Belanger on trial!

[SteveUK]

So much fakeness it's impossible to keep track of

[Burnaby49]

Well Belanger does have one advantage over the judge. I think it's common ground between us that a court is a fake court if there is no way of enforcing its judgments, for example your common law courts. And a judge sitting presiding over this court is a fake judge. That makes the guy harassing Belanger a fake judge. But, as I see it, Belanger is actually a real minister because he says so. Why not? There's really no test because nobody cares. Set up your own claimed church and claim to be a minister in it and you're good to go.

[Burnaby49]

On to our battle of the titans, minister Belanger vs Alfred Lambremont Webre. Who the hell is Webre you ask? And well you might. He's a Vancouver boy yet I've never heard of him. But RationalWiki has;

Alfred Lambremont Webre (b. 1942) is an American UFO believer, 9/11 truther and conspiracy crank.[1][2][3][4] He claims to have been a co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and the Space Preservation Act.

He is, with Stephen Bassett, the co-drafter of the Citizen Hearing, a proposed public forum to create a fact finding process surrounding extraterrestrial phenomena and alleged government suppression of such facts from the public.[5] He is also on the Board of Advisers at free energy nuts the New Energy Movement.[6][7] He is the congressional coordinator for The Disclosure Project.[8]

More recently, Webre has made various claims about the "chronogarchy," a long-running conspiracy to control the world via time travel.[9]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alfred_Webre

Born 1942? He makes geriatric Burnby49 feel like youngster again. He also holds a position of prominence in The Encyclopedia of American Loons;

Alfred Lambremont Webre is an almost legendary UFO crank, 9/11 truther and conspiracy nut, and one of those people that really justify the existence of places like whale.to or Red Ice Creations. Webre claims to have been a co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and the Space Preservation Act, and is, with one Stephen Bassett, the co-drafter of the Citizen Hearing, a proposed public forum to create a fact-finding process surrounding extraterrestrial phenomena and alleged government suppression of such facts from the public. Of course, all the facts are ostensibly already on the table, but Webre would not in a million years accept facts that don’t line up with what he already “knows”. He is also on the Board of Advisers for the New Energy Movement, a free energy lunacy group, and congressional coordinator for The Disclosure Project (I am not completely sure what that is, but with Webre as a coordinator I sort of have some idea).

The brouhaha over his Wikipedia entry is rather illustrative. When it was proposed for deletion, Webre’s fans, well, went nuts (a figure of speech, of course – none of his fans were ever but), culminating in Webre’s own, pithy assessment of the situation: “My view is that Wikipedia’s action continues to be part of the CIA time travel controlled US Presidency's retaliation against me for having exposed Soetoro/Obama’s participation in a 1980–83 secret CIA jumproom project.” Indeed, such is his view.

And he was the first courageous reporter to uncover and make public Obama's trip to Mars to meet with his alien masters!

Webre has accordingly written a number of books on exopolitics, consistently taking a completely insane and evidence-free, speculative approach. In 2012, he launched ExoUniversity.org, an “educational” entity offering online courses on exo-sciences, psi-sciences, and exopolitics, with an Earth Day forum entitled “An Introduction to Time Travel with an Emphasis on Teleportation.” Indeed – though it seemed impossible – Webre’s claims seem to have gotten even more bizarre lately. In 2011, for instance, he launched a boycott (of Examiner.com, it seems) to protest the CIA coverup of president Obama’s trips to Mars (the US government apparently has a secret base there where they meet with aliens).

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/ ... webre.html

He's also know at Bad UFO's where he got into yet another squabble about his claims of Obama's Martian friends and the CIA cover-up of Obama's trip to Mars, presumably on the taxpayer's dime;

https://badufos.blogspot.com/2011/12/jo ... up-of.html

All in all, Alfred's a worthy antagonist for Belanger!

But the above is actually all an aside to the reason for his his squabble with Belanger. He's a world renowned jurist, recognized internationally as a judge in a war crimes tribunal. He's convicted George Bush of war crimes! Alfred is a member of the governance of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCT), also known as the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. Sounds impressive except;

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCT), also known as the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, is a Malaysian organisation established in 2007 by Mahathir Mohamad to investigate war crimes.[1][2] The KLWCC was instigated as an alternative to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which Mahathir accused of bias in its selection of cases to cover.[3] The tribunal does not have United Nations recognition and its verdicts are only symbolic.

