Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 5, 2015 - Project Camelot

01:56:34

PROJECT CAMELOT: MICHAEL H. DUNN AND PRINCE MATTHEW RE ACIJ

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, I'm Kerry Cassidy from Project Camelot.
	I'm here with Prince Matthew, Prince Judge Matthew is how I think his moniker, and we'll get some clarity on that, and Michael Henry Dunn, and they are going to be talking about the launch of their first licensed international human rights court by and for the people.
	This is an arbitration court of international justice and the letters are A-C-I-J. It's intended to enforce human rights laws which are violated on a daily basis by corrupt plutocratic factions.
	And topics we're going to be discussing are including how the court was formed, enforceability, authority, and the intended impact.
	And the nature of ACIJ's grassroots support group, Justice for Humanity.
	And I've got a number of articles that they've written that are including a press release, which are linked on my website, which I've got here on the screen for you right there.
	So if you haven't gone to projectcamelotportal.com, you can also get there at projectcamelot.org or projectcamelot.tv.
	All those should take you to the same email, I mean, website address, and basically you'll be able to get the links there.
	And we've got a bio for both men here.
	And rather than read their bios, since there are two of them, I'm going to actually let them go into detail and introduce themselves.
	Okay, and so first, why don't we introduce...
	Prince Judge Matthew, and talk a little bit about your background, if you don't mind, Matthew, and how you came to be in this place, representing this very interesting new launch of this International People's Court, in a sense.
	Okay.
	Well, normally we start with explaining the titles, because it's exotic, it's unusual in the modern era, and people have a lot of preconceptions about that, so we usually start with that first.
	I am legalized as a prince and nobility.
	It's not a hereditary thing.
	It's not an ambition.
	Take my word for it.
	Prince isn't something you try to be.
	Prince is something you get by dedicating your life to historical institutions.
	And basically, if you end up becoming a prince, it's because you Have accepted the burdens of responsibilities of thousands of years of historical missions of these historical institutions.
	So it's not like, oh great, I'm a prince.
	No, it's a hard job.
	It's a job that you accept and it's hard.
	So that's how I look at it.
	It's my service to humanity.
	The prince thing came from the sovereign magistral order Well, talking about how that was all legalized and direct succession and everything, that's very lengthy.
	That's another conversation.
	But it is the original historical institution of the Knights Templar and kind of built into those institutions.
	The Grand Master is inherently a prince.
	It's part of the sovereign status of the institution.
	For example, the Knights of Malta, the Order of St.
	John, they also have a Prince Grand Master.
	So when you're in charge of these things, you end up getting connected to nobility titles.
	I have my own take on all those things.
	You know, I look at nobility as not birthrights or bloodlines.
	I look at it as a meritocracy.
	There's an alternative history of all those things proving that there is a tradition of meritocracy.
	A lot of people in history became princes and high nobility because of their earned accomplishments, that they did important things for their countries.
	I think that's enough about that.
	As far as the judge, that's easier.
	I'm registered and accredited as a, well, I'm an accredited judge registered with relevant ministries of justice for sitting on international courts of law and governmental courts.
	Okay.
	And so, Michael Henry Dunn, do you want to give yourself a short sort of bio?
	Sure, Karen.
	Well, I am currently functioning as Campaign Director for Justice for Humanity.
	I am a writer and journalist, human rights advocate, and my primary reason for being here and for teaming up with Prince Matthew on this work is We're launching a public awareness campaign for the courts and I've been working with Prince Matthew on several related projects over the last couple of years and getting
	the infrastructure, the licenses, the authority, lining up the support, lining up the association of judges who would populate the court and it came down to this moment over the last Couple of weeks where we are launching Justice for Humanity as a public awareness campaign to let people know this is for real,
	to let people know that its impact can happen, that enforcement of these human rights laws, which just daily get trampled on, as we know.
	I mean, there's a list of them in the article that you mentioned.
	These are International human rights laws that get trampled on a daily basis.
	We can get into more detail about that.
	I know you're asking me to do an introduction and I'm going right to on message, right?
	I'm from Chicago, Illinois.
	I'm from a big Irish Catholic family.
	I trained as an actor to do yoga school.
	I had a 15-year career in the theater.
	I pulled away from that to go immerse myself in meditation.
	I'm also a yoga chant artist.
	I'm a recording artist.
	And for the last two, three years, I've done a heck of a lot of writing.
	You can find under my name on the web.
	Journalism on, you know, as we know, the global collateral accounts, the human rights courts.
	And this is what led me to be working with Matthew.
	And it's an astonishing story.
	I knew that there were these daily abuses of human rights.
	I knew that only an alliance of nations under some kind of legitimate, not common law, you know, scrape it together and see if we can make it fly, but legitimate international law was going to be necessary to actually make an impact.
	Because if, you know, the corrupt plutocracy is not held accountable, brought to justice, then Nothing else I believe can really work and it's going to take an alliance of nations.
	It's going to take all of us waking up and supporting it and recognizing it under legitimate authority.
	So justiceforhumanity.org has been the focus of my work for the last several months and we're very excited.
	This is real.
	This is a genuine impact that can be had.
	So that's my story and the bio.
	Okay, well, I have to say that the bio part was extremely short and a bit vague.
	Okay, I'll elaborate if you want.
	I have interviewed you before, and so on a certain level, it's okay.
	I think what I will say to people is that I recommend that they go to my prior interview with you to get more details.
	But I can say that you were involved with Neil Keenan for a while.
	Our prior interview kind of goes down that road to some degree.
	And so I encourage people to check it out.
	And also we talked about the Shakespeare Mysteries, where you've been involved in that sort of quest, if you will, and some other interesting things.
	So you have quite an interesting background.
	as does Prince Judge Matthew so you're both extremely interesting individuals in your own right I've also done an interview with Prince Judge Matthew And we talked about the Egyptian Revolution.
	He wrote me a very long and involved and very well footnoted article on the Egyptian Revolution, which I appreciated very much and has been on the Camelot site ever since, which is about a year ago, and giving some back-channel information about what was really going on during the Revolution.
	Contrary to some perceptions out there and correcting some misconceptions, etc.
	So that was very valuable and I do encourage people, again, you can always find everything, or hopefully you can, by using the search button on my website so you can find prior interviews.
	And because we've got over 300 Uh, interviews on YouTube.
	You can also go to my YouTube channel and just scroll through the YouTube interviews there if you want to search there.
	But either way, you should be able to find both interviews on both these men, uh, prior interviews.
	So, from there, what I'd like to do is, um, Talk about why, first let's start with, you know, and I'm going to go one at a time, and I'm going to ask you guys, just to make sure that we keep extraneous sounds out, that you mute yourselves when you're not talking, and then try to remember to unmute yourself when you're about to talk.
	So...
	If you can do that for us.
	And that'll help the other person, you know, whoever's.
	And we'll also alleviate maybe some echo if any crops up.
	So one at a time, let me ask Matthew to talk a little bit about what has spurred you to, you know, get into this area and why did you want to make an international court to begin with?
	Right.
	Well, Michael and I both kind of got dragged into it in a way.
	It's not our court.
	We're not creating the court.
	We're connected to movements of people.
	Not just people, but movements of people.
	Every day we're meeting new people who are involved in the court and behind it.
	I'm starting to become really amazed by how many people...
	People who are awake and aware know how to be anti-agenda, are dedicating their lives to anti-agenda work.
	I'll tell you, when I went to law school, I thought I was the only person on the planet who had a different opinion.
	Then when I started working in Russia, I thought, oh great, there's a government of a different country that has a different opinion about basic freedoms and sovereignty and stuff.
	I thought that was nice.
	But now, I'm just looking at a mass humanity.
	Everywhere I go, there's not just people I meet who are like us.
	There's whole groups who represent whole movements.
	I am starting to see that humanity is, as a majority, awake and aware and in the mood to do something about it.
	You know, I've been working on reviving historical institutions because I feel that we're living through the collapse of civilization, you know, follow the Roman Empire part two, because we've lost values, because we've lost human rights, we've lost the values of having quality human relationships, the values of just all kinds of things.
	Well, let me sort of interrupt you just a bit here.
	I'm sorry to bother you, but thank you for that.
	But to get specific about the question, because you made a statement during that sort of introduction there, where you actually said you didn't create or you're not creating the court.
	So I'm confused.
	Are you saying this court already exists?
	Yes.
	Let's see.
	There's an international law firm in Cairo with 12 lawyers, and they're all like the Johnny Cochran's of Egypt.
	They're really famous lawyers, a big, really fancy, very famous law firm here.
	They're also government contractors.
	They're high-level lawyers.
	They have been putting together this university, Ignita Veritas University, That is probably the most heavily licensed university that anybody's ever seen.
	This has far more than a bunch of licenses as a university.
	It has law firm licenses and all kinds of things.
	I'm friends with some of these lawyers and I've hired them a lot to help me build other institutions.
	So we talk and as they were doing all these licenses You know, I said, well, if you're doing all this law firm and UN level and NGO stuff, why don't you get some court licenses?
	And that kind of planted the seeds, and they liked the idea.
	And so they racked up a bunch of court licenses in addition to the law firm licenses and all kinds of university licenses.
	And before you know it...
	It turns out they're connected to two major universities in Cairo.
	One is Cairo University, the other is called Ain Shams University.
	And both Cairo University and Ain Shams University, of course, have law faculty, so they've got lots of judges and lawyers.
	The main thing that Egyptian judges do, other than working within the judiciary in their country, The judiciary in Egypt seems to be keenly aware of the geopolitics that Egypt was a founding country of the non-aligned movement of countries.
	That's your opposition movement to the anti-New World Orders, the non-aligned movement.
	Egypt was historically founder of the non-aligned movement.
	It's an influential country culturally in the Middle East.
	Egypt is also the leader of the Muslim-Christian unity movement worldwide.
	So these judges, they're aware of all this context and they tend to try really hard to be good at working in English and reaching out to other countries.
