Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 147

Thread: Declaration of Independence... Drafting in Progress.

  1. #121
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    Note: the cornell link regarding admiralty does not mention salvage!

    Point of contention: Would it be a more powerful statement to declare a type of salvage on the apparent abandoned state the god-create human being as may be found, Perhaps from the aspect of spirit and soul? Then move to claim sovereignty and dominion in the domains and realms where the salvaged subject-matter then finds itself? That would be such a better form to novate away the existing "clutter" without having to enumerate all the things what we know about not to mention what we don't know.

    Is anyone willing to contemplate this strategy here with me?
    Never heard of Salvage. Sounds cool.

    The law of salvage is a concept in maritime law which states that a person who recovers another person's ship or cargo after peril or loss at sea is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of the property so saved. The concept has its origins in antiquity, with the basis that a person would be putting himself and his own vessel at risk to recover another and thus should be appropriately rewarded. A related consideration was widespread piracy; a vessel in peril could very well be left for pirates if the owner did not generously reward a potential honest salvor. Salvage law has been recognized for centuries in such documents as the edicts of Rhodes and the Roman Digest of Justinian.[1] It is still a nearly universally recognized right, though conditions for awards of salvage vary from country to country.

    Contents [hide]
    1 Concept of salvage under Maritime Law
    2 Conditions required
    2.1 Recognized subject matter
    2.2 Real danger
    2.3 Voluntary service
    2.4 Success
    3 Salvage under contract
    4 Minimizing danger to the environment
    5 Jurisdiction
    6 Time limit to claim the salvage
    7 See also
    8 References
    Concept of salvage under Maritime Law[edit]
    The right to be rewarded for salvage at sea under common law is based both on equitable principles and public policy and is not contractual in origin. Historically, salvage is a right in law, when a person, acting as a volunteer (that is, without any pre-existing contractual or other legal duty so to act) preserves or contributes so to preserving at sea any vessel, cargo, freight, or other recognized subject of salvage from danger. This is the typical case of salvage and is distinct from Prize law, which is the rescuing of property from the enemy at a time of war, for which a reward is made by the Court of Admiralty sitting as a Prize Court.

    The law seeks to do what is fair to both the property owners and the salvors. The right to salvage may not necessarily arise out of an actual contract but is a legal liability arising out of the fact that property has been recovered. The property owner who had benefit of the salvor's efforts must make remuneration, regardless of whether he had formed a contract or not. The assumption here is that when faced with the loss of his vessel and cargo, a reasonable prudent owner would have accepted salvage terms offered, even if time did not permit such negotiations.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Daozen For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (24th June 2015)

  3. #122
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    Divine Feminine, I will definitely be careful. The next step is some sort of Lien, but I will study hard before filing it. I have heard of blowback from liens too. The first step is to perfect the wording and let it 'stand before infinity' so to speak.

    This thread has a strange backstory. I have had people, in physicality, approach me out of the blue and tell me I had to get various projects done. One of them was getting my contracts right. They were polite, persistent, and insistent. Many different people delivered the same message, in multiple countries. If they hadn't approached me, I would think I was just some guy playing around with legal language. But this is more real than I know. All I can say is, I feel good today.

    That's why I said it was an affidavit, instead of a declaration, because all declarations are notarized somewhere in creation.
    Last edited by Daozen, 24th June 2015 at 00:49.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Daozen For This Useful Post:

    Divine Feminine (23rd June 2015)

  5. #123
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    That would be such a better form to novate away the existing "clutter" without having to enumerate all the things what we know about not to mention what we don't know.

    Is anyone willing to contemplate this strategy here with me?
    I can see your thinking. I chose the Vatican, but what if the Fed or the Bank of England think they have a claim on me too? I will do it one by one, but I think there must be a simple way to VOID all claims. It's something like negative averment: There is no one who can prove in writing that the have a claim on me, and therefore... no one does.