Legitimacy of the tribunal

The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, has suggested the tribunal is a private enterprise with no legal basis and questions its legitimacy.[15] The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have more than symbolic significance.[16]

A statement on the tribunal's website states: "In the event the tribunal convicts any of the accused, the only sanction is that the name of the guilty person will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicized worldwide."[17]

So even the tribunal itself says that it's total enforcement power is to put names in a register. What names, you might ask? These so far;

Convictions invoking universal jurisdiction

In November 2011 the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.[7][8][9][10]

In May 2012 after hearing testimony for a week from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counselors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture.[11][12] The tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.[13]

In November 2013, the tribunal found the State of Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people and convicted former Israeli general Amos Yaron for crimes against humanity and genocide for his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lum ... Commission

Some points to note. Firstly, anyone seen any sign that Tony Blair or George Bush, or indeed anyone on the list, have been even slightly inconvenienced by the Tribunal's judgments against them? Secondly, note those names again. The brave bold Commissioners seem to have been very careful to pick targets they know won't bother to retaliate. They restrict themselves to the purported war crimes of western democratic leaders. Do you see them passing judgment on Assad of Syria? Putin for starting the wars in Georgia and the Crimea? Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince for the war against Yemen? Antagonizing them has consequences. Thirdly, the last judgment was in 2013 and the Tribunal has been dormant in the five years since. Apparently even they recognized the total futility of their endeavors. Here's an example of the kind of court orders they puked out while still pretending the were actually of any significance, their conviction of Bush and Blair;

The two accused took the law into their own hands. They acted with deceit and with falsehood. They acted in flagrant violation of international law of war and peace. In the absence of any convincing evidence, defence assertions lack credibility. They appear to be fig leaves for hiding naked economic and political ambitions.

We therefore find that the charge against the two accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The two accused are, therefore, found guilty as charged and the two accused are accordingly
convicted on the charge.

9. ORDERS

1. The Tribunal in accordance with Article 31 of our Charter, recommends to the
Commission to file reports with the International Criminal Court against the two
accused.

2. The Tribunal in accordance with Article 32 recommends to the Commission that the
name of the two convicted criminals be included in the Commission's Register of War
Criminals and publicized accordingly.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

First, the Commission must invoke the Nuremberg law to report Bush, Blair and their accomplices for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity under Part VI of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Second, the Commission must file reports of genocide and crimes against humanity with the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Third, the General Assembly of the United Nations must be approached to pass a resolution to end the American occupation of Iraq.

Fourth, the findings of this Tribunal must be communicated to all countries that have acceded to the Rome Statute and are possessed of universal jurisdiction.

Fifth, the UN Security Council must reassert itself and ensure that true sovereignty is transferred to the Iraqi people as soon as possible with the assistance of a UN Peacekeeping Force. The autonomy of the newly installed Iraqi government must be ensured.

Anybody see any of that actually happen?

Alfred's very, very touchy about being called out on his judicial legitimacy. This forms the core of his squabble with Belanger. Somewhere on his Facebook page Belanger stated that Alfred wasn't a real judge. I can't find the original posting but whatever it said it triggered hypersensitive Alfred into storming on to Belanger's page with self-righteous bluster;

Alfred Lambremont Webre To Edward Jay Robin Belanger:

What gives you the right to defame and slander me online? One more comment such as you have made to Karen MacDonald and my Canadian lawyers will sue you for defamation
Alfred Lambremont Webre
Member District of Columbia Bar
Registry #412541
Vancouver BC
October 24, 2018

Alfred Lambremont Webre Examine this very carefully. I expect your written apology.

Just like you expect George Bush to turn himself in to your Commission for sentencing?

Belanger fired back;

Edward Jay Robin Belanger your just posing symbolically as a judge but are not recognised officially is what that says you posted as proof

Edward Jay Robin Belanger do you grasp the difference between being recognised and not?

Edward Jay Robin Belanger The tribunal does not have United Nations recognition and its verdicts are only symbolic.

But Alfred isn't taking this kind of slander;

Alfred Lambremont Webre Edward Jay Robin Belanger There are other views. I am not in my office now and am on iPhone.

