Declaration of Independence... Drafting in Progress.

[Daozen]

One of the main things I'd want to prove in any document/court is: Person/group X is not fit to be a leader/or have a position on Earth, and therefore any claim they have is illegitimate. Then give them 5 days to contest that claim.

Then maybe go so far as to put a lien on their property.

1) Prove that they are incapable of leadership.
2) Void their ownership.
3) Write a novation.
4) Put a lien on their property.

[Daozen]

You would be placing the burden on the other party to prove confidence/legitamacy.

I guess confidence/no confidence is parliamentary, but there might be a legal parallel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence

[lcam88]

One of the main things I'd want to prove in any document/court is: Person/group X is not fit to be a leader/or have a position on Earth, and therefore any claim they have is illegitimate. Then give them 5 days to contest that claim.

Then maybe go so far as to put a lien on their property.

1) Prove that they are incapable of leadership.
2) Void their ownership.
3) Write a novation.
4) Put a lien on their property.

Leadership is somewhat a vague and perhaps even subjective term. We both know that actions speak louder than words, perhaps we need "Moses leads the slaves into the desert" moment. How to do that is a very large subject in and of itself.

In our westernized civilization, claim of control and claim over the benefits of worldly material, ownership, boils down to the question of who has legitimacy to what. This is done by title, deeds, licensing and of course contracts. But at the level I am thinking of, we want to delegitimize claims to land and natural resources. If the movement you are suggesting is going to be sustainable, you must attend to the basic needs people have, food, shelter, water... as well. Being sovereign is not easy these days because we all depend on the system... We voluntarily must give up some level of sovereignty so we may enjoy benefits the collective (however corrupt) still provides. Steps 2,3 and 4 are actually all one step: shift legitimacy to administer resources from the defunct to the functional.

This type of action, a revolution in every sense of the word, is executed by the people and requires no signed contract or paperwork to legitimize. The very action is legitimizing. In my view, its the only way to get enforcement of the claims made. I think paperwork and contract can serve to create order in the ranks, but in terms of the opponent faced, it will come down to maneuvering, strategy, positioning and perhaps more. I think the best course of action is to use the avenue of democracy, a value they still apparently adhere. Candidates elected need to start responding to call we may put forth. If they can do that voluntarily, or if we elect our own reps into positions, the result is change.

Novation means change.

Organizing the masses is the initial challenge. That is where change must start; we do not want a symbolic victory, or a pyhrric victory, we want an actual victory.

Our opposition have mass media, control of resources as well as all the guns. But, I still think there is a way, the issue is how to make the changes we need and where we may garner strength to hold meaningful positions that will cause change.

Another poster I replied to called for people to organize, to work together. The ether is full, almost saturated, with a desire for something new.

[johnjen325]

johnsen235:

Consideration can by anything at all, monetary value,a good, service, the exchange of one monetary value for another (a 20 note for 2x10 notes) for example is an exchange of consideration. A consideration can be any tangible or intangible including peace of mind, knowledge, advice, favor or even promise.

So in essence, our mere presence and contribution of meaning, ideas, energy, etc. could also be a form of consideration, depending upon the terms of the agreement between 2 or more individuals involved.

In fact a 10 dollar note is actually a promise if you understand it's origins from the Federal Reserve Act and the UCC.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties (the meeting of minds) concerning the exchange of consideration. Disagreement cannot be the foundation of a contract, but failure to manifest an opposition can construe an agreement given the right circumstances. Such a circumstance is called tacit acquiescence. The unspoken can in fact be in agreement simply because it is reasonable to presume that an individual acts responsibly for the ordeals that involve him. There are maxims that support this. Qui tacet consentire videtur. (He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.) http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml

All of that said, take a look on page 2 about what I say about memorializations of contract to understand why, in all actuality, contract also has space in Universal Law.

"but failure to manifest an opposition can construe an agreement"
This single aspect has been used to manipulate and maintain 'control' for far to long.

And the fact that this is not 'common knowledge' (both by intention and manifestation) is a 'loop hole' that has been used to take advantage of any and all who succumb to this deception. And since it's not a level playing field AND this is an aspect of fraudulent contractual activity, such that those who are of the 'more for me' crowd make and use these assumptions and 'get away' with it.

The simple fact that this isn't taught in school, except to those who study law, can't be a simple oversight.

(He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.)
I see the operative word here as "appears".
So how does the law deal with an abstract term such as appear?

And lastly, from my research it seems that the basis for our contractual understanding is based upon a subset of Universal Law. Which implies that it (UL) is 'more' fundamental in terms of it's 'authority'.


JJ

[lcam88]

Appearances matter. How do you deal with it? you pad it with procedure to create additional clarity. Throw administrative procedure into the works with communications of your intent. The key is to be very clear, at all stages of what is so that "didn't understand" or didn't know are not admissible. That is actually the strategy used by the IRS.

Administrative procedures, yes. Send a notice of fault to advise that indeed you haven't yet recieved a reply and encourage a reply. Then notice of default. USC defines 30 day periods, so consider a 30 day window for the reply, then send send the first notice and give another 15.

