The President of the BIS has the power to allow agents of the BIS to be subject to a case brought in other countries, if he/they wish. It is not compulsory.
My post made clear that all of the countries agree that the BIS has the power. If a country did not agree, i.e. if they had not passed laws that they agreed with the power of the BIS, then it would not hold up in that country's courts because they did not agree that the BIS had those powers of immunity within their jurisdiction.
This whole thing is about jurisdiction. These laws act as treaties. They allow the BIS to do whatever it wants. They give the BIS effective jurisdiction, or perhaps a better way of saying it is, no American court has jurisdiction over them. Any case brought to court would be tossed out because no court has jurisdiction. Try bringing a case against state police to a federal court and see what happens. The federal government has no say over state police matters. Therefore their courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case. You would have to file with the appropriate jurisdiction before a legal body will even read your suit.
In the case of any suit filed against the BIS or any agent of the BIS, it wouldn't have to "stand up in court" because no case can ever be brought by our laws (included as links in the post), and no court can have jurisdiction to hear the case, unless the Rulers of the BIS allow it.
For the purposes of this subchapter, the term "international organization" means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter. The President shall be authorized, in the light of the functions performed by any such international organization, by appropriate Executive order to withhold or withdraw from any such organization or its officers or employees any of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in this subchapter (including the amendments made by this subchapter) or to condition or limit the enjoyment by any such organization or its officers or employees of any such privilege, exemption, or immunity. The President shall be authorized, if in his judgment such action should be justified by reason of the abuse by an international organization or its officers and employees of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter or for any other reason, at any time to revoke the designation of any international organization under this section, whereupon the international organization in question shall cease to be classed as an international organization for the purposes of this subchapter.
I'm fairly certain this implies that the US president can issue an EO revoking immunity for the organization under certain circomstances.
Jurisdiction
Pretty sure that could be challenged by SOCTUS on a constitutional basis.
Again, not trying to be a dick here, just pointing out what I see, lol.
This states explicitly that the powers of the President to revoke such privileges only apply to those organizations which were instigated by EO:
and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter.
The word "and" is very important there. The organizations this presidential power of revocation applies to are the ones that were passed by law AND were initiated by EO.
It has a list on that page of which organizations this power applies to. It includes things like the United Nations, the WHO, the IMF, WTO, etc. all of which were started by EO. They are all big dogs to be sure, and agents of the Cabal, but they are no where near as big as the BIS, or even its underling, The Fed. The trick here is, neither the BIS nor The Fed was started by an EO. In the case of the BIS, it self-declared itself the ruler of the world. No other country had authority to incorporate it. In the exact same way as the people of the United States in 1776 self-declared their sovereignty, so did the BIS. In both cases, everyone else agreed. In the case of the U.S., it took a war before everyone else agreed. The BIS just did it, and there was no contest, because by that time (1931ish), all countries were already ruled by the same people who started the BIS.
Pretty sure that could be challenged by SOCTUS on a constitutional basis.
Maybe, I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's a violation of the constitution since the legislative branch has the right to take care of such treaties. SCOTUS revoking the treaty with the BIS would amount to an act of war, and SCOTUS doesn't have the power to effect that.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice. Since they never have before when such cases against The Fed (an agent of the BIS) have been brought before them, I doubt it would happen. And why would they? This is just the legal stuff. It's just dressing on top of the real way they control the world (coercion, complicity, bribery, religious beliefs, etc.).
Again, not trying to be a dick here
There is no "you must agree" going on here. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It is essential that you dissent if you have reason to do so (or just want to). If the goal is the Truth, it is also essential that you bring what you find to the debate table. This isn't about me (or anyone else) being "right." The need to "be right" is a demand of the ego, it has nothing to do with investigations into the Truth of things. We are here to find the Truth, we are not here to make ourselves feel better with lies and silencing dissension; that's what Facebook is for.
In this case you have brought your protest, you have clearly laid it out AND you have brought the evidence to support it. There could be no better path towards the goal of truth than that. In my book this dissention gets top marks (not that my book has any authority whatsover, just sayin'). It also makes me happy because it helps advance my sole intent (finding the truth). Whether I (or anyone else) agrees with your assessment of the evidence or not, this is absolutely the way. PLEASE keep it up.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice.
There is that...
There is no "you must agree" going on here.
Yeah, I'm kinda too confrontation-averse for my own good, and internet discussions have a bad habit of turning sour on a dime, so I get a little gun-shy sometimes, lol.
I suggest a few things to take care of "discussions turning sour":
First, more than anything else, people just want to be heard. While there are certainly exceptions, for the most part people just want to know that you have understood what they have said. It is generally more important than being agreed with. As long as you address what they have said in a way that signifies you have understood them, it usually works out OK in the end.
Second, when the above is not true, recognize that each person is going to come to the Truth (or get closer and closer to it) by their own path. Of course some will never make it, because they don't really want to, and that is another thing to consider. You certainly shouldn't work towards appeasement of them. They are stuck in their own hell by choice. You can't bring everyone along on the path towards the Truth. They will either start that journey or not as they choose. You can bring them information, or attempt to help them, but ultimately the choice is up to them, and there is nothing you can or should do about it. Don't let their "bad" decisions interfere with your efforts on your own path.
Third, efforts to investigate the Truth can only be made in earnest. It is only when we let go of the ego's need to be "right" that we can take on that endeavor honestly. As long as you are not trying to prove yourself right for your ego's case, then you are probably on the right path.
It's tricky, because we shouldn't give up our intuition, and we shouldn't "just agree" because someone makes sense. Don't ever give up your own critical thinking just because someone makes a good argument. It's just that you shouldn't hold on to your thoughts purely for the "need to be right". It's a perpetual self-monitoring thing, with many likely failures on the path towards mastery (I am far from that end myself, I'm just better than I was before).
So what I'm really saying is, be considerate, and respectful, but don't shy away from the effort to get closer to the truth. Recognize you are on your path, they are on theirs, and it's OK if you don't have Happy Happy Joy Joy interactions as you pass each other by.
The President of the BIS has the power to allow agents of the BIS to be subject to a case brought in other countries, if he/they wish. It is not compulsory.
My post made clear that all of the countries agree that the BIS has the power. If a country did not agree, i.e. if they had not passed laws that they agreed with the power of the BIS, then it would not hold up in that country's courts because they did not agree that the BIS had those powers of immunity within their jurisdiction.
This whole thing is about jurisdiction. These laws act as treaties. They allow the BIS to do whatever it wants. They give the BIS effective jurisdiction, or perhaps a better way of saying it is, no American court has jurisdiction over them. Any case brought to court would be tossed out because no court has jurisdiction. Try bringing a case against state police to a federal court and see what happens. The federal government has no say over state police matters. Therefore their courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case. You would have to file with the appropriate jurisdiction before a legal body will even read your suit.
In the case of any suit filed against the BIS or any agent of the BIS, it wouldn't have to "stand up in court" because no case can ever be brought by our laws (included as links in the post), and no court can have jurisdiction to hear the case, unless the Rulers of the BIS allow it.
from https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter7/subchapter18&edition=prelim which you linked (emphasis mine):
I'm fairly certain this implies that the US president can issue an EO revoking immunity for the organization under certain circomstances.
Pretty sure that could be challenged by SOCTUS on a constitutional basis.
Again, not trying to be a dick here, just pointing out what I see, lol.
This states explicitly that the powers of the President to revoke such privileges only apply to those organizations which were instigated by EO:
The word "and" is very important there. The organizations this presidential power of revocation applies to are the ones that were passed by law AND were initiated by EO.
It has a list on that page of which organizations this power applies to. It includes things like the United Nations, the WHO, the IMF, WTO, etc. all of which were started by EO. They are all big dogs to be sure, and agents of the Cabal, but they are no where near as big as the BIS, or even its underling, The Fed. The trick here is, neither the BIS nor The Fed was started by an EO. In the case of the BIS, it self-declared itself the ruler of the world. No other country had authority to incorporate it. In the exact same way as the people of the United States in 1776 self-declared their sovereignty, so did the BIS. In both cases, everyone else agreed. In the case of the U.S., it took a war before everyone else agreed. The BIS just did it, and there was no contest, because by that time (1931ish), all countries were already ruled by the same people who started the BIS.
Maybe, I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's a violation of the constitution since the legislative branch has the right to take care of such treaties. SCOTUS revoking the treaty with the BIS would amount to an act of war, and SCOTUS doesn't have the power to effect that.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice. Since they never have before when such cases against The Fed (an agent of the BIS) have been brought before them, I doubt it would happen. And why would they? This is just the legal stuff. It's just dressing on top of the real way they control the world (coercion, complicity, bribery, religious beliefs, etc.).
There is no "you must agree" going on here. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It is essential that you dissent if you have reason to do so (or just want to). If the goal is the Truth, it is also essential that you bring what you find to the debate table. This isn't about me (or anyone else) being "right." The need to "be right" is a demand of the ego, it has nothing to do with investigations into the Truth of things. We are here to find the Truth, we are not here to make ourselves feel better with lies and silencing dissension; that's what Facebook is for.
In this case you have brought your protest, you have clearly laid it out AND you have brought the evidence to support it. There could be no better path towards the goal of truth than that. In my book this dissention gets top marks (not that my book has any authority whatsover, just sayin'). It also makes me happy because it helps advance my sole intent (finding the truth). Whether I (or anyone else) agrees with your assessment of the evidence or not, this is absolutely the way. PLEASE keep it up.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice.
There is that...
Yeah, I'm kinda too confrontation-averse for my own good, and internet discussions have a bad habit of turning sour on a dime, so I get a little gun-shy sometimes, lol.
I suggest a few things to take care of "discussions turning sour":
First, more than anything else, people just want to be heard. While there are certainly exceptions, for the most part people just want to know that you have understood what they have said. It is generally more important than being agreed with. As long as you address what they have said in a way that signifies you have understood them, it usually works out OK in the end.
Second, when the above is not true, recognize that each person is going to come to the Truth (or get closer and closer to it) by their own path. Of course some will never make it, because they don't really want to, and that is another thing to consider. You certainly shouldn't work towards appeasement of them. They are stuck in their own hell by choice. You can't bring everyone along on the path towards the Truth. They will either start that journey or not as they choose. You can bring them information, or attempt to help them, but ultimately the choice is up to them, and there is nothing you can or should do about it. Don't let their "bad" decisions interfere with your efforts on your own path.
Third, efforts to investigate the Truth can only be made in earnest. It is only when we let go of the ego's need to be "right" that we can take on that endeavor honestly. As long as you are not trying to prove yourself right for your ego's case, then you are probably on the right path.
It's tricky, because we shouldn't give up our intuition, and we shouldn't "just agree" because someone makes sense. Don't ever give up your own critical thinking just because someone makes a good argument. It's just that you shouldn't hold on to your thoughts purely for the "need to be right". It's a perpetual self-monitoring thing, with many likely failures on the path towards mastery (I am far from that end myself, I'm just better than I was before).
So what I'm really saying is, be considerate, and respectful, but don't shy away from the effort to get closer to the truth. Recognize you are on your path, they are on theirs, and it's OK if you don't have Happy Happy Joy Joy interactions as you pass each other by.