You are attempting to undermine the legitimate jurisdiction of proper Tribunals of Conscience.
Legitimate legal scourges, including the state prosecutors of South Africa have recognized the jurisdiction of our judgment against PM Tony Blair

Alfred Lambremont Webre Edward Jay Robin Belanger Impostor as to what? I sign my name Judge, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal 2011-12 with genuine pride and accomplishment At the very least our verdict stopped international travel by George W. Bush and Richard B Cheney, most especially to the Vancouver club!

Back and forth, back and forth the battle raged;

Edward Jay Robin Belanger funny I cannot find a government that recognises you as a verifiable judge

Alfred Lambremont Webre There is a legitimate international legal debate as to our jurisdiction under International Humanitarian Law

Alfred Lambremont Webre You must be a CSIS sponsored troll and no friend of my colleague the Hon Paul Hellyer

Edward Jay Robin Belanger validate the claim or stop claiming it

Alfred Lambremont Webre You are an ignoramus and a slanderer. I shall file more legal authorities on you when back in my office. If you defame me again my lawyers will sue you

Edward Jay Robin Belanger comeon now shut me up and show the world your not operating on wishful speculation

Alfred Lambremont Webre Edward Jay Robin Belanger I shall.

Alfred Lambremont Webre Edward Jay Robin Belanger I am also a judge of character and mind and you are a person of narrow mind and limited character. Now, that is my opinion as a graduate Master of Counseling, University of Texas, MEd, 1997

Alfred Lambremont Webre Edward Jay Robin Belanger We’ll see how high that flies in Provincial Court!

Edward Jay Robin Belanger you will have to prove your a real judge recognized in law...it appears the UN does not recognise your defacto authority..remeber the issue here is if you can prove your recognised as a verifiable judge sworn in as taking the Oath then I will concede but until then you mat find this case of interest about false oathed judges..

Edward Jay Robin Belanger So I will repeat here so it is clear,,If you can prove your a recognised judge with a valid Oath as required by law I will apologise...aside from that excellent offer I am not sure what your expecting

Edward Jay Robin Belanger I think I may have embarrassed Alfred these wiki posts have him with his foot in his mouth

Edward Jay Robin Belanger so sorry the international players in international law do not recognize you as a judge and since they do not why should I? Maybe mention them in your suit

But right or wrong is all irrelevant Let Alfred Bluster all he wants, Belanger has an airtight defense against lawsuits, legitimate or not;

Edward Jay Robin Belanger you cannot sue me as I am upper lower case and am enjoined in a case regarding that with the federal court who accepted our upper lower case claim as men not being persons.. Your lawyers have bogus oaths that must compete with duty to accommodate international covenant on civil and political rights of getting my name correct,,,policy doth not erase signatory obligations based in ratification

And, in any case, what would even a successful lawsuit against Belanger achieve? Even he agrees it's futile;

Edward Jay Robin Belanger besides even if you could lay a claim there is nothing I have that you could take anyways...I own nothing and am on a disability...you cannot garnishee disability checks

I suppose the issue comes down to how you define a judge. If me and some drinking buddies form our own little court, appoint me the judge, and I start spewing out judgments banning all sales of Labatts and Molsens products anywhere in the world does that make me a judge? Or does my court actually have to have the legal power to enforce my judgments before I'm actually considered a judge? Alfred goes with definition A, Belanger with B. For once igt's hard not to agree with Belanger.

Back to Alfred being a Vancouver boy. It's all on his FB page.

https://m.facebook.com/alfred.webre?fref=ufi

But I print the above at considerable personal risk. His page also states;

PRIVACY NOTICE:

Warning--any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or contractor or contractee and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites for purposes of invasion of privacy and surveillance, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photo's or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s) or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law and will subject you to substantial monetary damages.

You demand privacy? For public postings you voluntarily chose to make on Facebook, the most public non-private forum in the world? A suggestion Alfred. If you are so concerned about preserving your legal right to privacy DON"T POST ANYTHING YOU CONSIDER PRIVATE ON FACEBOOK. Once you do it's fair game because you've relinquished any privacy rights to that information. You can't have it both ways, You can't be both public and private on the same information based on your subjective judgment of the motives of readers. Once it's out there you can't control how it's used. If this is an issue for you, don't post. Actually it's a sweet scam if you could pull it off. Just sue anyone who visits your site and comments about it on the basis that they violated your worthless privacy notice.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Truly a diametric opposite to a Battle of the Titans.

[notorial dissent]

Oh, Great. One krank calling out another for being a krank.