	So the judiciary here, they have a lot of connections and shared memberships.
	A lot of them are members of foreign bar associations.
	A lot of them go to London, live in London and become members of London bar and in America and all kinds of places.
	Then we look at Ayn Shams University.
	It turns out that in the law faculty in Ayn Shams, and that's like the Harvard of Egypt, in the law faculty, and I've been there many times, there is an international bar association of international judges.
	They actually asked me to become a member, and they kind of pulled me into that, and they were really excited that I'm a Westerner, I'm well versed in international laws.
	I have governmental experience.
	They were looking at me as a foreigner to help them further connect and cooperate with Truly international judiciary through speaking English.
	Well, I don't have those kinds of connections.
	I said, well, I'd be happy to share, you know, to do all kinds of volunteer work for you.
	But I said, don't look at me.
	I'm looking at you guys to be connected to the international judiciary.
	So we've started cooperating.
	So we have all of these.
	We have two big universities, an international bar association of judges under Ainshawms.
	Then we have the 12 lawyers and the big international law firm.
	All of that It took on a life of its own, sparked by my suggestion, you know, hey, guys, if you're going to get 12, you know, however dozen licenses, why don't you get a couple court licenses, too?
	So the idea took off.
	They took off with it.
	They made it happen.
	And, of course, naturally, they asked me to, you know, volunteer and help them out.
	Well, I'm not going to say no.
	How can you say no when there's so much energy behind something like this?
	The Bar Association of Judges, they tell me they just expanded, opened up a whole new division of the Association for Human Rights.
	And they have lawyers, mostly judges and lawyers, joining like crazy.
	They say they've doubled in size over the last couple of months just because they opened the Human Rights Branch.
	Okay, and when you say they have people joining, are you saying that anyone can join from any country, any lawyer or any judge, or what are you talking about people joining?
	Yeah, they have to be accredited as a judge by some ministry.
	Or Bar Association, or they have to be a lawyer who really has the CV to show that they're qualified to enter the judiciary.
	And then you have to pass an exam and be approved by the Ministry of some country.
	So yeah, it's really about judges.
	It's all about being professional career judges.
	It's no such thing as people just calling themselves judges or just lawyers who say, I want to be a judge.
	You have to show that you know how to adjudicate judiciary matters.
	And that's a special thing.
	Okay, so this court, this ACIJ that you guys are proposing or talking about at any rate, is something that you're saying exists, has a number of judges on board already, and those judges come from Egypt, but also many other countries.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, that's right.
	The spark of life for it came from Egypt, but the Egyptian judges from the beginning were tapping into their already existing tradition of reaching out to judges worldwide.
	This is a tourist country.
	It's one of these countries where you don't even need a visa in advance.
	You just show up and come in as a matter of right.
	This is one of these kinds of countries where they just love connecting to everybody.
	That's the kind of country where social movements can really get started.
	It's exciting.
	I met some really great barristers and judges in England through the Egyptian people.
	I didn't even have to go to England to meet some really great barristers in England.
	All I had to do was talk to the Egyptians.
	They're connected.
	The estimate of the number of judges involved in this network The estimate of the English-speaking, the ones that they say are really, really fluent in English, like you can work with them on cases in English, is I think about 16,000.
	And they say it's throughout the Middle East and Europe and some in the United States as well.
	Okay, now are they literally part of this ACIJ? Yes, they're absolutely connected.
	It's all interconnected.
	So the law firm that made the university and got all the licenses to the university and the court, they are considered the managing law firm of the UN NGO because it's a non-profit.
	It's registered as an NGO.
	They're like the owner.
	I mean, technically, legally, there's no owner of a non-profit.
	It kind of owns itself.
	And then it's based on democratic process.
	But they're the managing law firm for the whole university and institution.
	The ACIJ court basically is given the judiciary licenses as an autonomous thing.
	So ACIJ is its own autonomous subdivision of the university.
	The university is considered the host.
	They're just given a platform for the judges to come in and autonomously do their own thing.
	Okay, and does that include offices in a building, or does this organization have that?
	Yeah, they got a lot of offices.
	These guys have a way of using the law faculties and other university premises.
	The universities in Cairo seem quite generous in allowing well-established organizations to say, you know, take a room over there or take a wing or whatever you need.
	I don't know if it's because these guys are so influential and respected or if it's just because the universities are so generous or both.
	But the symbiotic nature of these relationships is a powerful thing.
	Part of the culture of the Middle East, these are not rich countries.
	They have thousands of years of culture of community support.
	These are community cultures.
	So there's a lot of that famous Arab hospitality at play.
	Yes, and I'm actually familiar with that, so I have to say that's actually a truth.
	Alright, so now I'm going to go over to Michael Henry Dunn here and ask you to talk a little bit about your understanding about why you guys are kind of coming to the fore You know, for lack of a better word, cheerleading or promoting this organization.
	How did you or how do you feel that the two of you got involved in spearheading this out to the public in such a way?
	Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Michael, you lost your microphone.
	I politely muted upon request.
	Why we call us spokespersons for the ACIJ would probably be the best term for it.
	And when Matthew is talking about the values of the ancient historical institutions that he came to be given his prince title for working on behalf of those values,
	that's really For me personally, sacred activism would probably be the best phrase that I could use to describe what really motivated me to become disinvolved, to become a spokesman for Justice for Humanity as the grassroots organization that's promoting the court.
	As you know from our previous conversations, Gary, I withdrew from my career for some number of years To immerse in meditation.
	Growing up in Chicago, my mother and father were very idealistic, committed, missionary, holistic medical practitioners.
	And so I grew up with a sense of an obligation to give back, to improve the world.
	Mahatma Gandhi and Dr.
	King were heroes of mine growing up.
	And then I ended up really immersing myself in meditation.
	And sacred activism, as a phrase, derives from the work of Andrew Harvey.
	I don't know if you're familiar with him.
	He's an amazing man.
	And essentially recommends that all you folks who are out there being activists in the world against these horrific abuses, the suffering that's going on in the world, so often They get burned out heart, soul, and mind just below their circuits because of the sheer stress and despair that sets in.
	Those burned out activists need to be grounded in some kind of spiritual communion with Source.
	On the other hand, all you folks who've been going to the caves and meditating and immersing and actually getting in touch with the peace and joy of the soul, you need to take those Values, those experiences of the value of the human soul and spirit and put that into action in the world.
	So it works both ways, you know, the sacred and the active.
	So for me, when I ran into, you know, I connected with Matthew first when I was working on the Kenan case, human rights abuses for, you know, for certain legal abuses that were going on in The case I was working on, that is how the first connection came to Matthew.
	And this was just around the time that the process he's describing was going on in terms of the university being formed, the licenses being granted, and there was this aha moment when the fact that The license is not only for a law center, not only for a university, not only for an arbitration court, but for an enforceable international court of human rights.
	A little bell went off.
	Enforceable!
	That's the main question everybody comes back to.
	Great!
	Raise awareness, indict some war criminals, but they still run free, and what have you done?
	Enforceable.
	This led to research that showed the statutory authority that is there in codified international law binding on all UN member nations that had simply never before been utilized.
	The existing system of international courts The International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the Human Rights Commission, the European Human Rights Court, these are all treaty-based courts.
	They derive their authority from countries going, sure, okay, we'll be under your jurisdiction.
	Some of them allow the countries to pull out when they want to go, say, invade Iraq and commit a lot of war crimes like we did.
	So, to find that there is actual statutory authority, that the Court, the ACIJ, was actually already positioned to trigger.
	That got me excited.
	That said, okay, this is real.
	This is potential impact.
	This is potential enforceability on a recognized level, legitimate international law, binding on all UN member nations.
	Let's see if we can help make this happen.
	So, you know, I'm not a lawyer.
	I'm not a judge.
	I'm a writer, and interfaith work has been really important to me.
	Obviously, you know, Egypt is the center of that.
	You know, the work I did with the sovereign and magistral order of the Temple of Solomon, the Templars, helped me see the emerging picture as well.
	So that's when the spark got lit, and because of my background, In popularizing complex issues.
	When we talk about the Shakespeare issue, it's a very complex issue, the authorship question, but the evidence is actually overwhelming.
	I'm good at taking complex issue and getting to the crux of it and sharing it on a popular level.
	That's what needs to be done here.
	That's why we started justiceforhumanity.org, is to reach out.
	The people worldwide need to know about this.
	This is a court of the people by the people.
	This is not supported by treaties where countries and governments are kicking in money.
	Do we have the statutory authority?
	The support has to come from the people.
	And so we needed to mount this campaign to let people know what we're about, what the hope is, where the impact can happen, that this is for real.
	And we're getting some amazing allies who are coming to the table.
	I hope you'll be able to share more about who exactly in a short time, but it's a very exciting launch.
	Nothing like this has ever been done before.
	This is a historic development in human rights, and so that's how I came to be where I am.
	Okay, but in terms of, you make the comment that it's enforceable, and obviously people are going to be curious about that.
	So, what does that mean?
	Okay.
	I think it might be clearer if I start by explaining a difference in two different types of international laws.
	Because most people, when they think of international law, they've heard of all these treaties.
	And there's two types.
	There's treaties which are just agreements between countries.
	And everybody's heard of, you know, the treaties have these lists of which countries have acceded to the treaty and accepted it or not, or accepted it with reservations.
	And sometimes when you say, oh, there's a treaty or there's a UN convention, people say, okay, but which countries signed up for it?
	Well, it turns out there's a second kind of international law, which is when the UN General Assembly of countries has a majority vote, more than a two-thirds vote, And they enact a convention.
	It's not just one of these mere treaties.
	So there's just treaty, where a handful of countries get together, and then they try to get some other countries to like it.
	By the way, with all these conspiracy theories about the UN being abused for bad purposes, that's how the UN is abused, is by treaties.
	You get some agenda faction of bad guys.
