Forming New Nations for the New Earth
THE NEXT GENERATION OF NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Within the written Laws that rule most of the individuals on Earth today, there are some of the most authentic truths that mankind has ever transmitted. It’s very clear that those who have written the laws have excellent mastery of human nature. What’s not clear, is if those writers of the Laws, do it for the benefit of Humanity or merely for their own selfish reasons.
While many believe they have a fundamental grasp of Law and Justice, at least in an intellectual sense, there are much deeper spiritual reasons why life can be so difficult and appear to be unjust. We are here to play roles, to exhaust ridged and unyielding beliefs. The harder we hang on to those false beliefs, the more viciously they are ripped away. Ultimately, life is a spiritual contract to resolve false beliefs for the purposes of spiritual growth. These experiences are decorated as everyday life to resolve emotions, such as that of victim-hood. To be an Integrated Sovereign Human Being is to Love and Honor yourself, even if no one else will. To become Sovereign, requires you to give away your Sovereignty, over and over and over, to those who are unworthy to be your leaders, until you become so totally dissatisfied with the results, that ultimately you conclude that you must govern yourself and that you must make alliances with other people of impeccable character. It’s time to unravel those beliefs that are keeping you from your natural state of Peace, Joy, Abundance, and Freedom, collectively 'Sovereignty', and to take your free and equal place among the powers of the Earth. After the white fire of experiences have burned away all the false beliefs, that which remains, is the Authentic you.
You are the space in which life unfolds, and when you stop confusing yourself as the content within life, then everything changes. Any role you play, that is less than a fully integrated sovereign, is not the totality of YOU. Life, experience, and even government is always perfect, just not perfected, and when the people are ready for a new paradigm, a more perfect society will appear.
INERNATIONAL LAW IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
I know that people might argue that God or Nature or Universal principles are more supreme, but I'm not here to argue over the intangible. I briefly tackle this issue in the conclusion at the end. I'm here to explain how the Laws of Man in relation to others, operate on Earth, in the present.
- The United States Constitution Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 10 – “define and punish … offenses against the law of nations”
- The United States Constitution Article VI – “International Law and Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
- In Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, Chief Justice Marshall explained “that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.
- Similar references to International Law and the Law of Nations being supreme is an essential element of most Nations on the planet.
HISTORY OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Traditionally, international law has been defined as “the body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one another.” The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as an international agreement between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments.
The principle sources of international law are enumerated in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, a treaty that has been ratified by every member of the United Nations. The four sources listed in Article 38 are: (a) international conventions or treaties establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; (b) customary international law, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; (d) and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. It appears that Nations are moving more and more to (a) expressed International Treaties, as there is less room for dispute.
There are some international norms so fundamental, however, that they apply to all states and permit no derogation, such as Self-Determination. Below, is recent history of Self-Determination transitioning from a philosophical theory to a political concept with mandatory adherence.
Prior to 1941, The President of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson, shortly after the first World War, and as the “Touchstone for peacemakers at Versailles” described ‘self-determination’ as “imperative principle of action.” But, Wilsons attempt to make self-determination incorporated into the League of Nations to “universalize the principle applied in the postwar settlements” failed.
In the 1941 Atlantic Charter, Article 3 (President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill – in an attempt to ally the world against the Axes) – “They respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”
Jan 1st 1942, in Washington DC, the United Nations is effectively formed and the Atlantic Charter is signed by 26 Nations.
In the 1945 San Francisco Conference, the Soviet Union proposed a United Nations Amendment that effectively ended up in the UN Charter as (Chapter IX) Article 55, “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people, the United Nations shall promote.”
United Nations Charter with over 50 Nations signed on, came into effect in 1945.
- Chapter 1 Article 1 Section 2, “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
- Chapter 1 Article 1 Section 4, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
- Chapter XI Article 73, Section A, “to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
- Chapter XI Article 73, Section B, “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
- Chapter XII Article 76, Section B, “to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;
- Chapter XIV Articles 92-94, “Establish the International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations, and for all members to comply with its rulings.”