[bmxninja357]

Years back my brother and i had a place together. I bought an actual gavel at value village. It lived on the kitchen table and whenever we had a dispute whoever got the gavel first and banged it was right. It was the judgement.

This sounds less valid than our court.
(bang goes the gavel)
Ninj

[grixit]

Truly a diametric opposite to a Battle of the Titans.

The movie "3000 Miles to Graceland" starts with a fight between two scorpions on the edge of a road. Special effects are used to transform them into futuristic battle machines out of a heavy metal video. It's worth watching even if you don't like the rest of the movie. But it ends with them both getting run over.

[Burnaby49]

Years back my brother and i had a place together. I bought an actual gavel at value village. It lived on the kitchen table and whenever we had a dispute whoever got the gavel first and banged it was right. It was the judgement.

This sounds less valid than our court.
(bang goes the gavel)
Ninj

I wrote;

I suppose the issue comes down to how you define a judge. If me and some drinking buddies form our own little court, appoint me the judge, and I start spewing out judgments banning all sales of Labatts and Molsens products anywhere in the world does that make me a judge? Or does my court actually have to have the legal power to enforce my judgments before I'm actually considered a judge? Alfred goes with definition A, Belanger with B. For once igt's hard not to agree with Belanger.

Based on my definition B you're more of a real judge than Alfred and your kitchen table more of a real court than the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Both you and your brother (the parties in the various disputes) agreed that the table had jurisdiction over you and you both also agreed that you were both bound by the gavel's judgments.

[bmxninja357]

But burnaby49 your ruling is invalid. You didnt bang the gavel.


Peace
Nin

[Burnaby49]

But burnaby49 your ruling is invalid. You didnt bang the gavel.


Peace
Nin

That's why you have a real court and I don't. If you'd stop selfishly hogging the damn gavel maybe I could end the scourge of Molsens and Labatts products blighting Canada's pubbing landscape.

[bmxninja357]

Does this mean i now have jurisdiction in both my kitchen and bc? I need a raise!

And thats not the first time i have been called a gavel hog.

Peace
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

I'm not finished with your kitchen court, I haven't beaten that simile to death yet. I'm working on a posting (a BIG posting) analizing whether or not Webre is a real judge. In order to do that I have to determine whether or not the Tribunal is a real court and whether or not their verdicts are in accordance with real court verdicts. A surprisingly difficult task. Not because the answer isn't obvious but because of the abysmal lack of real information on which to base the analysis.

At the end I bring the Burnaby49's Boozerama Buddies Court and the Ninja Kitchen Table Court back into play to compare their legal authority to that of Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. My tentative conclusion is that my court is fully the equal of the Tribunal in all respects but, sadly, both of us rank as lesser courts in comparison to both your Kitchen Table Court and to Judge Judy.

[eric]

I'm settling this matter now and forever by claiming jurisdiction over both of you based on the following criteria:
1. My gavel is older than yours - the sounding board is from 1920;
2. Since we all know the symbol is more important than what it represents, this particular gavel and sounding board was used in village and township council meetings in an out of the way spot in the Ottawa Valley from 1920 until 2004.
The sounding board has quite the sad history - it's actually a dead man's penny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_ ... medallion)
Researched the provenance of said item and it's not a happy story but not atypical for the region where men, and in this case a boy, enlisted rather than be one short step away from starvation.

[bmxninja357]

Eric, thats a cool fact on the dead mans penny

Unfortunately you lack jurisdiction in my kitchen. I cant speak for burnaby49 but as for my court the ruling remains you have as much jurisdiction as a food court yet less than a dennys court.

(bangs gavel)

Peace,
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

You can both cut out this inconsequential childish bickering about who has the best fake court. Burnaby49 defines what is or isn't a real fake court on this thread and I'm about to do so in a posting so abtruse, so mind-numbing long but of so little interest to anyone with an actual life that it would take a person far more battle-hardened against boredom than either of you two amateurs to finish it. It requires the dedicated training of a very special person, someone like a career income tax auditor fascinated by the multiple ramifications of section 86 of the Canadian Income Tax Act.

Be warned, I use the word 'barratry'. That's the kind of posting you're facing.

[Burnaby49]

OK gang, here you go. Probably the most unreadable while at least marginally literate posting yet made on Quatloos. My analysis of whether Alfred Lambremont Webre is, or is not a real judge. To make it even more difficult I've not proofread it.

