The Rule of National Law – without which, International Law has little chance.

An inner circle no one voted for

    Blog No. 137.

For this fortnight’s blog I had been planning to write at greater length on James Ranney’s book “World Peace through Law.” Though it is a slender book, the food for thought between its covers is rich and calls for a longer period of digestion than I had initially anticipated. The basic argument of the book is that international law is developing, much as did English common Law, through practice and common-sense solutions establishing precedents. With the increased globalisation of recent decades, this development of international law has greatly accelerated.

In Ranney’s view, progress is such that the point could soon be reached where, given certain preconditions; the rule of right could replace that of might and wars no longer be viewed as a legitimate pursuit of political ends by other means. The attractive argument presented is that mechanisms can be found to replace war with law but without the need to first having to cross the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of establishing some form of federal global government.

In the midst of my reading the above arguments, my friend and partner, ex-CIA asset Harmon Wilfred, whose tribulations have occupied so much of my thought and time, sent me this hyperlink.

It is a sixty-seven minute video clip presented by Kevin Shipp who, like Harmon, is a disillusioned former tool of the CIA. As a viewing of this video is essential to an understanding of what follows in this blog, and that will have taken up more than enough of your time, I’ll try to make this blog shorter than most.

Kevin Shipp, CIA whistle-blower

Watching Shipp’s video brought home to me one of the major difficulties the realisation of James Ranney’s vision of the global rule of international law will face. Should the major decision-makers on the world stage not be subject to their own national laws and constitutions, what hope can exist for their compliance when inconvenienced by the demands of international law?

Shipp’s style of presentation might be a bit too demagogic for some tastes, but he is attempting to establish a popular movement. His differentiation between the Deep State and the Shadow Government is very helpful to a better understanding of the current American system of mis-governance. There is clearly much that Shipp was inhibited from saying – such as the CIA’s domestic assassination activities. Otherwise, I could not detect a single bum note – except, perhaps, the fact that he is still alive! (It would appear that as a full-time officer of the CIA, he might have had more space in which to negotiate with his former employer and colleagues than did Harmon, who was merely an external contractor.)

The only factual claim that I would question is Shipp’s placing equal emphasis on the influence Saudi Arabia and Israel each exercise over the Deep State. My impression is that Israel’s influence is way more important than the Saudis’ – in fact Saudi Arabia is a client of the Deep State, while the Deep State is itself often a client to Israel. (However, one never knows just how much blackmail power the Saudis gathered over the 9/11 events.)

Though there was little new information in the presentation, it is always nice to have one’s prior deductions confirmed. For me, the most interesting part came at the very end. Here Shipp is showing how the CIA deals to whistle-blowers. This is so exactly what has happened to Harmon that I cannot doubt a word of it. Thanks to the Five Eyes relationship, one can safely assume that NZ’s SIS functions to a greater, rather than lesser, extent as a CIA franchise. What happened to Harmon at the hands of the Cabinet, the Christchurch Press, the Canterbury legal profession and the Ombudsman all point in that single direction.

The assassination of Harmon’s character and the destruction of the Wilfreds’ business relationships, the charity they had founded and their earnest attempts to integrate into their new community, came completely out of the blue. There were seven, or more, defamatory and utterly destructive articles written by Fairfax Media’s ‘ace’ investigative journalist. There was no obvious external event that might have prompted or justified the initial assault, which has subsequently been prolonged over the past ten years.

An otherwise, by reputation, ethical and highly professional ‘investigative journalist,’ has performed this calculated demolition of the Wilfred’s lives, without once meeting with, speaking to his subjects/victims, or even attempting a visit to their premises (which were not more than a ten minute drive from his office.) There was no attempt at, or even a pretence of ‘fair and balanced’ reporting.

The only journalistic leg-work detectable, is interviews conducted with two of Harmon’s former employees. One, was actually reported, quite correctly, in Fairfax’s Christchurch Press as having been convicted in a criminal court for theft from Harmon’s hotel and conference centre business (for which she had been dismissed.) The other, who as a director of his company, when it was foundering under the Fairfax assault and the Christchurch earthquakes, tried to force it into receivership so she could pick up for a song its most profitable remnant. The reporter must have been fully aware of the vindictive nature of his hugely biased sources.

I laid a complaint against Fairfax’s reporting at the NZ Press Council. However, the NZ printed media watchdog is very conveniently funded by the NZ media. With Fairfax being one of the main sources of the Council’s funding and their editor lying through his teeth that ‘…all the sources had been carefully checked out and were reliable,’ my complaint stood no chance.

Recently I attended a conference for Investigative Journalism. Here, I met Fairfax’s ace reporter for the first time. At a social evening, I went up to him, shook his hand and introduced myself. As it dawned on him who I was, he became extremely hostile and said I had no right to be at the conference and that he had absolutely nothing to say to me. When I inquired whether, as an investigative journalist, he did not have just a little curiosity to hear another side to the Wilfred story, he replied that there was nothing I could possibly tell him as “he knew far more about Wilfred than anything I could possibly know.”

He must have known full well that I have known and been friends of the Wilfreds since 2005, their business partner since 2008 and been in constant communication with them throughout that period. Given that undeniable fact, it set me thinking as to what could be behind his extraordinary claim of more intimate knowledge than mine.

My kindest conclusion is that either he was simply preserving his job by working to instructions received from Fairfax, or that he himself had been put up to it and totally deceived by a CIA sponsored NZ SIS briefing. Less kind would be to think that he had accepted payment in cash, or other journalistic leads, for making the hit. Shamefully, the fact that he refused to indulge in any attempt at a serious investigation, seemingly points in that latter direction. Perhaps he is a beneficiary of the CIA’s ‘free flights to the USA for foreign journalists’ programme, which was exposed in Udo Ulfkotte’s testimony?

My involvement with Harmon recently provided me with a further insight into the media and public perception control methods of the CIA’s ‘shadow government’, which serves only to confirm Shipp’s argument.

When Harmon was operating ITTelenet, the international telecom business that he established on arrival in NZ he was using as his press agency a company owned and operated by ‘John,’ a NZ-resident, American citizen. Recently Harmon went back to John, with whom he had been on very friendly terms and who was fully aware of his background, with a press release relating to the Wilfreds’ personal struggle with the CIA and its subservient NZ government agencies. A very apologetic John refused to handle the release on the grounds that “…he had a sister working in the US for a government department and she would be fearful for her job were her brother to become in any way involved with criticism of the CIA.”

In the meantime, until the USA’s Shadow Government, as glimpsed through Shipp’s testimony, is somehow brought back under constitutional control and the USA is able to return to rule under its enacted constitution, there would appear to be little hope for James Ranney’s proposal of International peace and disarmament through enforceable International law.


NZ is on the cusp of announcing its new coalition government after the recent MMP election. It will be interesting to see if the country ends up with a change of government. If so there exists a faint hope for the Wilfreds that a new cabinet might have the courage and the foresight to free itself from the USS Sinking. Put another way, now is the time for NZ to get out of its nappies and wean itself off the contaminated mother’s milk expressed from Langley’s nipples.

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *