I don't know where to start.

First, the ITNJ Committee has proven it knows little to nothing about law (Part III of this series) and therefore cannot give any input to the Higher Ups regarding the foundational law of the ITNJ from that perspective.  So they rely on trust that the Higher Ups are steering the planet in the right direction.  From a law perspective, the two groups are walking two different paths.  The Higher Ups appear to know this and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.  The less you know about the law, the easier it is for them to distract you with New Age flowery bullshit language that they use to inspire you to keep following orders.  You're changing humanity, and you will be part of history.

The Committee's job is to promote the schemes dreamed up by The Man and do whatever it takes to convince people that the ITNJ is THE answer to all of their problems.  They must bring in "big names" whose banners they need to post on their website as supporters and they don't care if the Big Names have formally agreed or not (an "I'll think about it and get back to you" is enough) because Big Names create the illusion of a huge following that doesn't exist.

When you bow out after you've done the research, or decide you don't feel like joining another group, they conveniently forget to remove your name from their website as an "Alliance Partner."  (ex. Rod Class, Attorneys Above the Law, Farm Resettlement Congress, Take Back Your Power).  Ask any of these people (besides Rod Class) if they know what the ITNJ is about and they will respond with confusion.  I know, because I know all of these people.

The bigger the name, the more followers (and potential donors) they get.  And they'll eagerly tell you anything you want to hear in exchange for your kind (and large) donation. 

To be fair, they want freedom, too -- they just don't know the law.

Back to the ITNJ Constitution.  Note that this document was not created by a mandate of "the people."  It was created by a BAR member and his legal team, and is periodically reviewed (and edited) by his friends and partners who have a mutual worship of titles.  The "mandate of the people" is through the Treaty -- I like to call this plausible deniability, and they love to use it -- and I explain the trap in the last few paragraphs of this article.

I worked in the legal field for fifteen years and I know for a fact that J.D. and Esq. and all those other acronyms behind your name don't prove you have common sense or superior intelligence you never had before, and it certainly doesn't mean you're certified honest.  It gives no magical powers save for the illusion of superiority it creates in the minds of the people they are trained to intimidate, humiliate and bully, if they must, in order to win a case.  Winning your case means more income, more clients, more titles, and more power and prestige among your own.

Second, there are many good and honest people in the legal system.  All you have to have is a finely-tuned bullshit meter, pay close attention to what signals it sends to your gut, then do the research and verify to the analytical mind's satisfaction.


The first paragraph is a contradiction to their own recent announcement regarding pedophiles.  Read it carefully.  It says it will "hold accountable those responsible for breaches of human rights."  Pedophiles breach human rights all day long -- and the ITNJ's way of holding them accountable appears to come straight out of the Vatican's manual. 

How will they hold those who breach human rights accountable?  Three hearings later, they've yet to hold anyone accountable for anything.  See, also here.

"... direct indictment or application or when determined by the Chief Justice as appropriate."

Suitable or proper in the circumstances.
‘this isn't the appropriate time or place’
‘a measure appropriate to a wartime economy’

Looks like a member of the BAR Association is the only one who can determine if your case is "appropriate" or not.

"All applicants and respondents must be natural persons ... to be determined on a case by case basis ... in line with .... the ITNJ Treaty."

You can't bring attention to unlawful foreclosures that have caused millions to suffer by filing a claim against Bank of America.  You can't go after Monsanto for poisoning the planet.  You can't publicly hold the BAR Association accountable for misusing its occult knowledge to line their pockets. These entities aren't natural persons, are they?

"... bear in mind that only cases of global significance can be considered at this time."

Are these not examples of cases of global significance?  As one of the people who signed the Treaty, do you think you have the right to disagree with this document?

Well, you don't.

I've shown the example of how I read the preamble carefully and immediately found a discrepancy in what it says compared to the actions of the parties.  And I found the evidence to back up my finding.  Took me about ten minutes.

I could go through this entire Constitution line by line and continue to find contradiction, statements requiring hard questions, and wordsmithing bullshit.  The fact is, any "living" foundational document is a contradiction in terms, just an illusion.  Can you build a brick house with a Styrofoam foundation?

I don't question the constitution for the united states.  It wasn't a "living" document for a reason.

To get to the point without creating a longer article than is necessary, remember this document can and will be changed at any time by the select few within Humanitad and the ITNJ (now called "Trustees" and such) who have given themselves exclusive right to its terms.  Judges are in for life and only members of the Club can take them out.  And right now, there's only one judge.  There's ever been only one judge, and there is no indication there will ever be another judge.  But that can also change, if the current judge makes it happen.