	They manipulate some politicians of some country, then they propose some voluntary treaty, With lies and propaganda, full of a handful of countries into thinking it sounds good, even though it's like Agenda 21.
	Looks great, but, you know, a million loopholes for taking over, you know, everybody's rights.
	It's not the UN doing these things.
	The UN itself isn't marching around doing these things.
	You get a corrupt country by deception fooling a few other countries to voluntarily sign this treaty, and then people can take it or leave it.
	So it's easy to defeat those things.
	Now, when the General Assembly As a whole, that's all the nations of the world, about 192 or 193 member countries, almost all the countries in the world, get together and more than two-thirds of them vote on a convention, that is not optional.
	That is a law.
	That's the real international law.
	Under the UN Charter and its regulations, that is binding on every country that is a member of the United Nations.
	Some countries, like a violating country, Don't like it.
	They don't agree.
	Oh, we don't like human rights.
	We don't want to respect human rights.
	Okay.
	So...
	If you can remind me what we were talking about, I was just wrapping up that point, so we can finish it quickly.
	Okay, yeah.
	Now we're back.
	We're back.
	Okay, very good.
	So, here we go.
	Sorry, everyone, for the trouble, and let me just reframe this just very quickly here.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So people can see both of you at the moment and know that we are back on.
	You can see three of me.
	Carrie and I were just laughing.
	That happened because I went too far.
	When I started saying about the Security Council veto and that the only way they can get out of binding international law is to give up that, that's when we got disconnected.
	Sorry, I went a little too far, but guess what, bad guys?
	I'm not going to back off.
	You're screwed.
	I'm doing this all the way, whether you like it or not.
	Okay, so just to clarify, what you're saying, though, is that these countries are part of the UN, that this particular court, is it because it's an NGO? I mean, I'm trying to get the relationship of why it means that suddenly these rulings are going to be, they're opt-in whether they like it or not because they're part of the UN. In order to get out of the ruling, they have to back out of the UN altogether.
	So clarify that for me.
	Yes, good one.
	Yeah, it's not about UN or not UN. Here's the thing.
	The binding international laws, like the Basic Declaration of Human Rights, that's General Assembly, that's binding law.
	All the countries have no choice they're bound by.
	They can't opt out.
	So the court was formed based on statutory provisions, sections, of those binding laws.
	That give authority to a court of international law.
	And it's hard to find them, and they're scattered in multiple conventions.
	And when you find all the pieces and string them all together, it turns out there's a complex set of criteria that if a court...
	It meets X, Y, and Z, and a bunch of other criteria, it does have the statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction, over all countries and their governments, with complete judiciary authority and immunity.
	All the court had to do was follow the science of how do we meet all these criteria.
	Now, this touches on your UN question.
	There's contradicting criteria in there.
	It was almost set up like, oh, you could do an international court, but they made a contradiction, and here it is.
	First, you have to have governmental license, so you have to be backed by a government.
	But second, you have to be able to prove that you're non-governmental.
	It's an oxymoron.
	Almost by definition, it can't be done.
	It's mission impossible.
	You know, the lawyers asked me about it, and I said, I like Mission Impossible.
	I do all kinds of Mission Impossible.
	So we thought about it.
	And we said, okay, well, what if we do this?
	What if we get UN NGO status?
	Now, it doesn't mean that you're under the UN, right?
	All it means is that you have gotten the UN to accept and register your nonprofit institution as an NGO. What does that mean?
	Non-governmental organization.
	So by getting it registered and accepted by the UN as non-governmental, we met the part that, yes, it's not governmental.
	But the Egyptian government, the Ministry of Justice and some other ministries, gave it governmental license to be a court of law.
	Now, the independence here is important.
	So what we did is we negotiated with the Egyptian government so that the license is permanent and irrevocable.
	Egypt said, once and for all, forever, irrevocable, we're giving you a license as an international court of law.
	The license says that it's for international jurisdiction and that it's non-governmental court.
	It's a governmental license to be a non-governmental court, and we can prove that not only from the license, but from the fact that the UN accepted this as a non-governmental organization.
	Thanks to this gift, and it's a permanent irrevocable gift by the Egyptian government, this is a non-governmental court that no government in the planet can say a word to, and it can't be blackmailed with losing its license.
	So now it's an animal all its own.
	The lion is out of the cage now.
	Okay, and it has NGO status as well, correct?
	Yes, and that is no influence at all of any UN on the organization.
	It's the opposite.
	When you have NGO status, the NGO has influence, at least it has participation in the UN events.
	The university, as the host NGO, has delegates and can assign them UN delegate cards and send them to Geneva in New York to lobby for human rights issues.
	And so they're going to have the judges of the court holding those delegate cards going into Geneva and New York to wake up the other countries sitting around the General Assembly saying, how would you like to assert your national sovereignty and assert your human rights?
	So it's influence in the UN, it's not influence in the UN on that.
	Okay, well, that's very interesting.
	So it sounds as though the court, though, is to some degree dependent on the good graces of the host NGO, which is the Egyptian University.
	Am I wrong?
	Oh, no, it's not the Egyptian University.
	It's Ignita Veritas University, which is operated by the managing law firm.
	Now, another thing is now that the license has been assigned, See, all of these things, see whether something is strong and whether it can be protected against corrupt influences, this is resolved by the founding documents.
	If you set it up right, there's ways, see, since we know the issues, we're anti-gender people, and we know the issues, we know the ways that things get infiltrated and corrupted, if you set up any kind of institution with this knowledge and with the intent to secure it against corruption, It's in the founding documents and the founding contracts that you can root out those problems before they ever happen.
	So what happened is the court has its own charter.
	The licenses have been delegated from the university to the court.
	In the court's charter and in the contracts, the way they were done, the court is now an animal all by itself.
	The court, on its own initiative, If it wants, can switch and move to another host organization.
	How embarrassed would the university be that the court up and walked out because they felt that their independent judiciary rights were being infringed?
	That's why I said the lion's out of the cage.
	Once it's set up right and independent judges are exercising their authority and no governments can say a word, nobody can put the lion back in the cage without getting eaten first.
	Okay, so with that explanation, let me ask you both this.
	So you're out there sort of as spokespeople to promote, in a certain way, this organization, if I understand it, and make people aware of it, correct?
	Would you agree with that phrase?
	Okay, so at the moment, has this court had any cases?
	And if it was to have a case, hypothetically, if it hasn't had a case, and I don't know the answer to the question yet, but if it hasn't had a case, and it was to have a case, and there was a ruling, what kind of enforcement,
	aside from what you sort of said, which In theory, it has to do with the country having to walk out of the inn or leave the UN if they refuse to follow whatever ruling comes down.
	You know what I'm saying?
	I mean, let's have a hypothetical reality or is there anything real that's ever happened?
	You know, has the court had a case so far?
	Well, I'll answer a couple brief technical points, but otherwise I think Michael can answer more the substance of that.
	Okay.
	The technical points are not all cases are public.
	You know, courts do all kinds of things, and some are small cases, and some are just rulings.
	There have not been any major geopolitical or major human rights cases yet.
	Part of that is the court has to be funded.
	By the people.
	See, this is not a treaty court.
	If it were a treaty court, let me just be rudely blunt about it.
	A treaty court, the system of setting it up by treaty is basically a fraud.
	Just to be really blunt about it, and lawyers can disagree all day, but I call it a fraud, because the countries have to agree.
	See, it's easy to make a court with a treaty, because all the countries come in, agree to its jurisdiction, and pay a ton of money for it.
	So you have a court, it's got money, it's operating, but then, you know, It's not really independent because then the countries will pull out and pull their funding.
	The way this court has to work is it must be grassroots funding by the people for the people.
	Nobody has ever started that campaign yet.
	It's starting only this week.
	So the court has had no chance or opportunity.
	Now there are some private non-profits That have donated up to three million dollars to get it started so far.
	So the work that's been done so far is like several years and three million dollars of work.
	But now those donors are out of fuel and now it's ready, it's licensed, it exists.
	Now it's time to go to the people And let the people fund it.
	That will give the independence to the court.
	As long as the court never has to ask the government for a handout, as long as it can be funded by grassroots, it will remain exclusively answering to the people.
	Okay, and are you guys doing a money-raising campaign for this?
	Very much so.
	I mean, if you go to justiceforhumanity.org, all the questions are answered there.
	The enforcement questions are answered there.
	And there's a donate button.
	So yes, we have a crowdfunding campaign set up with Indiegogo.
	On that crowdfunding site, you will find all of the expenses associated with the operation of a court on this level, laid out in phase one, phase two, phase three of our funding.
	Let me just let you know what some of those are.
	Phase one objectives, public rules of court, the completion of that by specialized judges, judiciary networking, public awareness, full-time management staff.
	Phase two objectives, recruit investigators and enforcers, secure communications infrastructure, full-time judiciary administration staff.
	The judge's manual, the enforcement of human rights, which has been quoted on your site already, Kerry.
	There are excerpts from it.
	That is an amazing tool that is going to be put in the hands of human rights advocates worldwide.
	It's an authoritative manual for the enforcement of human rights law, detailing all of the kind of violations we were talking about earlier, including illegal extraditorial jurisdiction. including illegal extraditorial jurisdiction.
	Can we think of a few instances where that's happening?
	You know, the black sites that the CIA used around the world.
	False arrest and prolonged detention as persecution.
	Unlawful travel restrictions.
	Torture any and all forms which violate human dignity.
	Unlawful interference in communication.
	Banking violations.
	There's a whole chapter on the banking violations.
	Does that bother anybody?
	Violation of equal protection of law by selective enforcement.
	Propaganda violations as covert operations.
	Propaganda for false justification of state aggression.
	This is ringing any bells for people.
	Propaganda for destabilization and covert warfare.
	Take a look at what's happening in Ukraine, what's really happening in Ukraine and how it happens.
	Illegal violation of nation-state sovereignty, subversive destabilization, genocide, implementation of systemic policies.