In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which included in Article 1 Section 1 “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.”
In 1948 the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article XIX, “Every person has the right to the nationality to which he is entitled by law and to change it, if he so wishes, for the nationality of any other country that is willing to grant it.”
In 1949 the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 1 Section 4, “in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as en-shrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”
In 1955 first congress of International Commission of Jurists, who are affiliated with the International Court of Justice where the participants gave effect to the Act of Athens, which resolved: “(9) The recognition of the right to self-determination being one of the great achievements of our era and one of the fundamental principles of international law, its non-application is emphatically condemned. (10) Justice demands that a people or an ethnic or political minority be not deprived of their natural rights and especially of the fundamental rights of man and citizens or of equal treatment for reasons of race, color, class, political conviction, caste or creed.”
In 1960, United Nations resolution 1514 (XV) Section 2 Declaration on granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. “All peoples have the right of self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” – was adopted by a vote of 89 to 0.
In a decision by the International Court of Justice, in the South-West Africa Cases (Dec. 26, 1961, and July 18, 1966), Judge Nervo, expressed the following “will inspire the vision and the conduct of peoples the world over until the goal of self-determination and independence is reached.”
In 1962 United Nations resolution 637 (VII) The Rights of peoples and nations to self-determination, “Whereas the rights of peoples and nations to self-determination is a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights.”
In 1962 Chapter XVI was added that included Article 103, “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
In 1966 Two Conventions on human rights came into force – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The Covenants have a common Article 1, which states: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.” Further, in section 3: “The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
In the 1969 Vienna Conventions on Law of Treaties, Article 27, it says that internal law cannot be used as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. In other words, International Law is the supreme law of the land, but generally will not interfere between a Nation and its Citizens.
In 1970 the United Nations resolution 2625: Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. “By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”
In 1975 The Advisory Opinion of the International Court relating to the Western Sahara Case reconfirmed as well “the validity of the principle of self-determination” in the context of international law.
In the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference of 1975, “by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social, and cultural development.” Also, “The participating States, will refrain in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general, from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” Lastly, “frontiers can be changed, in accordance with international law, peaceful means, and by agreement.”
In 1993, 171 states adopted the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights that was then adopted by the 48th session of the General Assembly (48/21), “2. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right” and “83. The World Conference on Human Rights urges Governments to incorporate standards as contained in international human rights instruments in domestic legislation and to strengthen national structures, institutions and organs of society which play a role in promoting and safeguarding human rights.”
HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW
Over and over and over, contained within these Supreme Laws of the Land, messages of Human RIGHTS are conveyed, and not just the right of Self-Determination. The Treaties echo dignity, equality, freedom, inalienable rights, justice, and peace for all individuals. These treaties claim to secure protection against barbarous acts, tyranny, and oppression, to develop friendly relations, increase the standard of living, and to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These treaties express that there is to be no discrimination, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, location, nation of origin, or political preference, and they also convey the rights to life and liberty, and that no one shall be held in slavery or involuntary servitude. They even convey that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile, they guarantee privacy, and claim every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Hopefully by now, I have convinced you that a) International Law is the Supreme Law of the Land and b) That the Members of the United Nations, absolutely and unequivocally, adhere to the right of ‘self-determination’.
But, I know there are many doubters, which is why in the next sections I aim to address this doubt.
Individuals also have the right to voluntarily give up their rights and to become subjects/citizens of the Sovereign (Nation). The Supreme Laws of the Land, fail to authentically clarify that there are those who are party to the Constitutions, Compacts and Charters, and that there are those who are merely subjects (citizens) of the Constitutions, Compacts and Charters. Hidden in plain sight is that the masses “HAVE NO STANDING” and therefore NO enforceable rights. Obfuscation makes right of Kings, quite literally. Citizens have given up their natural rights, except for those rights protected under international law, for granted civil rights.
There are those who are part of the constitutions known as Sovereigns, and there are those who are subjects to the constitutions, known as citizens, that at times can be granted immunity by the sovereign. If you want to know why a Politician has not gone to prison for violation of civil laws, then it can be for no other reason than the immunity they have been granted. But, if that same Politician violates International Law, no immunity exists.
- Prosecutor may violate civil rights in initiating prosecution and presenting case. - United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtmanz 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
- Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential litigation. - Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Davis v. Grusemever, 996 F.2d 617 (1993)
- Prosecutor may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence. - United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
- Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation. - Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)
- Prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction. - Eighth Circuit Federal Court of appeal in Myers v. Morris, 840 F.2d 1337 (1986)
- Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony. - Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 1310 (1987)
- Prosecutor can suppress exculpatory evidence. (Exculpatory defined: Evidence showing one innocent) - Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Henzel v. Gertstein, 608 F.2d 654 (1979)
- Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine outcome of judicial proceedings. - Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 E.2d 1072 (1986)
- Prosecutor may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that never occurred. - Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Norton v. Liddell, 620 F.2d 1375 (1980)
In the Declaration of the International Rights and Duties of the Individual Article VII - “Every individual is entitled to be protected and assisted by the state to which he belongs, in the manner and form established by treaties and by international law. No individual who, according to the law of the state against which he institutes a claim, as a citizen of that state, shall be entitled to such protection.”
- What manner and form of protection are established for citizens who have voluntarily given up their rights in exchange for privileges and granted rights, which can be un-granted?
- What happens when the citizen, who only has granted rights, institutes a claim against the state they belong?
Also in the ‘Declaration of the International Rights and Duties of the Individual’ Article X - “No alien may interfere either directly or indirectly in the politics of the country in which he happens to be, nor claim the enjoyment of any rights or any assertion of such rights other than those provided for nationals by the constitution and the laws.” And Article XI – “Aliens shall be obliged to respect the political, social, and economic regime prevailing in the state in which they reside, to observe and obey the laws and other provisions in force therein, and to submit to the jurisdiction and decisions of its government authorities and of its courts of justice.”
The United States Declaration of Independence, “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” – does that mean that men who do not institute Governments have NOT secured their rights?
Oregon Constitution Article 1 Section 1, “We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right” – does that mean that men do who do not form a social compact are NOT equal in right?
As you can see above, there is NO wiggle room in International Law for those who claim to be State Nationals or Sovereign Citizens or Non-Citizen Nationals or Stateless or Foreign Nationals or a Peoples Public Trust, etc. It’s a private club, if you’re not a member, merely a Citizen, and you don’t like how you’re treated, then you need to EXIT. You can stop using accepted for value, stop looking for your statutory remedies and redemptions, stop learning secret trustee language to use in court, stop suing your (Sovereign) Government (act of war), stop playing strawman name games and you can stop searching through endless legal-ese looking for the secret loop hole what will get closed shortly after it's discovery. People need to form social compacts and create their own political identities to be recognized by the members of the United Nations. This is the definition of ‘Self-Determination’ that is recognized by the member Nations of the United Nations. To form your own nations is inviolable.
The Founders of those Republics that some people love so much, did not create those Constitutions for Citizens, and instead created it for the ‘People and their Posterior’. Please notice that People and Posterior are capitalized, which is a 'capitonym' that changes the meaning of people from a general definition to a specific definition that needs context to discern. In this case ‘People’ and ‘Posterior’ are the signers of the Constitutions and their designated offspring, and no other.
IS THE 'CITIZEN' OBFUSCATION MORAL?
What do the long held Maxims of Law have to say about suspicious positions?
- Unusual clauses always induce suspicion.
- The law rejects superfluous, contradictory, and incongruous things.
- Actions born of necessity do not convey a tacit construction.
- He who errs is not considered consenting.
- Nothing inconvenient is lawful.
- It is a miserable slavery where the law is vague or uncertain.
- Fraud lies hid in general expressions.
- A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.
- A clause in law which precludes its abrogation, is invalid from the beginning.
- A custom introduced against reason ought rather to be called a usurpation.
- A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null.
- He does not appear to consent, if via a threatening party.
- What is expressed renders what is implied silent.