As a member of "the people," who would you choose as a judge in this court?  Would you like to have the chance to nominate one?  They would happily accept your nomination, but you'll never get a vote.  This is because you signed the Treaty, which gave them exclusive right to exclude your voice from their Constitution.

Be sure to research the Treaty.  It's a contract.  Actually, it's an adhesion contract.  The Treaty points straight to the Constitution -- which is another contract.  But this contract can be changed at any time and only by the author, and the signees (you, through the Treaty) have no right to object.  Your signature on the Treaty gave them ownership of the Constitution.  They call this a "mandate" of the people.  I call it plausible deniability or the Cover Your Own Ass Clause.

As far as fees for filing a case, the last time there was discussion within the ITNJ about fees that I was a witness to, it was going to be $2,000. If that's still the case, a natural person with a middle-class income can't afford to sign their Treaty.

Additionally, I would challenge anyone who knows the law to explain to me how a court that purports to have at its base "natural law" interact with (much less hold accountable) anyone, person or corporation, working in a system that has its own set of copyrighted laws, rules, policies and procedures.  The two simply can't, and don't, mix.  There is no bridge, and without the people as a collective, there is no authority.

Are you beginning to see how all this works?  Does it appear that this is just the same game, with different players, the illusion of justice, funded by you, with absolutely no relief available but a piece of paper at the end of it all (if your case isn't flatly denied), signed by a member of (many) Bar Association(s)?

An adhesion contract (also called a "standard form contract" or a "boilerplate contract")  is a contract drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and signed by another party (usually one with weaker bargaining power, usually a consumer in need of goods or services). The second party typically does not have the power to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract. Adhesion contracts are commonly used for matters involving insurance, leases, deeds, mortgages, automobile purchases, and other forms of consumer credit.
Courts carefully scrutinize adhesion contracts and sometimes void certain provisions because of the possibility of unequal bargaining power, unfairness, and unconscionability. Factoring into such decisions include the nature of the agreement, the possibility of unfair surprise, lack of notice, unequal bargaining power, and substantive unfairness. Courts often use the “doctrine of reasonable expectations” as a justification for invalidating parts or all of an adhesion contract: the weaker party will not be held to adhere to contract terms that are beyond what the weaker party would have reasonably expected from the contract, even if what he or she reasonably expected was outside the strict letter of agreement.
Proponents of the standard contract, however, argue that it promotes efficiency in contract law, which saves time and negotiation costs.

Adhesion Contracts in the 21st Century
Adhesion contracts have grown in relevance during the 21st century, largely due to the rise of digitally signed contracts and "click through" contracts. Courts have held that in order for an electronic contract ot be valid, it should appear as identical to a paper contract as possible. Buried clauses, or inconspicuous clauses, will likely not be enforced. In Fairfield Leasing Corporation v. Techni-Graphics, Inc., the Superior Court of New Jersey invalidated an adhesion contract because its waiver clause was single-spaced and had a small typefont; as such, the court deemed the clause to be too inconspicuous.
Solutions to Some Problems Caused by 21st Century Adhesion Contracts
Some courts have used a more energized unconscionability doctrine, finding more clauses to be unconscionable. However, doing so too often may encompass too many contract issues and may infringe on the freedom of contract. Other courts have required parties to select the important terms, of the contract, and the courts have required those parties to put those issues in a large box on the first page of the contract. Some, have pointed out issues with this method by questioning how large the box can grow, and by questioning what should go in the box. Mandatory Website Disclosure (p. 735).

Haven't we had enough of this bullshit?

All Articles In This Series:
Part I      The ITNJ Rears Its Ugly Head:  A Warning
Part II     Money, Money, Money
Part III    When You Need to Act Like You Know The Law But Don't Have a Clue
Part IV    The Living, Breathing, Adjustable, Sellable ITNJ Constitution
Part V      Humanitad, ITNJ, the United Nations, and The New Age Order
Part VI    The Great Harvest v.2, or How to Work for The Titles
Part VII   The Law of the New Age Order
Part VIII  A Summary of Research Points
Part IX     Natural Law vs. The Corporation:  Why it Won’t Work
Part X     Pedophilia, Child Trafficking and the Perpetual Band Aid
Epilogue Part XI