	We want to talk about the real story behind Agenda 21.
	So, the Human Rights Manual is part of the expenses that JusticeForHumanity.org, as a fundraising campaign, is going to help pave the completion of.
	It's largely completed, but it's got to be authoritative, and it is.
	Everything has to be locked down, codified, there for use by human rights advocates worldwide to file cases, to bring cases to the court, correctly filed cases regarding the right laws.
	It gives all the secrets.
	Imagine if you went and filed a lawsuit and the judge has all his own judgely, judiciary ways of deciding how you're going to win the case.
	Now imagine if that judge had written you a book detailing every single thing that you're going to have to say to definitely win the case.
	Before you file the case.
	That's what this judge's manual is.
	We're giving the secret.
	It's judges giving the secrets of the judiciary of exactly what to say and what you have to prove to win a human rights case.
	The court is already sympathetic to normal claims.
	But this judge's manual can be used even in country courts, even in governmental courts, which are not so good.
	And using this judge's manual, basically it's like having a lawyer in your pocket.
	Either go spend $100,000 or $200,000 on some big law firm to help you try to do a case, or for free, use the judge's manual and you can copy-paste directly from the judge's manual.
	They give copyright license to everybody who uses the book.
	They say copy it.
	It's designed to be copied to give you the arguments that you're going to file in any court.
	The governmental courts that are not so friendly to human rights and international law cases, they're going to be angry that now everybody knows how to make a winning case and push the buttons of international law that tie the court's hands so that if the court doesn't take the argument seriously, they're going to be in violation of international law.
	And then we just escalate From there.
	So this is a weapon.
	It's not just a book, and it's not just for judges.
	It's for common people who are victims and plaintiffs.
	Okay, but this is a book that you wrote.
	Is that correct?
	Well, I'm developing it.
	I haven't written it yet.
	I'm developing it, and it's a group effort with some of the best English-speaking judges from the Bar Association of Judges.
	I cannot do this alone.
	We've been doing it for a year already, and it's just so, oh my God, it's so hard to get this right.
	But the framework is there, the functionality is there, with a little more research and some funded research, and a lot more traveling to work with more Western judges, we can finish it and give it to the world.
	That'll be another lion out of the cage.
	Okay.
	In other words, you said it doesn't really have any cases or it hasn't had any cases, but it sounded like you're saying maybe it hasn't had any public cases.
	Are you saying it has had some private cases or something of that nature?
	Yeah, and there's different kinds of cases.
	There's a practice of declaratory judgments where there's no actual defendant.
	But, you know, some institution or entity wants a judicial declaration of its own legal status or what its own rights are, you know, where there's no actual dispute and no actual defendant, so a full due process isn't required.
	You know, there's some activity like that with different types of rulings, judgments, but there's been no actual, like, you know, dispute cases and not criminal cases yet.
	Again, it's because the court has to be funded.
	They're not really opening the doors yet.
	To say, everybody come on in and file cases because they know that they need more financial muscle to be functional.
	They haven't gotten on secure encrypted communications yet between the judges.
	There's a lot of expense and infrastructure that they have to do to get ready before they say, okay, everybody come in and file lawsuits.
	So there's a little activity, but there have been no big noteworthy or newsworthy cases yet, and that won't happen until they have some endowment level funding.
	Right, and if I could just jump in here, you know, that's really what justiceforhumanity.org is about, is to let everyone know how close we are.
	The statutory authority, the potential impact.
	And, you know, there's a quote I came across from, I believe it was the director of Amnesty International, a remark he made at a conference in Europe In which they were attempting to have human rights laws actually agreed to a higher degree of enforcement by the governments.
	This was a meeting of ministers, the human rights conference, I believe it was in France, and the comments by the Director of Amnesty was, well, of course, it does turn out to be rather difficult to get the governments to agree to police the governments.
	That is an inherent difficulty.
	To me, that perfectly illustrated.
	Here you have, you know, someone who would be in probably one of the most highest-profile human rights organizations in the world, Fantasy International, admitting that the game is rigged.
	We're all going through the motions here.
	We're trying to get the governments to agree to police themselves on human rights.
	Well, you know, we are going to be very energetically upfront in letting everybody know every step of the way How the funding is having an impact, when the first actual disputes are filed.
	This is going to be a very broad, popular grassroots movement.
	We have some amazing alliances and contacts in In the arts, in music, in human rights, among churches, some very sympathetic anti-agenda churches which are lining up to support us.
	If you look at Dr.
	King and Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest human rights heroes of the 20th century, they were unabashed about spiritual values being put into practice.
	Gandhi don't mix politics with religion and he famously said, those who say do not mix politics with religion do not know what religion is.
	And so there's a huge community of churches and people who are not affiliated with the church but to whom their spirituality is a central part of their lives are all coming on board because the need is so dire You can't turn on the TV or look at your computer without seeing that some other hand is human rights violation.
	You know, and for those of us in the alternative news community, seeing all of the bogus stories being spun as cover for what we know is going on.
	You know, there's just a huge awakening moment here.
	And, you know, the moment and the institution have met.
	And justicefreehumanity.org is to let everybody know.
	And yes, you know, forego a couple of lattes a week.
	And, you know, donate what you can.
	If we had 50,000 people each for going a couple of lattes a week, you know, we're going to be moving ahead very quickly.
	And there will be larger donors who will come on too.
	But it's very clearly stated on the crowdfunding website, no influence whatsoever is obtained.
	By any size donation by any party.
	As Matthew was talking about, the charters and the statutes of the court protect against that kind of infiltration and corruption.
	You've got to be vigilant and we will be.
	I want to say something quickly about that.
	If some negative agenda group came in and dropped a few million dollars, as far as I'm concerned, they just wasted their money because the statutes are clear, the law is clear, the foundational documents of the court are soon going to be public and will be beyond unequivocal.
	Nothing will compromise any principles just because somebody threw some money at it.
	So if somebody donates money, They better be because they really believe in true objective application of the law with no exceptions.
	And if they think they're going to have some political influence because they've got some big, you know, elitist foundation tempting the court with money, if they put in $10 million, they just lost the $10 million because that $10 million is going to be used for the law and not for somebody's politics.
	So, you know, donate to this only if you want it to be used for real law and not some politics.
	Okay, now I just want to say the sound effects because I always get people writing to me.
	My cat is in the background here crying.
	He's doing, you know, he's, you know, doing crazy stuff.
	He just gets very active.
	He wants to play, and I'm not playing with him, so now he's frustrated.
	He likes to be petted.
	Do you want to pick him up and pet him?
	So, yeah, I mean, well, he's across the room now.
	Well, Matt is dealing with a Great Dane on the couch.
	It's a good thing the Great Dane is asleep.
	When she wakes up, she's going to attack me so bad, you guys are going to laugh.
	She's bigger than me.
	Yeah, she's a beautiful, beautiful dog.
	Okay, so that was the 15-second commercial.
	No, commercial break or whatever.
	So anyway, alright, so this sounds very good.
	You know, I think most people would listen to this and say it sounds very good.
	What I want to do now is kind of look at these other things that we've got on the website.
	If I can actually pull it up.
	Because there were a few articles that you've put out there.
	And...
	Hold on one second.
	It's on my website, so...
	It's hard for me to do this while I'm online.
	Okay.
	Another...
	So, basically...
	Pulling up the website and drawing people's attention.
	So if you're listening live or you're listening on YouTube after we've broadcast live, then I suggest you go to the website, click on the, you'll see the Michael Henry Dunn Prince Judge Matthew interview, and it will be on YouTube, as I say, after we broadcast here, probably uploaded within a day or two at the most.
	There are a couple articles that you've released that I did link to and they have PDFs.
	One is called Spin in the Age of Transparency or Who Are Those Guys?
	Can we talk about those articles and why you wrote them and what the intent there is?
	Sure.
	Yeah, those articles were written by me and the intent was twofold really.
	We wanted Because of the kind of questions that, you know, Prince Matthew has already been answering here about, you know, there's so much justified skepticism out there when someone, you know, comes up with the latest heroic campaign that's going to save the world for us.
	And, you know, we have all seen would-be saviors, you know, Paraded and celebrated and then vilified and dumped.
	And a lot of people's hopes raised and dashed.
	And so I wanted to say, okay, I want to let people know the human story behind the court while showing them the hard statutory authority.
	And because Matthew is an American political dissident who had chosen to legally He represents the Russian Federation when he was living in Russia, became a target for illegal false defamation,
	essentially having some of those same human rights laws violated in order to discredit him and try to destroy his career as an American political dissident.
	He has been so busy, I have been so busy in helping All we could, you know, with the team that was building this, that he had let me know where we are.
	Look, there was this defamation campaign that was actually run by a former US Army intelligence agent and counterintelligence specializing in internet activities, had mounted against Matthew when he was working in Moscow.
	And he said, now there are searchable traces that will show.
	And I have had to let people know up front.
	When you are working with me, I need to let you know, okay, here's the real story.
	Here's what you'll find online.
	Let's go through this.
	And this ended up coming up several times and we have to, okay, here's the real story.
	There is a clear cut, solid proof.
	of an illegal, unconstitutional defamation campaign by elements of U.S. government against American political dissidents who happen to be serving the Russian Federation.
	Yeah, by the way, as a lawyer.
	As a lawyer.
	It's not like it was a smile, it was a lawyer, for crying out loud.
	Yeah, thank you.
	So we wanted the article to accomplish two things.
	We wanted to tell the real story about Prince Matthew.
	And, you know, I'm an Irish-American guy.
	I'm not impressed by nobility titles.
	It's one of my favorite things that Neil Keenan ever said.
	He told me he was on the phone with Queen Elizabeth one time and tried to explain to her why he was not going to do as she suggested.
	And he said to her, excuse me, ma'am, you need to understand something.
	I'm Irish.
	You're not my queen.
	So I'm not particularly impressed by nobility titles, right?
	Matthew earns the title of prince every day.
	You want to talk about somebody and say, oh, so-and-so, yeah, he's a prince.
	That guy's a prince.
	This guy's a prince.
	And I wanted everybody to know it.
	And I wanted to get out there and have a document in hand that we could hand to people and say, you want proof?
	Here's the story.
	Here's what the corrupt elements in the U.S. government do and go after an American political dissident.
	And here's the truth about what this man has actually done and accomplished in who he is.
	So, it was very important to me to get that out there in a very solid, well-documented, you know, article with footnotes and citations of the wasu.
	And so that's part of what the article is.
	Another document that you have there on your site, Gary, is a two-page press release.
	The article, Spin in the Age of Transparency, is 20 pages long.
	I hope it's compelling reading.
	I'm not a bad writer.
	We have a two-page press release that gives the gist.
	Backing up the article, there's a 10-page appendix with legal evidence of exactly how that defamation campaign was run.
	Eight different major internet companies agreed that what was done was illegal and they forced the defamation website to be taken down.
	So I am very pleased to get this out there.
	By the way, all this, you know, the dealing with the defamation is just because I'm a spokesman.
	You know, and the modus operandi, see, Illuminati, let's just call it for what it is, okay?
	You know, I know people laugh at using the word Illuminati.
	When you're a historian, it's perfectly legitimate to refer to negative agenda, elite historical organizations as Illuminati.
	It's a historical word.
	So that's what I call it.
	So when you talk about, you know, Illuminati, their modus operandi, they're not people.
	They don't build anything.
	They don't have, you know, substance.
	They don't give any value.
	What they do is destroy.
	They're destructive.
	And all they do, with having nothing really of their own, Is take down everybody who comes across their path.
	They take everybody in sight.
	So when you're a spokesman, they're going after you like crazy.
	I didn't even do anything yet.
	Just because of my future potential, they were doing full-time, round-the-clock, fully-staffed, federally-funded defamation campaigns against me.
	I didn't even do anything yet.
	And a lot of what I'm doing now is in spite.
	Because I thought, you were trying to stop me before I do something.
	Now I'm damn well going to do what you were afraid of.
	I'm doing a hundred times more than I was going to do before just because of what they did.
	Okay.
	So, you know, and there's kind of a, I mean, it's a mixed bag at this point.
	You know, I can ask you a few questions.
	We can go into some detail here.
	But in essence, we kind of don't want to make this interview as it is in terms of this ICIJ necessarily about you and your background and investigation of your background.
	But it may be worthwhile to at least say, what are you being accused of?
	And is this article going to cover what you're being accused of and your, I guess, your...
	your defense of what you actually clarifying that it's incorrect or is there any clarity on any of this or is it just general defamation?
	What are we talking about?
	Well, there is general.
	Go on, Michael.
	Well, I was just going to say since I wrote the article that a pretty concise answer to that question could be Could be brought forward here.
	As you can tell, probably from looking in my eyes, I am quickly scanning through the article as we speak here, that because he and I are both spokesmen, and because he had already had to deal with this, we needed to get very specific.
	And the article gets very specific.
	About exactly what Matthew was accused of, how it was lined up and made to look credible, how it was spread on the internet, and exactly every single action, and Matthew is a very energetic action, legal action, to counter this.
	So, the centralized and illegal defamation campaign was spearheaded by supposedly former The U.S. Army counterintelligence officer who had been transferred to the U.S. Department of Commerce, DOC. Six criminal complaints were filed by Matthew,
	including three FBI complaints directly against DOC. And these caused two major federal investigations by the Office of the Inspector General in D.C. and a national security investigation by the U.S. State Department.
	And the legal departments of eight major corporate Internet providers agreed, as I told you, to shut it down.
	The primary...
	Let me see if I'm scrolling down here to find it.
	Okay.
	The flagship...
	Here we go.
	Just let me read this.
	The flagship inflammatory accusation in the aggressive campaign of unlawful defamation was the claim that Matthew was, quote, disbarred and supposedly admitted to wrongdoing.
	And as with all the other defamation, this claim has been proven to be false.
	And if you want to go to the appendix in the website...
	Point by point.
	It would be perhaps a little dull for me to go point by point in the middle of the interview.
	That is like the flagship accusation.
	I can be real short about that.
	They manufactured a situation where they planted false complaints.
	You know, in some bar association where I had an inactive associate membership.
	I think everybody understands that if you're just an associate member, you know, you're on the inactive list and it's not a license and you're not using it.
	Well, I was licensed by several other countries, whole countries, federal licenses, not, you know, a little state license somewhere in America.
	So, you know, they manufactured the situation and so they were claiming I was disbarred.
	The short end of it is...
	That's why I ended up becoming a judge, almost just in spite of that claim.
	Because first of all, you can't be disbarred if you're not in the box.
	If you're inactive and it's not a license, it wasn't a license, and I was never using it, then how are you disbarred?
	So I became a judge in part because I wanted the vetting.
	I wanted vetting of my background and of that accusation.
	And...
	You know, that way a panel of international judges had to certify that my background is completely clear and I've never had any liability or problem in the legal profession.
	So a panel of judges invalidated that false claim and made me a judge.
	And now I hold the weight and force of law, international law, in my hands.
	I can go back to that Bar Association and do some serious damage to them if I wanted to.
	So, you know, the fact that I'm a judge now proves that whatever anybody said before wasn't true, or else I wouldn't be a judge.
	All right.
	And you're...
	That's the short end.
	I mean, okay, and for that purposes, I guess some people would say, you're a judge assigned to be a judge, you know, an international judge, so qualified by...
	By virtue of governments, such as, what are we talking about, Russia and Egypt, or other governments, or who gives you that judgeship, so to speak?
	Yeah, it was the International Bar Association, you know, through the universities.
	The International Association itself is licensed by the Egyptian Ministry of Justice and some other countries.
	I'm a little fuzzy, honestly, and I do work sometimes with translators, and I'm a little fuzzy on which exactly other countries are involved, but I know there's multiple ministries of justice that have endorsed this Bar Association of International Judges.
	It's the real deal.
	By the way, real muscle is something that gives a lot of confidence to me.
	I had to decide to volunteer More time than I can afford to the court and assisting a lot of these judges to do their court.
	What helped me have more confidence in the success of the whole project is the fact that there is a UN Convention, this is one of the laws that's binding on other countries, called the Convention on Independence of the Judiciary.
	And this is a really, really good one.
	And this UN Convention Really says that, you know, the professional judiciary of career judges has overwhelming and supreme authority over governments and over countries in international law.
	And when I started to study that Convention on the Independence of the Judiciary, you know, they have immunity higher than diplomatic immunity, a lot higher.
	You know, they have command authority over police officers.
	You can go to some foreign country they've never even been in as an accredited international judge if you're active with the court.
	And you can literally just order around police officers and stuff.
	I mean, this is serious, serious.
	And what I realized also is that it's not really been used.
	And the idea of the International Association of Judges, their idea, was Hey, we're career professional judges.
	Shouldn't we step up and use these authorities for the good of humanity?
	Isn't it time that some profession who knows how to do this, who knows how to enforce judgments, who knows how to monitor compliance and enforcement of arrest warrants, isn't it time that the profession of the independent judiciary, not governmental judiciary,
	that they step up and use the authorities Given, because when the General Assembly enacted the independence of the judiciary, just like when they enacted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, this was true democracy.
	It was the leaders of free countries, the majority of countries on the planet, who agreed on principles that all of us agree on, that all of us wish were enforced, who made it binding on all the countries, and then afterwards it got ignored.
	But it's law, it's force, And now there's 80% of the countries on the planet in the UN General Assembly who want this to be used.
	They couldn't do it by themselves.
	The judiciary had to wake up.
	See, we talked about humanity waking up, but we got that, and we're working with grassroots.
	Now the judges have woken up.
	That's the news headline, really, of this interview, is, judges just woke up.
	International movement of judges now that is connecting.
	And so that's where Michael comes in.
	That's why they asked Michael to be a spokesman for the grassroots campaign, Justice for Humanity.
	Because Michael and his lovely Hollywood guys know how to do grassroots movements.
	Judges don't know about grassroots movements.
	You know, it took their whole lifetimes to figure out how to wake up and become anti-agenda judges.
	They don't know anything about grassroots movements, so they go to Michael.
	Okay.
	I don't know either, so that's why he's here, and I talk to the judges.
	He talks to the grassroots people.
	Okay, and I appreciate that.
	Thank you for that.
	Okay, so what I want to know now is, and we're going to go to the questions because there are people typing questions in the chat, and I do appreciate that, so don't worry.
	We're going to get there.
	But one more question for you guys from me, which is, how does your court relate to The Hague, the court of The Hague, And is there some kind of, you know, I mean, you know, if you rule one thing and the Hague rules something else, I mean, what are we talking about here?
	Right.
	There's no conflict because they have assumed jurisdiction over completely different things.
	Now, first of all, nothing would prevent two legitimate courts connected to statutory authority and international law It would be great if, you know, two courts were doing it.
	But here's the deal.
	The Hague, that's a treaty court.
	All the courts you've heard of, the Hague, that's basically ICJ, I think they mean, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court.
	You know, these are the UN courts, the treaty courts.
	The judges are not bad.
	You know, there's nothing wrong with the judges.
	And they're all good, honest judges, but some of them express Frustration that they feel their hands are a bit tied to.
	See, they have a charter that limits them to the consent of countries, which is the system that I call the fraud.
	The court's under fraud.
	The concept that the court was created with is a fraud.
	The judges themselves feel that they've been trapped into something that they can't really use.
	Their hands are tied because, well, it's a treaty court.
	You're screwed.
	So, you see, those courts are there.
	They don't have any worldwide, you know, exclusive authority.
	In fact, they have ruled themselves out of exclusive authority because they refuse to exert jurisdiction.
