courts have ruled in the past that agreements to hide criminal conduct are against the 'public interest'* and are invalid. Thus no paddy smacking is required.
*unless of course, one is an attorney.
The case is not a legal issue regarding "soverignty" of the U.S. or the U.N. The case involves contract law and whether or not Mr. Parton was personally obligated to live by the contract he signed - is that contract valid, did he sign it, can he be held liable for abrogating it.
It is not an issue of whether or not the U.S. Congress had a right to the documents. The issue is whether or not Mr. Parton had a right to provide them.
It would be no different if the other party had been Great Britain or Israel or Japan, and Mr. Parton had signed the contract with them. The U.N., in this instance, is no different than a foreign nation.
The entire legal question is "did Mr. Parton break his contract" and "was that contract valid" - not the soverignty of the U.S.
Amen to that. It is stupid that precedent is set whenever stupid decisions like this one are made.
I would love to see Annan get canned.
Can't a subpoena override a contract of confidentiality?
I wouldn't think the UN would have standing to take any legal action in a U.S. court - the UN should go through the U.S. Ambassador and present their grievance to the State Dept.
Soverigns do not really have subpoena power against each other, that's why they are "soverign". Can Britain subpoena records from the U.S. government? I don't think so. They can ask for them, but international law would not require we give them up.
That is how you need to view this case. Put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself how would we, as a soverign, protect our interest. The documents apparently are part of the U.N.s records; their property. Mr. Parton signed a contract to respect that. Then, out of a sense of patriotism, he broke that contract. He's a good guy - to you and me. But that's not the question.
When it is regarding truth.. and that truth is neccessary to defend God's law.. whistleblowers should always be defended.
The US has been defrauded, and is entitled to an investigation.
You are right that the subpoena was to Mr. Parton, not the U.N., which is why the subpoena power is not the issue. The U.S. did not subpoena the documents (U.N. property) Mr. Parton took with him, they subpeona'd Mr. Parton. The U.N. court filing is not against the U.S. congress directly, it is against Mr. Parton. It asks that their property, which he was contracturally bound to not give to anyone, be returned to them, because of their contract. Is that contract enforceable, that is the legal question, not the soverignty of anyone - the U.S. or the U.N. That is made clear in that the U.S. congress asked, but could not require, such documents from the U.N. to begin with. Quit thinking some big conspiracy and in place of the U.N. just call it "the British Embassy"; same difference in this case. Fraud, involving international circumstances, other "soverigns" and actions within the jurisdictions of those "soverigns" will always require international legal conventions in the proceedings, no matter what is the jurisdiction in which those proceedings occur. This is not a LEGAL PRECEDENT setting case.
On Aug. 18, Parton signed an agreement with the United Nations that included a clause prohibiting him from communicating with the media or with any government about material that the committee had not made public.The man has a nondisclosure contract that he wants to violate. I don't see the sovereignty issue.
A ten-say TRO is hardly precedent setting and is pretty much unenforcable. Heck, it'll take that long just for the parties to respond. The judge's order is meaningless.
Sure there's greed, lust for power, raging socialist power mongering winding the individuals up. But the marching orders MUST have come down from on high to insure the demise of our form of government and our way of life AT LEAST THROUGH
THE COURTS
as preliminary ground work for the rest of the criminal globalists' actions.
Flame away if you wish. I'll just consider you unread, uninformed and ignorant.
The most we can do is retard their efforts, and we should.
But the more damaging actions we can take against their schemes is to insure we have a strong relationship with God; are relating to those around us according to His priorities and are praying and possibly fasting in behalf of His Kingdom. He is the only hope of all individuals and of our nation's remnants surviving the coming more orvert dying grasping, gasping struggles of evil against God.
Evil actions on all individuals' parts contribute to the degree and speed of the puppet masters' conquest of the world. They give the supreme puppet master behind the globalist cabal--satan-greater power.
Pray folks. And do the right thing--especially with those closest in your network.
I hope that in addition to the ignorant flamers, this post triggers at least some brave souls to note the validity of such postulations--if not in the thread, then please by FREEPMAIL.
God be with all who call on Him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.