- That which is done can be undone in same principles.
- He who ratifies a bad action is considered as having ordered it.
- In doubt, the gentler and safer course is to be followed.
- When doubts arise the most generous and benign presumptions are to be preferred.
- The right of blood and kindred cannot be destroyed by any civil law.
- The law would rather tolerate a private wrong than a public evil.
- When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by law of nature.
- A Law is not obligatory if not promulgated.
- It matters not whether a revocation be by words or by acts.
- A Clause in a Law which precludes abrogation is void ab initio.
- Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection.
- What necessity forces, it justifies.
- Whenever there is doubt between rights and servitude, the decision must favor rights.
- It is a miserable state of things where the law is vague and uncertain.
- Where the Law is uncertain, there is no Law.
- Everything is dissolved by the same mode in which it is bound together.
- Those who don’t know are at the mercy of deceivers.
Are the rulers of this world benevolent leaders holding space until the rest of Humanity is ready to assume their free and equal position? Are they promoting the right of Self-Determination as stated in their treaties, or are they putting up road blocks to see which of us is ready, willing, and able to navigate them? Has history proven that without Rulers, Humanity devolves into Barbarous animals? Are the politicians of your Nation above average, average, or below average? Did Citizens, authentically grant full consent of the nearly complete loss of their rights? Were all the requirements of a valid agreement in place? Was there full transparency and total honesty in an offer and acceptance model? Did there exist a meeting of the minds? Was consideration present, or was benefit heavily skewed to one party? Can Nations be so cavalier with the near total loss of liberties as to so generally assume on a large scale, tacit agreement? Is this choice so paramount to the delicate fabric of society, that it should be a fully expressed agreement? Are we ordering food here or are we preserving the fundamental rights of billions of human beings? Do Nations provide an easy to find department of ‘EXIT’ similar to Social Security? Do Nations make sure that Citizens are taught contracts, legal-ese, and the Law of Nations?
Shouldn’t any objection, even a mere hint, to the total loss of liberties, be considered revocation of Citizenship? For instance, if someone was to justify not paying Income tax for reasons of wars of aggression, wouldn’t this be evidence that tacit agreement to Citizenship no longer exists? How about a simple letter to a Tax Agency of non-consent? Couldn’t the Nation simply stop providing benefits to those who show objection instead of forcing imprisonment or being so heavy handed? Have the services that Nations provide, become so pervasive, so integral to society, so completely necessary, that it’s impossible for 7.5 Billion people to survive without taking the benefits, and therefore the Law of Necessity overrides any presumption of tacit agreement? Is it reasonable to create a system that the absence of it, creates dangers for billions? Shouldn’t something as obscure as Citizenship, be presented in the News and taught in Schools? When Standing is even slightly in doubt, should Nations be deciding for themselves if they have Jurisdiction? Is this not a conflict of interest?
Most of the barbarous and heinous crimes to ever occur on a large scale were done in the names of Nations. Yet, Tyrants don’t generally perform crimes against humanity directly, instead Citizens do when the obey the order of Tyrants, generally out of ‘National Pride’. Isn’t this topic, the single most important in the history of man? How do we organize society in such a way that heinous acts of war and mass poverty are ended? This is a decision paramount to the abundance and pursuit of happiness of Billions of Human Beings. It should not be left in the hands of a few Rulers to decide for themselves. Unmitigated Hierarchy Breeds Tyranny. If a free and secure society requires a delicate equilibrium of law, should Citizenship warrant a more than simple assumed tacit compliance?
I realize that within the Anarchist, Voluntary, Free Market crowd, that many find the word ‘Nation’ repugnant. But, is it not possible to form a compact among friends who are your free and equal, to help, protect, and support each other, and yet be without Hierarchy? Could it be argued that a Nation, formed by a compact among honorable friends, where everyone is of equal position, is an Anarchist Nation? If Anarchists organically work together for the benefit of each other and to produce a more abundant society, is it really so bad to form a written compact to receive International recognition as a Nation? Can there be a middle ground, where there might exist loose affiliations, comprised of people who use Decentralized Services, Dis-intermediation Blockchain Ledgers, Alternative Internets, Trustless Smart Contracts, and other similar services to provide both a Free Market and a method of security, without ultimately being reduced to a Citizen without rights? Shouldn’t there be many choices without having to change geographical locations? Wouldn’t it be healthy for people to experience a variety of Social Contracts, to see which they prefer?