	The Convention on Independence of the Judiciary says they could have absolute supreme universal jurisdiction above and over every government on the planet.
	But because in their charter they chose to let themselves be limited by the countries themselves, they're screwed.
	They might as well have thrown away their whole authority right off the bat.
	Which is pretty much what happened.
	Well, I mean, there are those who are claiming, though, that the Hague International Court is supposedly exerting some authority over governments.
	I mean, there has actually been claims of that sort.
	Now, whether that has ever happened, I don't know.
	Well, they do some, but only if the countries consent, you see.
	And the statistic for enforcement of these courts, ICJ and ICC, the average statistic is 20%.
	Actually, 21% enforcement only by voluntary compliance.
	I've looked at their charters and their websites.
	These courts admit that they have no enforcement efforts.
	They don't even try.
	They don't even so much as open a committee or a department at all.
	That they don't even try to monitor their judgments.
	Their official, publicly declared positions are that once we issue a judgment, it's the victim-plaintiff's problem to try to get it enforced.
	And what they recommend is let some civil advocacy groups, let some NGOs enforce.
	That's why the ACIJ has built in enforcement departments with a whole category of compliance judges dedicated to just overseeing enforcement measures.
	Okay, but why do you say that the ACIJ, the court you're involved with, would deal with completely different matters than, say, an international court such as The Hague?
	Okay, here's the short answer.
	Let's take the Nuremberg trials, just for example.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	Are you saying The Hague would have nothing to do with that?
	I don't know the nuances of that, but here's the real short answer that gets really to the heart of it.
	When any court is formed, based on its charter and whatever authorities it has, it can choose what How it's going to accept cases, from who it can accept cases, right?
	So, these other courts, in their statutes, have limited themselves.
	They say that they won't hear any case unless it has exhausted all domestic remedies.
	That means they're going to force you, the victim plaintiff, to go through every level of every court until you're broke and Bankrupt a hundred times over before they'll even let you file.
	And then they have statutes saying, and only countries can file a case.
	Only countries can file a case.
	You, an individual, can't.
	That's the fault of their charter and their statutes.
	Now, the ACIJ court has refused to limit itself.
	The ACIJ court in its founding document says it will be a court of first instance.
	You do not have to go to any other court in the world, anywhere.
	You can go first directly to them.
	Cry directly to mommy because mommy loves you.
	You don't have to waste your time going to all the neighbors first.
	Go to your mom.
	She'll give you a hug.
	Okay.
	I mean, honestly, it's the court's fault for limiting itself, and so ACIJ refuses to limit itself.
	Okay.
	So, at this moment, what I'd like to do is go to questions, unless one or either of you have anything more you'd like to say about anything we've talked about.
	I think Michael should say more.
	I talk too much.
	Okay.
	Well, just on the question of enforcement, briefly here, I would encourage people, go to justiceforhumanity.org, and that's justice number four, the numeral four, humanity.org.
	And right up there at the top, is an enforcement tab and it lists very thoroughly the existing enforcement mechanisms that the ECHA is empowered to use, including arrest and imprisonment, including specific mechanisms having to do with...
	Well, I'll let you go read it.
	So that's one thing I just wanted to get in there up front.
	So go to questions.
	I'm good with that.
	Okay, so that's what we're doing here.
	Let's see.
	How effective is the group in bringing justice for the victims?
	It's kind of a general question.
	It hasn't happened yet, am I right?
	Let me put it this way.
	They're dedicated to being effective.
	They've set up the authorities of court, refusing to have their hands tied, insisting on using the full weight of law and the full provisions of the UN Convention on Independence of the Judiciary.
	Let me put it this way.
	This court is weaponized.
	Weaponized.
	This court is armed to the teeth with every I appreciate that.
	And so once you guys get up and running, more so, and have funding, then we'll have to put that to the test.
	Because those are bold words, and I appreciate them.
	But, you know, obviously we have to see what happens.
	So, okay.
	Let me quickly tell you the short part two to that, which goes to the hesitation in your follow-up.
	The part two to that is, it only takes one friendly country to enforce.
	You talk about enforcement, I know we all doubt, and yes, the governments are all scoff laws, and they all violate everything, and we have no confidence that any of these countries ever is going to respect one of these judgements.
	The good news is it only takes one friendly country.
	Now think about this.
	Say, you know, you've been persecuted as a dissident or something, and the court, you know, says that, you know, they shouldn't have bombed your house and whatever, right?
	And so you have your judgment, now you have to enforce it.
	And they issue an arrest warrant to somebody in America, right?
	Some senator has to be arrested or something, right?
	And so what happens, then the country ignores it and ignores it.
	You think, oh, there's no hope.
	Nobody can enforce it.
	Well, here's what happens.
	This is how international judges think.
	You ramp it up.
	You issue a contempt of court order.
	Then you serve the judgment for contempt of court on the whole Senate or whatever agency to the U.S. federal court.
	Then the U.S. federal court says, now, now, we're going to poo-poo it and ignore you.
	Then you issue a contempt of court order against the U.S. federal court.
	Once you ramp it up, then you go international.
	This can be done quickly.
	They can serve these things, you know, every week, ramp it up within a month, and then be shopping it to friendly countries.
	So now, picture this.
	So now, this has escalated from some violation against your personal rights.
	Now, the defendant is convicted, the Senate is convicted, the US Federal Court is convicted, then we go to the White House, Have a contempt of court order against them and a conviction and judgment against them.
	In international law, this is more than contempt of court.
	When a country refuses to enforce judgments under independence of judiciary, that's an international crime.
	We're talking about additional convictions, not just little contempt of court orders.
	So we ramp up and now we get the whole entire US federal government, in this example, convicted, you know, on the White House level, Now, guess what?
	You go to any other friendly country on the planet, it only takes one, and you know what they can do?
	They can enforce the judgment against the U.S. Embassy in that country.
	Now, look, we're looking at the non-aligned movement of 70% of countries in the planet, combined with the BRICS Alliance, which brings up to 80% of countries in the world want justice and want freedom and want their sovereignty back and want the rule of law back.
	Do you think maybe one Of this, 80% of countries in the world might say, yeah, we'll have our Ministry of Justice seize all assets of the U.S. Embassy.
	Hell yes, they will.
	Venezuela will do it.
	You know, the guys who, you know, which country put up Julian Assange in their embassy?
	Ecuador will do it.
	Russia will do it.
	There's a lot of countries friendly to this.
	It only takes one.
	And then when the first one does it, then the other ones will follow suit.
	And then we can shut down every single embassy and seize all of the money in their account as punitive damages.
	And then when those countries do that, they'll also cooperate with the arrest warrants too.
	And then you're going to have officials in the country landlocked.
	You're going to have money actually seized from the embassies.
	Embassies actually shut down.
	This is going to hurt.
	Bad guys, this is going to hurt.
	And you cannot escape this.
	It's your own damn fault for being criminals.
	And sorry, it's not my fault.
	Stop being criminals and you won't get hurt.
	Easy.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So now a person is asking, let's see, is there work being done on behalf of Palestinian people in the court, the ACIJ court, for their continuous destruction by Israel, or is Israel too powerful to take on?
	They're not too powerful.
	Let me just be really blunt and human with you about this.
	The international judges don't give a shit about what political status or politics a country thinks it has or how it's supposed to be regarded in the world.
	They don't give a shit.
	And if Palestine wants to come to this court, this court will welcome them with open arms.
	Justice must be blind.
	These are fundamental principles.
	They cannot be screwed with.
	I don't think any court in the world should say, you know, oh no, it's too political.
	Real judges don't care.
	We'll see the case.
	We hope to God that there's going to be good evidence that we can rule and enforce.
	Another policy that the judges made for this court is they don't reject cases.
	The statistics for the UN courts is that they reject and refuse to hear 98% of all cases.
	Just flat out refuse and no, we'll never see that case.
	This court won't decline.
	They won't say no.
	What they would say is, we don't see enough evidence yet, but please feel free to go and give us better evidence.
	And the court will advise them on what kind of evidence they'd like to see.
	This court wants you to file a good case.
	They want it to have evidence that they can take action on.
	And they're not going to reject you.
	They'll say, come back later.
	Our door is still open for you.
	Please get us more evidence.
	Okay.
	I like that.
	That makes me happy.
	Okay.
	Now, somebody is saying, how can we fund this court?
	And you do have this website.
	So I'm going to ask Michael to repeat the URL and explain what kind of funding you're looking for and how much people can donate, how much or how little.
	Okay.
	The website is justiceforhumanity.org.
	That's justice and the number four.
	It's an Indiegogo site.
	You can go to donate at the top of the bar there.
	That'll take you to an Indiegogo page that is a crowdfunding site for non-for-profit causes.
	And on that site we Clearly lists phase one, phase two, phase three of all the associated expenses with operating the court that will be funded.
	And it has only just been launched, so don't be dismayed by the humble number that we'll currently show.
	This has been launched only this week.
	And you can also sign up to get the newsletter we want.
	To create a community.
	This is about getting people involved.
	This is about sharing with you every step along the way.
	And this is about strength in numbers.
	This is about, you know, $5, $10 a month, you know, letting go of the cost of a couple of lattes.
	We're open to larger donations, of course, but we need a mass popular movement behind this.
	The goal is to fund an endowment for the court to operate permanently.
	Let me just share with you, you know, the ACIJ is designed to be expandable without limit.
	When we're talking about the kind of violations we're talking about, we know they're massive.
	We know there are literally millions of people who could file cases with the court.
	So let me just read a paragraph here.
	The ACIJ is designed to be expandable without limit by endowment funding.
	Eventually, total global demand of approximately, I know this is going to boggle people's minds, but this is the goal, 100,000 cases per year could be handled by 10,000 full-time judges.
	The court already has access to more than twice that number of certified international judges.
	Funding is now needed for full-time operations administrative staffing.
	Foundation building and judicial salaries to process the plaintiff's cases.
	And then, you know, we go on, as I shared with you earlier, about, you know, some of the phase two objectives, legal research and development, retaining outsourced law firms, full-time presiding judges and clerks, outreach to victim advocacy groups.
	This is going to be, you know, the court is also an arbitration court.
	You know, it would also be used potentially by You know, as an arbitrator on a commercial basis, there's going to be major sources of income to the court that, you know, portions of which will be allotted for compensating victims for healing what's been done, the damage that's been done.
	Okay, and does this include things like electronic harassment?
	Oh, definitely.
	I mean, it's right there if you look at the article.
	Yeah, that violates a couple international laws.
	Oh, yeah.
	One or two, Matthew, would you say?
	I mean, if you look at the article, it's right there among the laws, second page of the article on Kerry's website of the International Laws Being Violated.
	Okay.
	Let me see.
	One weapon that prosecutors use, I think they meant prosecutors, use is the cost of litigation.
	How can the ACIJ be different?
	Thank you.
	I love that question.
	Because the answer is really fun for me.
	You know, cost of litigation is something that you worry about when you deal with government courts, right?
	So, you know, you're going up against some bad guys and they're going to outlaw you and they're going to throw millions of dollars of lawyers at you and you can't keep up with them all.
	Guess what?
	When you are a court, you don't give a shit.
	You don't care how many lawyers they have.
	You're the court.
	It's your...
	Right to say, I don't care how many lawyers you have.
	I really don't care how many lawyers they have.
	And they can file and they can spend 10 million dollars litigating their case and flood the court with all this stuff.
	You know what a judge can say in full judicial authority?
	A judge can say, we don't accept your filings because you're flooding the court and you're abusing judiciary process and we hold you in contempt of court and sentence you to 10 nights in jail just for pissing off the judge.
	The court has the power to not put up with their bullshit.
	So this court will say, you know, it's safe to come on in and be a plaintiff here.
	They can throw as many lawyers as they want at you.
	You know what else a judge can say?
	A judge can say only one lawyer is allowed in this.
	If they want to waste their money on a hundred lawyers, fine, but we're only going to allow one lawyer to file one thing that the judge is going to look at.
	And another thing, this court has a chamber They have a chamber of prosecutors, they have a chamber of instruction judges, and they have another chamber I can't remember.
	In other words, they have enough departments that they're going to have a group of judges in a chamber who can be assigned as your pro bono legal counsel.
	So just as there's prosecutors in the court, there's department of prosecutors who are going to bring charges and investigate, there's also a department that will provide lawyers to help the plaintiffs make the arguments.
	It's fair.
	Because if the court has one department that's trying to convict the guys, it's fair enough to have another department in the defense.
	So defendants are going to have, if they're not big and powerful and can't afford it, they're going to have free lawyers provided.
	If you're a disadvantaged victim plaintiff, if you need lawyering help, the court is going to give it to you.
	This is why we want funding.
	We want an endowment-level fund.
	Where the court has the muscle to help both sides.
	You know, real justice is the adversarial process.
	To get to the truth, both arguments have to be made.
	You don't steamroll it, you don't be one-sided, but both sides have to be represented, and both sides means the disadvantaged plaintiff victims have to be supported.
	This court will not let a plaintiff victim be outlawed because somebody has more money.
	Oh, and the last point about that, the court doesn't need money to keep up with that.
	If some Illuminati elitist group wants to throw $100 million at litigating the case, the court doesn't have to match the money that they waste.
	The court can dismiss all of their abuses for free.
	It costs the court nothing to say, piss off.
	With your abusive filings.
	Okay.
	Now, somebody else is asking you, can they turn to the court only after they seek justice in their own country, or they can go straight to the court?
	Right.
	That's the exhausting domestic remedies rule that other courts have chosen to adhere to.
	But in other words, they don't have to seek any remedy in their country at all.
	They can first go to you.
	Okay.
	That's right.
	The ACIJ has committed to being a court of first instance, which means you can go direct first to this court.
	You know why?
	Because the real international judges have zero confidence that any government court can be fair.
	So they say you might as well just save everybody's time and effort and not bankrupt yourself and just come to us first.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	To minimize workload?
	We'll get grassroots funding for that.
	I am seeing massive movements of awakened people.
	I have every confidence that this will be grassroots funded and the court will have enough operating budgets to handle as many cases as fast as they can process them.
	This court doesn't want to say no.
	It might say we can't do it yet right now, but they're not going to say no.
	They're going to work as fast as they can.
	Okay, someone's asking, what is the codex of the body of laws?
	Basically it's the UN conventions that have been enacted by the General Assembly.
	You know, it's hard to say, it's hard to answer that in a sentence, but there isn't like one codex.
	It's all of the international laws that have been enacted by the UN General Assembly.
	Not the voluntary treaties, but the actual conventions.
	Okay, someone's asking about a body of law that descends from British common law.
	Does that relate in any way?
	Well, common law principles are always used by judges, but let me say this about common law.
	There's a lot of theories that, you know, there's some kind of secret, you know, fancy strategies of some common law approaches and But you know, real judges don't handle things that way.
	There's no secret law that, you know, people have to know or don't know.
	The codified laws enacted by the UN General Assembly are more than enough.
	They cover every violation that there is.
	They already outlaw all the bad, dirty tricks that we see used against us every day.
	There's enough laws that are public and codified that nobody needs some cloudy, you know, uncertain Theories to try to find justice.
	Justice is abundantly clear in public, codified laws that have already been enacted by the countries of the world, and we're going to use them.
	Okay, who are the enforcers of the judgments of this court?
	Now, I know you sort of implied, or stated actually, you know, sort of a litany of rulings that might happen, but who are the enforcers?
	Anybody who the court can recruit.
	You know, there's a position in the independence of the judiciary.
	There's a thing called lay judges.
	In the European system, there's different types of judges.
	So they have a thing called a compliance judge where they can take a lay...
	It could be you, Kerry.
	Say you're a local civil activist and you have a network of You know, freedom movement people in your country and in your neighborhood, and you guys are friends with a bunch of sheriffs, and you feel that you have a grassroots network that can get some friendly officials to help enforce the warrants.
	This court can make you a lay judge, call you a compliance judge, give you a valid judiciary badge, and give you, you know, the documents proving that you work for this court.
	And then you then, as a volunteer, being given Full weight of international authority by the real licensed court can go and volunteer and interact with the sheriffs and help push the warrants.
	Since we can do that with an individual, we can do that with a group.
	If there's a non-profit that's lobbying for justice, maybe they have enough volunteers to cover a region or a territory or even a whole country.
	This court will connect to freedom-fighting groups, share with the people This isn't about the judges are going to have some guys come from the sky and enforce this for you.
	The people can do it, and the court can help them have the authority to do it.
	What's needed, though, is that the judgments have to be very valid and legal and justified so that when you go shop the arrest warrant, every sheriff or whoever you show it to will say, oh, hell yes, this is a real judgment.
	It has to be so legitimate on its face that nobody can argue with it.
	Once that's done, anybody can sign up as an enforcer, and the court can recruit masses of people to enforce, and it will.
	Okay, but there would have to be, in theory, law enforcement or local law enforcement, or in other words, somewhere down the line, someone is going to have to put their sort of...
	They're feet behind the situation to exercise enforcement.
	Otherwise, it won't be enforceable.
	There will be in-house compliance judges.
	I mean, after all, there's a chartered whole chamber of compliance judges.
	So we can connect to grassroots movements.
	We can empower people in regions.
	But on a certain level, in other words, you have a ruling.
	You've got a group that wants the ruling to take place and exercise.
	You could even have a local sheriff or a local law enforcement individual sympathetic to it.
	But, in essence, at some point, they can't act if they're, you know, prevented.
	I mean, we're talking, you know, on some level this gets kind of...
	The law says...
	Yeah, I understand, Carrie, but the law says the situation is different.
	The international law says they must act.
	If an international court says a valid warrant and they don't...
	Implemented.
	That is a violation.
	It's contempt of court, and it's an independent violation of international law that can also be criminal.
	So, you know, then anybody who refuses to enforce a valid judgment from this real court that has licensed authority is committing a separate crime all by themselves.
	And this court, the reason for having the Chamber of Compliance Judges is because the court will, in-house, Exercise the manpower to follow through and say, okay, now we're going to convict that guy.
	And the next guy, they'll go all the way up the chain until it goes out of the country into other countries and then goes to embassies.
	There are options.
	And this court won't stop until it's taking it all the way.
	It's not going to say, oh, well, the local sheriffs refused and they were pressured by the government so we give up.
	They're not going to give up.
	The law says they don't have to stop enforcing it.
	And if they have to go all the way to, you know, the other end of the planet, go to some little island on Papua New Guinea to get it in force, they're going to do it.
	They won't stop, you know?
	Okay.
	Now, one person, actually, this question has more or less been answered, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
	So that if you want to add any other remarks, and I certainly want to encourage Michael, and given that you're the judge with the background in law and some of these questions definitely seem to want to...
	Have an answer from someone in the law profession.
	And Michael is not.
	But nonetheless, Michael, if you can address this from your point of view, maybe.
	Is there a checks and balances system for the court?
	Meaning, is there a way judges remain just and do not abuse their power even if corrupted by the Illuminati?
	Okay, I'm going to have to beg off on that, but I am not competent to answer that question.
	Okay, now this question, I believe, has already been answered.
	Am I correct, Matthew?
	But do you want to add to this?
	To me, that does sound like a new question.
	It's handled in the foundation documents of the court, and this goes to the essence of correctly applying law.
	See, if you're a real court, in other words, you're doing what a real court is supposed to do, Law is public.
	You know, say there's a corrupt judge, right, and he just wants to, you know, favor the Illuminati.
	Well, if the law is not on their side, any judge would be humiliated by, you know, I mean, to be that corrupt judge and make that corrupt ruling, you'd have to ignore a law.
	You would get so ostracized, all the other judges would literally come and hit you over the head with their gavels.