Do you have a link for info on UL, interested.

[johnjen325]

To me that is a source of consternation.
Appearance is not only culturally dependant, but assumes that the meaning behind appearances are universal.
Clearly this isn't the case.

This involves a huge set of assumptions, much like what TPTB use in defining us as paupers, or being dead at 7 years old, unless we declare otherwwise, etc.

As for a link to a set of Universal Laws, I've not found a 'reliable' and 'trustworthy' source.
I have run across multiple different sources but they don't always agree, thus it's hard to assign any one of them as true Universal Laws.

The Law of One seems to have them embedded within those writtings but it takes a good deal of effort to extricate them, intact.

I figure disclosure will, or at least might, yield this kind of info.

JJ
ps. here is another 'older' source of one set of laws, and they are buried within the pages of these 3 books.
http://nohoax.com/index.php?option=c...&id=24&catid=1
I ran across these 3 books back in the late 90's

[Daozen]

I agree that eventually you have to give it clarity and keep the administrative procedures similar to their own. That gives it legal weight.

I'm thinking in two phases.

Phase one: Magic Phase: I just get the document printed, put online, maybe stamped by a notary, and filed somewhere quietly, maybe out in Taiwan or HK.

Phase two: Legal phase: As above, but with an online "trial" and a fuller legal interaction.

Just drafting the documents would be a good first step, because there is an exo-political angle to this too. How can you refer to the interplanetary situation without using crazy language? It can be done. You just need to be clever with the wording.

I agree leader is a poorly defined term.

[Daozen]

(He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

And we have worked out that this cuts both ways. They have used it on us for centuries, but we can also turn it round on them. It's their Achilles heel. I always wondered what the legal equivalent of the photon torpedo in the Death Star was.

[Daozen]

If the movement you are suggesting is going to be sustainable, you must attend to the basic needs people have, food, shelter, water... as well. Being sovereign is not easy these days because we all depend on the system... We voluntarily must give up some level of sovereignty so we may enjoy benefits the collective (however corrupt) still provides. Steps 2,3 and 4 are actually all one step: shift legitimacy to administer resources from the defunct to the functional.

This type of action, a revolution in every sense of the word, is executed by the people and requires no signed contract or paperwork to legitimize. The very action is legitimizing. In my view, its the only way to get enforcement of the claims made. I think paperwork and contract can serve to create order in the ranks, but in terms of the opponent faced, it will come down to maneuvering, strategy, positioning and perhaps more. I think the best course of action is to use the avenue of democracy, a value they still apparently adhere. Candidates elected need to start responding to call we may put forth. If they can do that voluntarily, or if we elect our own reps into positions, the result is change.

I have two projects:

One, the legal aspect of weakening their claims to ownership of humanity, which is relatively small, but vital.
Two, I want to set up a crowdfunding platform based solely on benevolent projects. I will call it Microflow. It's already in development.

These projects feed into each other, but it's important to keep the research more or less separate, to stop getting confused.

The word 'movement' can be dangerous, because it implies leaders, structure, soap boxes and the like. All I want is to provide a crowdfunding platform where people can lead themselves.

For this, I need something simple: I need to sit down and do the paperwork to get tax exempt non-profit status in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the EU, The USA, and maybe Switzerland. Getting non-profit status in just one of those countries would allow people to write off donations against tax, and put them into the Microflow crowdfunding platform. Microflow will have a reductionist focus on food, water and the other basics of civilization.

Sitting down and investigating how to get non-profit status is one of those tedious, unglamorous tasks that could help thousands, if not millions of people.

*

So there are two separate aspects.

1- Delegitimizing the "elite's" claim to Earth.
2- Gaining non-profit status.

I guess I will just slowly work on both those tasks as time permits.

Peace

[lcam88]

To me that is a source of consternation.
Appearance is not only culturally dependant, but assumes that the meaning behind appearances are universal.

I agree with this.

Clearly this isn't the case.

This involves a huge set of assumptions, much like what TPTB use in defining us as paupers, or being dead at 7 years old, unless we declare otherwwise, etc.

What is TPTB?

Huge assumptions indeed.

But consider the following scenario:

You and a friend have been fighting for some time about something and you know things can come to blows. As a way to measure whether a recent attempt of your to give up your argument for the sake of returning to friendship, you say. "Hey I give-up. Let's just call it quits, let's good sense reign and I'll buy you a drink at the pub."

If your friend doesn't answer, do you buy him a drink or not? There is a need for continuity and an assumption about the message being accepted or not is required.

The basis to presume acceptance in legalities is simply because it's the better of two options; you presume there is honor in both parties. That a flat refusal without recourse to remend a situation is dishonorable, as is indeed, to completely disregard anothers interests where consideration for your interests have been shown.

That maxim was born where cooperation and consideration for all parties and thus harmony between varying interests was much valued.

As for a link to a set of Universal Laws, I've not found a 'reliable' and 'trustworthy' source.
I have run across multiple different sources but they don't always agree, thus it's hard to assign any one of them as true Universal Laws.

The Law of One seems to have them embedded within those writtings but it takes a good deal of effort to extricate them, intact.

I figure disclosure will, or at least might, yield this kind of info.

JJ
ps. here is another 'older' source of one set of laws, and they are buried within the pages of these 3 books.
http://nohoax.com/index.php?option=c...&id=24&catid=1
I ran across these 3 books back in the late 90's

Thanks for the link. I'll certainly have a good look.

[Daozen]

TPTB use in defining us as paupers, or being dead at 7 years old, unless we declare otherwwise, etc.

Do you have a link for information about this? It looks interesting.

As for a link to a set of Universal Laws, I've not found a 'reliable' and 'trustworthy' source.

Me neither. So why don't we start drafting them? It's our right to contract with infinity as we see fit.

[lcam88]

Giving clarity boils down just to "giving notice" If you look notice up in a law dictionary or the UCC you will see what I mean; you just need to meet the requirement given by the definition.

In admiralty, that would be making the captain or his officers aware (agents of the captain or vessel). Because vessel has such a broad definition as are the other terms, it may be as simple as publishing it online for anonymous uses to find. The NSA spying dragnet will certainly pick it up, as will google. The UCC1 financing statement is another way to do serve notice as well.

There is no need to be aggressive, offensive, deceptive or sly with the notice serving. It may just be the best way to presume the positive and present reference to your online notice to an elected official as a thank you letter posted by snail-mail.

[Daozen]

I agree, clarity, politeness and legal notices are the way forward. A letter is enough...

[lcam88]

It's enough to give notice. If you want to perfect a claim on the grounds of tacit acquiescence, then more is required.

You must send additional notices advising of your intentions and considerations given the "non-response" response.. Notice of Fault is exactly that: a notice advising that no response has been received and you intend to interpret that non-response as acceptance of terms, it encourages response in case an error was made in the initial notice. It is an offer for the other named party to govern themselves in-spite of the appearance that they have abandoned that right.

This is how you strengthen the "appearance" of acceptance as stated by the aforementioned maxim. In the notice, for the sake of fairness and complete consideration that in-fact the receiver had made an error, you permit action to be taken to correct that error. This is the administrative procedure component of perfecting the claim.

After the correction period stipulation given in the Notice of Fault, you send a notice of Default, same scenario, except you notice a failure to reply to the notice of Fault and you conclude by issuing a Certificate or Title of some type establishing your complete right to the claim. These processes involving abandoned cars and such is sometimes handled by the DMV in the US only because licensing and the title of the vehicle is their jurisdiction (title of a car is not technically ownership of the vehicle itself, but of ownership to the interests associated with the vehicle only, that interest being the right to use the vehicle on state road-ways).

In admiralty, this process is much the same (salvage of title), the proceedings is carried out by an officer [of the court] where an invitation is made for any other parties to clarify or otherwise add a counterclaim on the original motion. Imagine finding a cargo from another vessel and undergoing some procedure to verify claim on the finding, in 1800th century England. There may be insurance companies that have claim etc etc. The procedure was to protect vested interests of other members of the court only. And from that standpoint, silence is indeed a submission of no-contest to the salvage procedure.

This is another area where research can better tune the exact procedure. You want to adhere as much as possible to norms in the land where you make these claims.

In context of the abandoned state of the human-being (in context of the Person) there is no authority granted to the state, or any corporation where legal claim of the god-created being may rest. And since you are the officer of your vessel, that duty falls upon you to carry the proceeding to salvage title as established in your initial claim(s) as you see fit. Because of potential conflict of interest ethics that comes into contention trying to be judge and beneficiary of these claims, in the US we use Notaries to communicate our notices. Are you interested in notaries or do you intend to use human-beings as the vehicle for your activities?

Sometimes, even if there is an established state jurisdiction, It is worth pursuing the salvage claim yourself. That is the case normally because state organizations are really only interested in administrating the interests of an asset and not the asset itself. The DMV and abandoned car, for example.

EDIT

Rules of evidence states that the word or evidence given by a notary is considered to be equal to the word or evidence presented by an officer, they in effect can speak fact with every statement they may make. That is why police officers can get away with murder (metaphorically). A notary has jurisdiction in the sea of sovereignty because they are agents for the Secretary of State of their state, who in turn is an agent for the secretary of state of the United States. That position requires that the individual expatriate themselves from the United States so they may serve their function. That is something view people realize.

If you do not have an officer or a notary to speak on your behalf, rules of evidence require two witnesses claiming the same facts to have the same weight as the prior. That gets a bit tricky sometimes because people have different daily routines.

I hope that clarifies the issue a bit.

[Daozen]

This is how you strengthen the "appearance" of acceptance as stated by the aforementioned maxim.

When I read sentences like that, it makes me think that there is definitely a 'magic'/intention aspect to law.

So, to get down to it... what is the major legal front entity to the (possibly) off world harvesting mechanism, or just the main financial mechanism on Earth? The BIS? The Fed? An obscure office in London? Any ideas...?