    We should also stipulate that all claims and rebuttals have to be in public, in 3D, on a designated thread. (I will add that in now)

    Could anyone give me an example of Salvage wording?

    Cheers.

  6. #124
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts

  7. #125
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 798 Times in 148 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Note: the cornell link regarding admiralty does not mention salvage!

    Point of contention: Would it be a more powerful statement to declare a type of salvage on the apparent abandoned state the god-create human being as may be found, Perhaps from the aspect of spirit and soul? Then move to claim sovereignty and dominion in the domains and realms where the salvaged subject-matter then finds itself? That would be such a better form to novate away the existing "clutter" without having to enumerate all the things what we know about not to mention what we don't know.

    Is anyone willing to contemplate this strategy here with me?
    I don't entirely understand what you are saying.
    I think what your approach centers around is a 'reversal' of ownership, or nullifying any and all claims which we may or may not be aware of, but which are 'in force' by those who claim ownership.

    I agree that this approach, if implemented 'properly' would be more inclusive and more thorough.
    The 'trick' (it seems to me) is in being inclusive and yet not falling into the 'trap' of requiring all of the specifics in order to negate and nullify all the existing contracts etc.
    This is a tall order in that the language used must be precise, exact, inclusive and not limiting.

    Heather in her UCC filings seemed to do a masterful job of achieving these goals.


    Also there are several other attempts to extricate ourselves from the existing contractual arrangements that exist within which we are bound.
    Andrew Bartzis, Heather and others have published contract removal documents on the web.
    Perhaps they might provide additional insights…

    JJ

  8. #126
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 798 Times in 148 Posts

  9. #127
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Wording must always be precise. Sorry everyone, I as yet have not recovered that contract from my backups. Very soon.

    Quote Originally posted by johnjen325
    I think what your approach centers around is a 'reversal' of ownership, or nullifying any and all claims which we may or may not be aware of, but which are 'in force' by those who claim ownership.
    Actually, it is more about redefining what ownership the states may claim actually is. On page two I go into a bit of detail between the person and the human being. Use of salvage in any meaningful way would involve the recognition of a salvageable hitherto unrecognized crown jewel human-being and creating a distinction between the person and the human. I really chose my words carefully in that posting I made on page 2.

    The presumption I am making with such statements as "novate away everything known or unknown to us" is simply that state contracts made hereto are actually only with the person, that which is not the human-being being salvaged.

    Those contracts state may claim with the person are made in at least the following forms (please feel free to complete the list).

    1. An actual signed or tacitly signed paper (a vessel upon which words and terms are the cargo).
    2. A law passed by a representative we "elected" who signed on our behalf (or an officer who defines rules for his crew).
    3. Beneficiary obligations founded in possibly secret trusts structures where upon receiving benefits we are bound to some set of obligations. Citizen-hood being an example. (implied rules the captain certainly also means)
    4. Imposed conditions made by someone claiming acting on fiduciary obligations on behalf of society, government or public interests of some type that somehow bind based on one of the above 3 underpinnings. (explicit rules the captain made as he went along)

    NOTE: The objective is not to demolish the persona or abolish it from existence. It is just to make the distinction and create presumption that the human is indeed separate and distinct from the person. Many of us still depend on benefits offered by society and would find it difficult or impossible to properly care for ourselves without those benefits!

    We need to reserve the right to act only as surety that the artificial person will continue to follow all norms insofar as an act by the human is made in its name. Furthermore, the human absolutely reserves the right to perform actions separately from the artificial person and it is recognized that such acts are not in the knowledge, concern or privilege for the artificial person to notice unless indeed the human-being wishes it, or the situation requires it (ie in front of a law enforcement agent who can only deal with the person).

    I further presume: We are not trying to escape from our responsibilities as responsible citizens, rather we seek to claim and weld the powers of the sovereigns we certainly are.

    Does that clarify things?