Do people want to be Subject to a Nation that gives immunity to Police for assaulting them, who can bring charges against them for crimes known not to occurred, to be found guilty via a conspiring Judge and Prosecutor, and to be a part of codes that number in the millions that cause even the most honest of men to be in violation?
One possible conclusion, is that Governments don't want the responsibility of Governing people, instead they want people to form their own Nations, to Govern themselves, and they are willing to go to extreme injustices as incentive.
WHAT IS SELF-DETERMINATION
While we can clearly see that the Members of the United Nations will absolutely and unequivocally uphold your right of Self-Determination, where we run into trouble is with the definition of Self-Determination. While this debate could take up thousands of pages, it appears that the scope and content of self-determination could be better defined. What is clear is that International Law does not recognize Self-Determination of the individual. People must form compacts to be recognized. People cannot be a society of one, or they would last no more than a single generation.
THE NEW PARADIGM IS WITHIN
The system is designed to prey upon the darkness inside of us. To stop being victims of the system, we need to transform the darkness, attain knowledge, and then act. It’s paramount at this point in history, that people upgrade their attitudes and beliefs. If we are going to prove to the powerful rulers of Nations that we are ready to govern ourselves, then we must temper any vindictiveness or belligerence towards the long ruling traditional 'Nation' model, no matter what injury is believed.
We cannot create something newer and better, full of peace and abundance, with a brighter future for the next generations, by fighting it into existence. The Nations that have long ruled have repeatedly expressed, that individuals have the right of self-determination, which is the right to take our free and equal position. Let’s start exercising this right, from a place of peace, in a way that provides opportunity and security for all and begin rendering courts as unneeded. Let’s give the Legacy Model of Nations the opportunity to do RIGHT by the people and allow the Law of Nations to provide for balance in the right of Self-Determination. We cannot fight the long standing traditional models of Nations with guns and expect to win. The solution is sanity, reason, and peaceful settlement of dispute. To successfully welcome the new, we must first thank the old for its service, and then create the new.
We are the Universe experiencing itself, choosing to transform an experience of suffering to an experience of abundance.
A HIGHLY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE
A handful of politicians cannot declare sovereignty for the entirety of a people. Each Citizen must themselves decide to exercise the right of self-determination. No one can free you, except you.
There is an old maxim – “All people get the Government they deserve, ultimately”.
I claim that this maxim needs an update – “All people get the Government they need, and sometimes they need an abusive government as incentive to take control of their own lives.”
The system is a scam perpetrated on the people, and no matter who rules, it always has been and forever will be, a scam. In this case, the scam is ultimately needed for the growth of humanity. Whether a few years, or a few millenniums, the people will eventually step up and take their position of Sovereignty among the free and equal powers of this world.
Hence, one of the following two conclusions is correct and I leave it to the reader to decide which.
The Powers That Be (TPTB) do not want the burden of Governing people. A significant portion of the people are totally incapable of governing themselves. TPTB want people of Virtue and Morality to Govern themselves, but will certainly rule over those won’t. They would rather rule, then be ruled by barbarous individuals who might ultimately destroy the planet and all living things. TPTB are maintaining a minimal level of environmental protection, while patiently waiting for Sovereign people to come of age. TPTB are so dedicated to a free and peaceful people stepping into Sovereignty, that they have allowed the worst of the worst to rule while simultaneously fending off annihilation. Ultimately, the people will become so exhausted and tired of onerous government, that they will finally take the necessary action to exercise their right of self-determination.
It doesn’t matter if the above conclusion is wrong. TPTB, will honor your free, peaceful, and moral Sovereign position, if not of their own benevolence, then of their fear of Universal Karma.