I decided to do a little research into the powers of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission) by analyzing one of their decisions. The one convicting president Bush seemed as good as any. You can get a copy of the judgment here;

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... M1q2zuSSSh

or here;

www.cljlaw.com/131129_JudgementonGenocide.pdf

You'll note that the court of record was not the Commission but the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal heard the case then passed responsibility for carrying out its judgment to the Commission. The Tribunal does not appear to have a website. It does have a Facebook page with nothing much on it;

https://www.facebook.com/events/kuala-l ... 805450667/

The first step in analyzing the decision was to get a copy of the Tribunal's regulating document to determine if the decision was rendered in accordance with its legal authority. All courts have document authorizing their activities, responsibilities and powers, for example the Supreme Court of British Columbia is regulated by The Supreme Court Act [RSBC 1996]. It turned out that the Tribunal is regulated by a charter so, obviously, to understand the powers and limitations of the Tribunal it's necessary to review the charter. Obtaining a copy of the defining document for such an important organization was a surprisingly difficult task. Neither the Commission or Tribunal appear to have websites so I couldn't obtain a copy of the charter from either of them. I found many internet articles casually commenting on the charter and its vast reach but Google could only find two on-line sources that claimed to have an actual copy of it. One was so buggy that I declined to use it. You can get your own copy of the charter from the second one;

https://www.legal-tools.org/en/browse/record/f2ac03/

This website where it was stored has nothing to do with either the Tribunal or Commission. It states that it downloaded its copy of the charter from;

http://criminalisewar.org/the-foundation/klfcw-charter/

but if you go to that website you'll find it's been inactive for a year and a half and now just flogs legal services and car insurance tips.

Since this is the only copy of the charter I could find I have to assume that it's the legitimate regulating charter for the Tribunal. The preamble tells where the Tribunal gets its authority but it's like going down a rabbit hole trying to get to the heart of it. The Charter says that the Commission's authority is bestowed on it by the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War inc., it's parent organization and the owner of the defunct website discussed above. This in turn is owned by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation;

https://www.perdana4peace.org/

which is, in turn, the successor to the Perdana Global Peace Organization (PGPO).The PGPO held a 2007 conference in Kuala Lumpur called the Perdana Global Peace Forum where the attendees apparently voted unanimously that war is bad and peace is good. The conference attendees decided it was time to stop their endless blovating about peace and finally take effective action to end war. So they did it in typical conference style by having a meaningless vote to set up a powerless fake Commission with the mandate of pretending to try and bring warmongers to justice. The charter establishing the Commission and Tribunal was the result. So the entire legal authority of the Tribunal rests on a useless feel-good vote by a bunch of peaceniks at a conference nobody otherwise remembers.

Did I say the Tribunal has "the goal of finally bringing warmongers to justice "? Sorry, I of course meant carefully selected warmongers. Docile first-world warmongers who won't bite back. It may not be entirely a coincidence that the Tribunal stopped hearing cases or issuing judgments at the point where wars were starting to get initiated by third world dictators with known proclivities to violently target international critics. So peace-loving leaders like Putin, Assad, and Mohammed bin Salman get a pass.

There is some unseemly internet criticism accusing the Commission of being just a front for anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian fanatics who are appointed as Tribunal judges. Totally unfair, the Foundation's judgments against Israel and Israeli officials were totally unbiased without any hidden political agendas. Just ask the notable jurist Judge Webre, he's written a very extensive article debunking that foul canard;

https://exopolitics.blogs.com/breaking_ ... lized.html

Apart from bringing criminal western political leaders to justice the PGPO has also held conferences on other matters vital to world peace such as researching 9/11 conspiracies to uncover the real truth of what happened;

9/11 Revisited " Seeking the Truth"

The aim of this Conference is to engender dialogue , both broad and in depth surrounding 9/11 as the credibility of the official narrative has been seriously questioned by researchers, academics and professionals throughout the world. From the day’s presentation and discussion, we hope to lay the groundwork for the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War to follow up by way of a legal procedure regarding the 9/11 event.

Recognising the effects of 9/11 worldwide, PGPF sought to comprehend event prior to the tragedy and its global consequences. The conference took place at the Putra World Trade Centre with sessions boasting international speakers with on the ground experience and expertise.

