From Brent Johnson July 16, 2015 re: ITNJ Constitution

I have read and reviewed the Constitution for the International Tribunal for Natural Law and have several
comments and suggestions I would like to offer at this time.
Firstly, a Constitution should be as perfect in its grammar as possible, so as to preclude any
misunderstandings or vague now or in the future. To this end, I would like to offer to proofread the
document. I was a professional editor and proofreader, and I am very detailed in working to ensure there
are no mistakes when applying my skills in this manner.
Because I was reading the document for content and to see if I had any comments or suggestions to make,
I was not simultaneously reading it as a proofreader. I will do so if requested but do not want my efforts
to be ignored. So please do not request I do this unless the Tribunal is prepared to make the necessary
changes pursuant to my review. If I do proofread, my efforts will only have to do with spelling and
grammar, and will not in any way be related to the content of the document.
Below are my initial comments and suggestions concerning this Constitution:
Article 1. I strongly recommend that a paragraph be added to define the meaning of sovereign people
for the purposes of this constitution. For example, I define sovereign people to mean the body of people
who accept and have not relinquished their Creator-endowed rights to life, liberty and property, and
whose rights are not subject to regulation, taxation, control, or otherwise by any government, nongovernment organization, administrative agency, or any other outside party or entity. In other words, a
sovereign person is king or queen of his/her own life, so long as he/she does not damage the unalienable
rights of any other natural person.
I think this is very important, since the term is used twice in this article and the protection of the rights of
sovereign people everywhere is the fundamental objective of the Tribunal.
Article 2. What is Humanitad? I tried to go to www.humanitad.org and found a virus threat that my AVG
virus scanner removed; then it would not take me to the web site. If this (The Humanitad Foundation) is
the Humanitad to which the Constitution refers, I would want to know the degree to which it is
independent of outside influences (such as the United Nations).
Article 3, Paragraph 3. Tribunal judges are appointed in accordance with accepted international
conventions in relation to independence of the judiciary. I would like to see the process of appointing
judges spelled out in this Constitution. The terms used are vague and ambiguous.
Additionally, I oppose in the strongest terms an appointment for life. The Fascist Police State of
Amerika (i.e. United States) appoints judges for life and look at the trouble that has caused. There should
be a strict and non-negotiable limit on the terms of all judges.
Since removal of a Judge requires 75% of a vote of the Board of Trustees, the term limit of a judge would
help ensure that misconduct by Judges should not continue indefinitely, even if such a majority could not
be obtained for political or other reasons.
Article 5 I do not care for Appropriate legal qualifications designation and requirement for Judges.
Firstly, the legal standards recognized around the world are the same standards that have brought
ongoing corruption of human rights throughout the world. Secondly, how many nations need to

recognize a legal standard to make it appropriate? If a nation recognizes judicial tyranny as an

acceptable standard then does that qualify a judicial tyrant to be a Tribunal Judge?
Furthermore, there are people who are extremely knowledgeable in Natural Law and have the skills and
capabilities to serve as effective Tribunal Judges, even though they lack recognized legal qualifications.
In many cases, these people would better serve the objectives of the Tribunal as Judges than attorneys
and official legal practitioners that this Article suggests should compromise the Tribunal. I believe this
Article needs to be substantially reworked to consider those people as Tribunal Judges.
Article 9. I suggest the actual wording of the oath should be made a part of this Constitution, rather than
have it left up to any person or persons to fabricate. The Constitution is the governing law of the ITNJ,
and thus the oath taken by Officers and Judges should be mandated by it.
Additionally, I would like to see made part of this Constitution, a declaration of the consequences for
violating the oath, who can bring charges against a Judge or Officer for violating his or her oath, and who
would decide such a matter. An oath is meaningless if its violation carries no consequences.
Article 11, Paragraph 1, line 4. (This is actually a proofreading note but it is critically important so I
included it here). The word inalienable should be changed to unalienable. Inalienable means should
not be changed; unalienable means cannot be changed. Rights are unalienable.
Paragraph 2. This is vague and ambiguous. Under what specific circumstances (administrative or legal
reasons) would a Grand jury be bypassed to bring a matter before the Tribunal?
Article 14. To no person will the Tribunal sell or deny or delay right or justice. What does this mean?
Article 19. I strongly oppose this Article in its current written form. Standard legal principles do not allow
affidavits to be admitted as evidence, unless the affiant is present at the hearing or trial. If the Judge is to
determine admissibility in accordance with recognized legal and equitable principles, then how is this
Tribunal different from any other court in the world? I think the determining factors should be
incorporated into the body of the Constitution rather than be up to the discretion of the presiding judge,
who is after all only one person.
Article 22, Paragraph 2. I strongly advise removing the words is a living document from this Paragraph.
A living documents has been construed to mean that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to the
whims and opinions of those currently sitting in the governed body. In other words, what one president
thinks it means today may be different from that the next president thinks it means tomorrow. The
Constitution is supposed to govern the ITNJ, not the other way around. Therefore, it should be clear and
binding upon all Judges, Officers, Members, Trustees, and anyone else whose position has been created
by it. This is the meaning of the phrase, a government of law, not men.
Finally, while any constitution should have provisions for its amendment, I believe there should be certain
elements that are declared permanent. These should not be subject to amendment ever. These
represent the fundamental purposes of the ITNJ and as such should never be introduced for change or
amendment.
I know this has been lengthy but I hope it will provide you with food for thought. It also provides you with
a sense of the way I work in these situations. I will produce clear recommendations and/or decisions, and
will always include my reasons for them. If you decide to bring me on board I will do my very best to

ensure that the principles of the ITNJ always reflect the declared goal of providing freedom and justice to
sovereign people around the world.
Please confirm receipt of this message and let me know if and when you want me to have a conversation
with any of the others involved in this project.
For truth and justice,

Brent Johnson