Folks, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the work of the International Common Law Court of Justice.
Firstly, they’re not to be confused with the International Court of Justice at the Hague.
Secondly, as far as I know, they’re not a legal court per se.
What follows is my interpretation and may or may not be exact. I believe they were started as a result of the courts of the world not stepping up to the plate and trying people felt to be untouchable, for such crimes as residential-schools genocide and now a planned Covid pandemic.
Kevin Annett and Sasha Stone are two of its founders. The late Robert David Steele was a “jurist.”
I recall some years ago reading that they maintained that a common-law proceeding should have every bit as much standing as a regular proceeding. That has never developed.
I imagine that it was also felt that if a private common-law court could try very prominent people for child trafficking and sacrifice, it might start the ball rolling in the mainstream legal world. Certainly they did not fear to investigate areas that were largely taboo at the time.
Their verdicts, as far as I know, carry no legal weight and are simply influential/persuasive.
In this case they “tried” Big Pharma et al and brought in a verdict. They of course will want to beat the drum loudly but no penalties, as far as I’m aware, are actually visited upon those “found” guilty.
In my view, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for keeping several issues of global importance before the public when no one else wanted to touch them.
But it wouldn’t be fair, say, to ask what the case number is, etc. They’re not a legal institution and shouldn’t be expected to imitate or attempt to meet the standards that state courts do. I imagine their funds are way too limited to meet that high a standard.