	Gavels probably don't feel so.
	I mean, honestly, how could you not out yourself for being corrupt?
	Now, in government courts, they dismiss and ignore laws every day.
	But in a real court, if the law is there and the argument has been made, it must be dealt with.
	And there's a tradition of judiciary opinions.
	When judges make a ruling, they don't just say, I proclaim.
	They have to write a scholarly opinion, and they have to write why they dealt with adverse facts and why they decided that a certain fact or law doesn't apply.
	And the other judges have a right to write dissenting opinions.
	So a corrupt judge is not going to last 10 minutes in a court like this.
	Now, a lot of these international judges, like me, are angry.
	They're fed up that their countries have already been corrupted.
	Their cultures have been damaged.
	Their lives have been...
	You know, they're not having good lives.
	These are angry judges like me.
	I think you can tell I'm angry.
	I want to hurt some bad guys.
	I really do.
	I'm not happy at what they've done with society, with how they've damaged our countries, but other judges feel like this.
	A corrupt judge in August isn't going to last 10 minutes before we sniff them out and hit them over the head with a gavel.
	And I'm waiting for one of those guys to show up, because I'll hit first.
	Okay.
	So it's in the judiciary opinion that they get exposed.
	Because, you see, if you just say, I proclaim, and it's a corrupt judgment, the world will be able to see that that was a bad judgment, and that any of the other judges can step in and invalidate that judgment and correct it.
	Okay.
	Well, I think we, you know, that's an interesting question in the sense that You know, on a certain level, how you addressed it earlier, and again, to some degree this time, talking about it's in the original sort of founding documents of the court itself.
	Yeah, it would say that it must be a fully reasoned, transparent, judiciary opinion.
	This court doesn't allow judges to just say, oh, he's not guilty, and nobody knows why, and nobody can argue.
	That's not allowed by this court's charterer.
	Any judge that makes a ruling, they're going to have to practically write a doctorate dissertation and deal with every fact and every point of law and which way they go.
	And that means that it's transparent to the whole world and to every other judge to criticize.
	That's how real justice is done.
	And that's how the original principles of justice in history were founded.
	It works.
	It's a good system.
	It works.
	And I don't like that state courts now just do whatever they want and they don't need a reason.
	That's not real justice.
	I'm sorry.
	All those judges should be disbarred from that.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Now, actually, we've been going for a while.
	I think I've gotten most of these questions.
	I'm looking to see if there's any sort of random question that I might have missed here, but I think I got most of them.
	Is there some kind of jury system or panels of judges for nuanced cases?
	Don't know what that...
	It's kind of a vague question, but does that make sense?
	Yeah, it's possible, but this isn't really a jury deal.
	This court is based on not subjective criteria.
	I understand, yes, the jury are your peers, but the principles of the court are connected to the grassroots movement.
	It's not that we need some lay jurors to show up.
	If the principles that humanity has already codified in international law are applied technically correctly, in other words, if you don't ignore them and dismiss them, if you actually use the law and use the principles that humanity has already democratically codified, if you actually use the law and use the principles that humanity has already democratically codified, You don't need a subjective process.
	What we need is technical adherence to the things that we've already outlawed as the human race.
	The human race is spoken.
	I mean, this actually does bring up the idea here When you're saying it's a court...
	You're saying there's no jury, so there's only judges?
	And are judges, like, are we talking like, I don't know, Supreme Court, where you've got 12 or more?
	How many judges are we talking about?
	Let me put it, let me say, I don't remember the detailed rule on this, and I'd have to go and, you know, meet with some of the judges to ask them.
	But let me tell you my opinion on that.
	I think judges more, I mean, juries more often are manipulated.
	I think the juries are mostly used to manipulate things, make them subjective to circumvent strict application of what's been clearly outlawed.
	And so personally, you know, for me, if they ask my opinion, I'd suggest to them that you focus on judges who just strictly apply the law to the violation.
	Okay, but that's actually not my question.
	My question is how many judges comprise the court to look at every case?
	Oh, I think they fell the European system, where it's supposed to be at least three.
	And if it's a real serious case, then I'm sure that they bring other judges in.
	But in most European systems, it's a panel of three.
	Okay, is this something written into the bylaws of the court, or a specified number of judges that have to look at every case?
	Yeah, and there are rules.
	And by the way...
	I'm glad that they're asking all these questions and they're the right questions.
	The fact that there's all these questions justifies a tradition, a judiciary tradition, that the statutes of the court, in other words its rules, at some point absolutely must be published.
	And this is part of our funding.
	There's some expensive research and some expensive flying around between different countries of judges.
	We need some budgets to finish.
	The statutes, now remember, this is 70 years of international law that developed over the last 70 years since the UN was founded, that this new court now has to synthesize.
	If you look at the statutes of the charter of the International Court of Justice and the ICC, they're huge, they're like 80 page long statutes.
	And the one for ACIJ has to be double that.
	So this is a huge project that takes a lot of judges to work out all the nuances of all these rules, and they're not done yet, and they need some help with grassroots funding, but they will finish as a priority.
	In the first stage, they have to finish the statutes, and they will be public.
	And we're not going to leave the public wondering what the rule is.
	The whole world is going to see it all over the Internet, and everybody who needs to know is going to be able to look it up in two seconds and see what the rule is.
	Okay.
	So that's a fundamental principle of justice.
	Real law is public law to where everybody knows what the rules are.
	And then, you know, that also allows the court to adapt because then if the court gets a lot of feedback from the grassroots movement, like if Michael comes back representing the Justice for Humanity campaign and says, you know, they're not happy with one of these rules, you know, the judges will have Michael come in and present it and they can go and amend the charter.
	Okay, now someone is asking if this was to be operational, or actually if it was to be funded, how soon could it be operational?
	Okay, well that goes right to the funding question, Kerry.
	Essentially, we have all the steps laid out, we have all the expenses laid out.
	It happens as quickly as we have the funding to do it, I mean within reasonable human terms.
	This launch of Justice for Humanity, and it's www.justice4humanity.org if you want to help us make it happen.
	This phase of the launch is about the groundswell, where we are reaching out to the people, and if we're getting $5, $10, $15, whatever people can donate, Our larger donors who will come, there's plenty of people, very affluent people who see what's going on and want to make a difference.
	Those bigger donors are going to wait to see what's the public interest and support in the initial level.
	That's this phase.
	That's where we need everybody to come in and say, yes, I'm tired of this.
	These men and women have done the work to put the legal infrastructure in place.
	Enormous amounts of of effort and time and funding have already gone into this, and it can happen as quickly as the steps are accomplished with the funding.
	And if you go to justiceforhumanity.org and you hit the donate button, it'll take you to the Indiegogo site where every step is laid out.
	You want to see what needs to be done?
	It's a big, green, beautiful sign saying, what needs to be done?
	How quickly we can make this happen?
	So rather than take up a lot of time with that, I would encourage everybody...
	Okay, but let me just ask you...
	Okay, thank you.
	I'm sorry.
	So, justiceforhumanity, with a four, number four, justiceforhumanity.org.
	Okay?
	Yes.
	And we will also put that on the screen when we put this up on YouTube.
	Now...
	But within that, those parameters, are you saying that X amount of funding will then guarantee this going live within X number of months?
	In other words, are you specific in terms of the amount of money necessary and the amount of months, or are you, you know, vague?
	Because I guess that would be people's concern.
	No, we're very specific.
	We're very specific.
	Phase one is $500,000.
	For a crowdfunding campaign, that's a lot of money.
	So I'm told by crowdfunding experts, we're talking about the first licensed international court of human rights for the people to address massive systemic violations that are killing humanity and the planet.
	I'd say that's a modest initial budgetary figure.
	Maybe, Matthew, you want to jump in on how quickly the infrastructure might come into place if you had all the funding in hand today?
	I think it could become operational, and I don't know the amounts, I don't remember the stages, but from the big picture I see, it could be fully operational within three months, if it just has the financial muscle to finish the tasks at hand.
	The judges are certainly available.
	One of the biggest problems is economic slavery.
	People aren't free to be volunteers that much.
	It's easy to say, oh, we could get a lot of judges to volunteer part-time, but they're all slaves to these crappy day jobs.
	Did you notice over the last few years, A few years ago, when you call a friend or associate and they're at work, they were allowed to talk to you.
	Notice over the last few years, everybody says, oh, I can't talk.
	They don't allow me to talk.
	It's like the whip.
	You can hear the whips cracking.
	We're in economic slavery now.
	People aren't that free to volunteer part-time.
	So the idea that the judges need salaries, it's not because they want to get paid or they're doing it for money.
	It's because we have to set people free.
	I'm working with large groups of churches and non-profits on non-judiciary matters.
	The goal is how do we set people free to do these charitable missions and humanitarian missions?
	People have to be set free.
	Working your day jobs, never being able to fight for humanity is not going to work.
	These things need funding so that the freedom fighters are free to fight.
	Did I just coin a new thing?
	Yeah, I think that that's well said, and I have to say, you know, please consider Camelot, donating to Camelot in this, because, quite frankly, you know, we are constantly working around the clock.
	Come on, guys.
	We're working around the clock, and, you know, if we don't get proper funding, then basically we are not going to be able to continue operations, so...
	Go to my website for more about that.
	Alright, thank you very much both you guys.
	This is fascinating stuff and I think that people are very interested.
	I think they'd love to see something like this that was able to, in essence, act on behalf of humanity and start turning things around.
	So I appreciate your service to humanity in this way and I hope that this gets off the ground.
	I hope that people will We'll follow this information and investigate, do your own due diligence, and hopefully you guys can feed, I'm sure you will, feed me information as you have it, more articles by Michael, certainly, along these lines, but also progress as you go along the way, okay?
	All right.
	Thanks so much, Carrie.
	Thank you, Carrie.
	All right.
	Thank you, everyone, and thanks for listening, and have a great night.
	Okay.
	Take care.

▲