So on to a review of the historic judgment against war-criminal Bush. It Started out well;

UNANIMOUS VIEWS AND FINDINGS

The two accused, George W Bush and Anthony L. Blair, at the material times the Heads of Government of the United States of America and the United Kingdom respectively, have been charged by the Chief Prosecutor of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission with having committed CRIMES AGAINST PEACE, in that they have planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. The Particulars of the Charge state, inter alia, that on 19 March 2003, the two accused launched a war against Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations and without just cause whatsoever.

But apparently the proceedings weren't taken particularly seriously by the defendants.

The two accused were not present at the proceedings though duly served. Nor were any attorneys or counsel present in their behalf.

But they still deserve justice so the court appointed some totally unbiased shills as fake defense attorneys. They had to be totally unbiased, the Charter required it;

Pursuant to Article 15 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission & the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Charter”), an Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Tribunal to assist the Tribunal by presenting an unbiased assessment of the charge and evidence against the accused. The Amicus Curiae entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of both the accused.

The Tribunal seems to be very sensitive to charges that it has no jurisdiction to actually, you know, hold trials and render judgment. Both this, and the trial against Israel had the Amicus Curiae feed softball leading questions to the court in order to give it the opportunity to confirm it's legitimacy;

2. Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction

Amicus Curiae Jason Kay Kit Leong raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the case. After listening to arguments by the Chief Prosecutor and the Amicus Curiae, the Tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction and the proceedings then continued.

Under Article 7 of Part I of the Charter, the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction not only in respect of crimes against peace, but also in respect of crimes against humanity, crime of genocide and war crimes.

So, over to the Charter where Article 7 of Part 1 says, on page 32 if you're leafing through your copy;

Jurisdiction of the Commission and the Tribunal

1 - The Commission and Tribunal shall have jurisdiction under this chapter in respect to the following crimes;

(a) Crimes against peace;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) Crime of genocide;
(d) War crimes

Sounds all on the up and up to me except, except . . . . .

Article 1
Establishment of the Institutions

There shall hereby be established the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Legal Team and the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Secretariat whose functions and jurisdiction, respectively, shall be governed by this Charter.

Article 4
Legal Status and Powers of the Commission and Tribunal

The Commission and Tribunal shall have international legal personality. They shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of their functions and the fulfillment of their purposes.

So essentially the Tribunal has been granted the open-ended power to do whatever the hell it wants if, in the Tribunal's judgment, it is required to fulfill "their purposes". So who granted them tis unlimited legal power?

Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Kualu Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal

[As adapted by Resolution No. 6 of the Kualu Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize inc and entered as Statute VIIIA and Statute VIIIB respectively in the Statute Book of the Foundation . . . . .]

In other words an insignificant NGO owned by another insignificant NGO, neither with any legal powers granted them by any state, has deemed itself able to grant the full legal judicial powers inherent in an actual governing country to the Tribunal. An equivalent local example would be the Burnaby Boy's Soccer Association purporting to bestow Canada's full judicial powers on Ninja's Kitchen Table Court with the mandate to prosecute war criminals in any manner it sees fit. Anyone see a problem with this?

Fine, on to the evidence considered by the court. It should be noted that in the real world of real courts, rather than special interest group pretend courts, that genocide and crimes against humanity are considered very serious offenses that require a very high evidentiary standard. What are the Tribunal's defined evidentiary standards, it's mandated rules of evidence? Whatever the hell it wants!

Article 6
The Tribunal

7. The Tribunal shall make out its own rules for carrying out its function including holding case management proceedings. In particular, it shall lay down rules of procedure and evidence.

At this point you begin to wonder why a trial is even required in order to convict. A thought obviously shared and acted on by the busy members of the Tribunal because it's clear from the judgment that the trial was very perfunctory. The judgment itself is only eleven pages. I've seem longer parking violation judgments. The entire evidentiary base entered into the record is this grab-bag of rubbish;

It is the undisputed facts of the case that the first accused had contemplated invading Iraq as far back as 15 September 2001 and had confided in the second accused of this intention. In 2002, the two accused, without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, had directed air strikes against Iraq in order to degrade Iraq's air defenses, in preparation for its invasion in 2003. A memorandum of the UK cabinet dated July 23, 2002 (known as the “Downing Street Memo”) had recorded a meeting between the second accused and his intelligence officials.

On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441. The text of this Resolution clearly does not authorise the use of military action to compel its compliance. Both the accused would have been fully aware of the limitations of this Resolution.

The second accused had admitted whilst giving his testimony at the Chilcot Inquiry on 14 January 2011 that his Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith, had advised that a second Security Council Resolution is necessary under international law to authorise the use of military force against Iraq. It is also an established fact that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The two accused had over the years since the Iraq war admitted that they knew or believed the intelligence reports on Iraq's WMD to be unreliable. Yet both accused proceeded to wage war on Iraq based on a false and contrived basis.

More than 1.4 million Iraqis have been killed (and continue to die) as a direct and indirect consequence of the war waged by both accused against Iraq.

And that's it for evidence! Who needs it? Then a few pages of largely legally irrelevant arguments, counter arguments, and analysis by the body of eminent persons with legal qualifications (that's what the Charter calls the judges) that I won't bother you with and done. On to the verdict.

8. VERDICT

“The essence of legality is the principled, predictable, and consistent application of a single
standard for the strong and the weak alike. Selective manipulation of international law by
powerful states undermines its legitimacy.”

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime. It
“cannot be justified under any reasonable interpretation of international law”. It violates “the
outer limits of laws regulating the use of force”. It amounts to mass murder. Unlawful use of
force in Iraq “threatens to return us to a world in which the law of the jungle prevails over the
rule of law, with potentially disastrous consequences for the human rights not only of the
Iraqis but of people throughout the region and the world”.

The future of the UN and of the international law of war is also at stake. The unauthorized
military action in Iraq undermines the system of collective security embedded in the UN
Charter in order to protect humanity from a recurrence of the carnage of World War II.
The two accused took the law into their own hands. They acted with deceit and with
falsehood. They acted in flagrant violation of international law of war and peace. In the
absence of any convincing evidence, defence assertions lack credibility. They appear to be
fig leaves for hiding naked economic and political ambitions.

We therefore find that the charge against the two accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The two accused are, therefore, found guilty as charged and the two accused are accordingly
convicted on the charge.

Hold on, did I miss something? Convicted on what charge? The verdict said;

First, the Commission must invoke the Nuremberg law to report Bush, Blair and their accomplices for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity under Part VI of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Second, the Commission must file reports of genocide and crimes against humanity with the
International Criminal Court (ICC).

Where did genocide, Crimes against humanity and war crimes come from? Bush was charged and apparently convicted of CRIMES AGAINST PEACE, an offense that, conveniently, is not defined in the judgment. I suppose, like pornography, the Tribunal knows it when they see it. Well, unlike a real court where convictions have consequences, the Tribunal doesn't have to limit the conviction to the actual charges at trial. Under Article 7 of Part I of the Charter the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to not only pass judgment in respect to crimes against peace but also in respect to crimes against humanity, crime of genocide and war crimes. So, apparently, the Tribunal can charge a head of state with whatever they want, convict him of it, then toss numerous other offenses into the conviction that weren't included in the original charges. It's like charging and convicting Burnaby49 of stealing a case of Strathcona Brewery's new fall Radler from his neighbour's fridge then tossing in guilty verdicts for rape, arson and barratry (I've long yearned to use that word in a posting) just for the hell of it.

So, with guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt, what's the sentence nowadays for genocide, war crimes, and mass murder?

9. ORDERS

1. The Tribunal in accordance with Article 31 of our Charter, recommends to the
Commission to file reports with the International Criminal Court against the two
accused.

2. The Tribunal in accordance with Article 32 recommends to the Commission that the
name of the two convicted criminals be included in the Commission's Register of War
Criminals and publicized accordingly.

That's it for genocide and mass murder? A note to the ICC saying that Bush has been a bad, bad boy and putting his name in a ledger? Let me hazard a guess why. The Tribunal knows that it's only power is pumping out worthless public relations bullshit and it has less real judicial power than Judge Judy. So the Tribunal was very careful to tailor the 'punishment' it sentence Bush to in the judgment to whatever it, and the equally bogus Commission could do themselves without relying on any outside assistance. Which, pathetically, came down to mailing a letter and writing down a name in the naughty boy's detention book.

So back to the question that generated Belanger's squabble with judge Webre and this analysis. Is Webre actually a judge? It depends on how you define being a judge. The UK forum has a discussion on the British Common Law courts. A court established by a bunch of halfwits who got together and concluded that, if they sat down together at the same place at the same time and pretended really hard to be a real court then somehow, by magic, they became a real court and could issue real court judgments on, apparently, any issue. The Common Law Court was willing to make a decision in their favour on anything that was bothering them if they coughed up a nominal court and document fee. Issues like eliminating their arrears of counsel taxes or other debts, canceling criminal charges, ordering authorities to return apprehended children. Great stuff until the victorious plaintiffs in the Common Law Court cough, cough trials triumphantly took copies of the decisions to the losers and ordered them to obey the court's orders. Surprisingly, instead of getting compliance, they were invariably told to fuck off. Social services kept their children, banks continued with foreclosures, and the counsel still demanded their taxes.

This is almost an exact analogy to the Tribunal. It went busily about its business of pretending to hold fair unbiased trials of war criminals and, like the Common Law Court, spewed out judgments that had absolutely no legal power or effect because the Tribunal has no power whatever to enforce its judgments. Foreseeing this the Tribunal pretended that it had enforcement power by limiting the penalty in its judgments to trivial issues that it could do itself. But if you cut through all the pretentious high-minded pontificating about the Tribunal's noble goal of ending war forever this is effectively no different than the self-interested and equally worthless judgments of the Common Law Court.

Therefore, if you accept the Tribunal as a real court with real judges then you also have to accept the Common Law Court as a real court with real judges. Taking this a further step you'd also have to accept Burnaby49's Beer Buddies' Boozerama sessions as a real court since I can issue totally worthless unenforceable judgments just as good as those of the Tribunal or the Common Law Court. It's open season, anything you want to make up is a real court! So, is Alfred Lambremont Webre a real judge? On the basis of the parameters I've set in this analysis the answer has to be yes as long as Burnaby49 is also recognized as a real judge. And let's not forget the judges of the pie eating contest at the Lafayette, Louisiana County fair (an event I actually attended). They qualify too. It's like being a Kentucky Colonel. Real, legitimate military designations is desired but not required.

But, if you go one step further, one very small step, up to Ninja's Kitchen Table Court with His Honour Judge Gavel presiding and you consider this to be the minimal level of court authority that can be considered legitimate, a court with with judgments accepted by the parties at trial, then neither the Tribunal or the Burnaby's Boozerama make the cut. The difference from our courts? As I explained in a prior post all of the parties affected by the Kitchen Table Court's decisions (Ninja and his brother) accepted it's jurisdiction and both agreed to abide by Judge Gavel's decisions. The Tribunal has as much ability to meet these absolutely minimum standards as does my court and the nitwits at the Common Law Court. So, as Belanger rightly said, Webre can fairly claim to be a judge at a beauty pageant but not a judge in an actual real court.

Although, on the other hand, I might be doing Webre a bit of injustice with that last paragraph. I'm forced to admit that my Molsons ban is totally without any legal effect whatever but Webre has posted on Belanger's Facebook page that, as a result of the heroic efforts of the Tribunal, ex-president Bush is no longer welcome at the Vancouver Club. Bravo for making a difference!

[notorial dissent]

Oh. My. Oh the poor slaughtered defenseless electrons.

[Burnaby49]

On October 24, 2018 I wrote;

In other Belanger news his drug trial is scheduled to continue on January 30th.

But, tempus fugit, time marches on, and I'm easily distracted by other things and somehow I never got back to Minister Belanger's trial. It turns out he was convicted of having an illegal grow-op last February.

In a prior post Jeffery asked;

How much time he looking at when he’s found guilty?

I don't know precisely because he was sentenced to time served, whatever that was. The court chose not to release a decision, a deplorably common event in Canada's provincial courts. So, barring the unlikely event that a decision will finally be released, that's all we're going to know about Belanger's trial. Sadly there's no Burnaby49 equivalent in Edmonton to attend trials and dish out all the details.

[DNetolitzky]

In response to the inquiry concerning Belanger's recent criminal proceedings, Belanger has been found guilty in two recent Alberta Provincial Court proceedings, and was sentenced as follows:

- motor vehicle offences: 30 days - R v Belanger (20 September 2018), Edmonton 180222747P1 (Alta PC)
- drug possession offence: 45 days - R v Belanger (3 April 2019), Edmonton 180995987P1 (Alta PC)

Belanger had spent a substantial amount of time in remand detention in the summer of 2018, so at least some of those sentences were probably 'time served'.

Donald Netolitzky

[notorial dissent]

On the plus side he hasn't been having to worry about room and board.