    EDIT: Insight is good. I just don't have much time to do the ground-pounding research these days. I'm sharing my latest thoughts here with you all for your entertainment more than as a demonstration of my intention to actively pursue. This salvage idea is something that came to mind just yesterday; I'm not sure if anyone has really looked at it. The goal is not to compromise the person in a way that prevents the human from being able to use the tools at his disposal, the person actually is a valuable tool (until someone manages to create a breakaway society). As this idea is developed I may just pursue it to the end, but it must make sense first.
    Last edited by lcam88, 24th June 2015 at 14:44.

  10. #128
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    The 'trick' (it seems to me) is in being inclusive and yet not falling into the 'trap' of requiring all of the specifics in order to negate and nullify all the existing contracts etc.
    This is a tall order in that the language used must be precise, exact, inclusive and not limiting.
    I have turned the wording over in my head for 2 years. The first step is just to get out there and write something. Like starting to tidy a dirty house. You just grab a box and throw things in.

    I saw the papal bulls info before. I guess it's true. Interesting that Rome worshiped Jupiter. That would align with the info in Jupiter Ascending. Maybe the Vatican is a major point of contact for the Exo-empire.

    Question: How would you refer to a supposed off-world empire in a legal document, without looking crazy?

  11. #129
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    I am thinking of creating an office called: Warden of Earth, or something similar, and -this is key- making it an office that ANYONE could claim for themselves. Disputes would not be resolved by direct paramutiel voting, but by competing decentralized polls.

    So if you want to "outlaw" GMO'S, you set up a poll, and infinity can gauge the results from the poll.

    I don't believe in representative democracy, it hasn't worked. Everyone has to step up for themselves. Humans need to contract with infinity individually. Works fine for Youtube and Facebook. A decentralized structure like that dissolves any opportunity for power grabs and top-o-the-pyramid squabbles.

  12. #130
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    How would I put a Lien on a large political entity?

    I will start here, on this thread, just stating the case before infinity. Does anyone have any idea on the wording?

    Cheers.

  13. #131
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    NOTE: The objective is not to demolish the persona or abolish it from existence. It is just to make the distinction and create presumption that the human is indeed separate and distinct from the person
    Will add this.

    So... what is the legal equivalent of banishing? Voiding?

  14. #132
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Contact Point
    Question: How would you refer to a supposed off-world empire in a legal document, without looking crazy?
    Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum. The appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of another; and that expressed makes that which is implied cease. Co. Litt. 210. (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml)

    I'd use language like: ... any entity, sentient or artificial [corporation], however socially organized unless explicitly exempted for due consideration as per Exhibit A,...

    That would even encompass known and secret earth based authorities. You can then include a page entitled "Exhibit A" where you declare organizations or entities that are exempt from your offer. The first item being the artificial person whom has been created as part of the introduction to this distinction between it and the human.

    Quote Originally posted by Contact Point
    ...Warden of Earth...
    Yes!

    and one of the services offered by the office is a court jurisdiction! Open Court Perhaps.

    another service maybe can be an online service where you aim to elevate a digital signature to binding in worldly contracts so that online petitions can have equivalent legal weight. I have wanted to do this for some time now.

    Quote Originally posted by Contact Point
    So... what is the legal equivalent of banishing? Voiding?
    You are missing the point.

    We want to deflate and overcome the following presumptions 1) the person is the human, 2) that control of the person is equivalent to control of over the human, 3) that the person is anything more than the registers held in an archive, whether computer or paper based.

    We want to introduce the presumptions that 1) the person and the human are separate and distinct entities, one artificial [corporation] and the other created by god and in gods image, 2) the person is the citizen, and the human is the sovereign, 3) that the human, even while accepting the burden of being surety for the person, can never be introduced as part of the registry or archive that defines a person, not by representations backed by scientific affirmations of genetic similarity, or by any other means that excludes explicit and willful acceptance thereof.

    In order for the human-being to remain sovereign, the human-being may _never_ accept a benefit [offered by a society] that comes encumbered by trust type structures which are designed to introduce beneficiary obligations.

    To solve that impass, I propose that the person (until now confused with the human-being) should continue to exist as a distinct artificial entity that serves the human alongside its previous master, so that benefits offered may still be accepted honorably [by the person], and yet without encumbering the human with beneficiary obligations.

    I maintain: The acceptance of these beneficiary obligations are the equivalent to surrendering sovereignty.

    In my view, that is precisely where the problems start. It is the genesis of how the person acts in a way that emburdens him to the task of carrying the wooden yoke. I may be wrong about all of this. But as yet, I do not know that I am.

    The person is free to re-contract considerations and benefits as it sees fit, including to the human, without the encumbrances that where part of the original offer. The unlimited right to contract being exercised.

    Consider: if you abolish, ban, terminate, expunge or void the person, you cannot use it as an ally or mediator with the state that seeks to recognize it.
    Last edited by lcam88, 24th June 2015 at 20:48. Reason: spelling and clarifications

  15. #133
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    I see your point about separating the person and the being. I think this an important aspect of the new contract. I still think learning how to lien is a priority. A good contract would include all of these aspects.

    Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum. The appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of another; and that expressed makes that which is implied cease. Co. Litt. 210. (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml)

    I'd use language like: ... any entity, sentient or artificial [corporation], however socially organized unless explicitly exempted for due consideration as per Exhibit A,...

    That would even encompass known and secret earth based authorities. You can then include a page entitled "Exhibit A" where you declare organizations or entities that are exempt from your offer. The first item being the artificial person whom has been created as part of the introduction to this distinction between it and the human.


    and one of the services offered by the [Warden of Earth] office is a court jurisdiction! Open Court Perhaps.

    another service maybe can be an online service where you aim to elevate a digital signature to binding in worldly contracts so that online petitions can have equivalent legal weight. I have wanted to do this for some time now.
    I agree on the signatures. Online notarization is already here.

    Then we can talk about jurisdiction and open courts. Can you hold an online trial?

    Lots to think about here... I will turn it over these next few days. After separating the person and the legal entity, I want to start learning how to lien. Step one, just doing it in infinity...

    Best,

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Daozen For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (25th June 2015)

  17. #134
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    I don't have exacting knowledge about drafting a lien. I do have a model that was used by Winston Shrout if you are interested. But that said, I will just touch on how difficult my experiences have been with enforcement.

    Online trials seem rather odd. But it may make sense in some context not yet clear to me. I think structured debates is likely the better beginning; part of self-governance is willful choice in doing what is right for everyone in your midst, perhaps by providing something meaningful to followers. For online court to work, you require a following that will accept judgement rendered from it. That is the requisite in my view.

    If your view is to try and impose judgement on some other body yet reluctant to recognize your authority, in a way, you are no better than an ordinary court and there would be no meaningful to seek the online court.

  18. #135
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th March 2015
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 1,593 Times in 381 Posts
    Impose is a difficult word. I am not imposing, what I am doing is stating a higher truth, and notifying the universe that I do not consent to their lower truth. I'm not so much imposing anything on them, just setting limits around myself that they may not transgress. As you may have worked out, there is a deeply magical aspect to law.

    The Winston Shrout doc is interesting, thanks. I will quickly look myself.

    *

    Now... onto real world change. Gardening, water purification and microfinance are all real world declarations of independence. To leave the deep legal conversation for a moment:

    One of the most revolutionary things any human could do now is research how to set up a non-profit in the US/UK/EU/HK or TW. Just a simple non-profit that donors could donate to while writing it off against tax. There is benevolent money out there looking to Microfund humanitarian projects. One of the tasks I was entrusted with was establishing a surface node to let hidden monies flow. There is plenty of money out there, I just need to get the legal aspect down. I cannot guarantee when the money would come, but establishing a non-profit is a vital first step.

    I am looking at the paperwork aspect now but don't know where to start. If anyone has any ideas on how to cut down on research time, I'm interested.

    Cheers.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Daozen For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (26th June 2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •