Monday, 7 April 2014


Ignorance is bliss; until the law bites us in the ulterior motive. And, it is at this moment that truth arrives to harness us with conscionable guilt - and, we seek forgiveness. Tell this to the losers in the Rwanda war. Surely, we can explain the presence of law - as we came to explain this same truth to the victims of Auschwitz.
Land Titles : As a species, we are forever wantonly seeking out the ownership of land and resources. There is no more primitive element in our human ethic than this quest for soil.
Original Peoples of the Americas continue to seek out justification of how European merchants could achieve conquest of these Turtle Islands. Where was the law when these tradesmen arrived with their legions? Tutsis wonder today, as well, how the international community supports through abject silence these land title transfers to the Hutu militiamen who allegedly required land transfers to be executed before the existing Tutsi landholders were slain - hands being severed in order to prevent any signaturing of reconsideration.
Warfarring tactics continue, such as the raping of indigenous women for purposes of repopulation / those who possessed rightful land occupancy by custom and tradition thereby suffering secondary trauma on the matter of birthing the child of a hostile.

Let us remember that surviving women of Bosnia and Rwanda have sought international law support for compensation for their losses - both of the family loss as well as deprivation of the real estate. Is this the collateral damage of war?

The august UN body has chartered certain specific crimes as requiring sanction upon its membership. Will there be a just remedy? Not likely. The old commerce and trade brotherhood - and, the bankers will balk at any such provision. (note that the real estate of the UN buildings is still under claim dispute by the indigenous Peoples of that territory in New York).

War Reparations? Was Russia entering and seizing energy plants in the Ukraine a rightful exercise in law, under the guise of securing against further losses due to the Ukraine parliament declaration that they could not now pay the current due $2 billion for gas purchases?

Were France and Belgium within the bounds of international law in 1923 when they seized German coal resources in the Ruhr when Germany failed to pay on WWI reparations?

Today, is there a compensation to be allocated in China or Canada for the land titles when armies seized resources and amortized them into state ownership without compensation? Collateral damage? Is the British Charles II estate subject to UN sanctions for his illicit "Ruperts Land" allocation giving half of "Canada" to his German cousin; and, the questionable legal merit of the Hudson's Bay Company Charter (not consented to by Parliament / see J.E.Fitzgerald 1848 review)

Our populations have made so many great strides on so many frontiers - yet we continue to avoid these fundamental issues of original, rightful and continued land title ... We do not, yet, consider the matter of creation of life on Earth as a gift that includes a right to occupy land for sentience purpose.   We have not yet developed the ethic of stewardship ... or, rather, some of us have not done so; and, we have chosen to cleave away the historical customs of indigenous resource stewardship through our overt manifestations of commerce and trade.

So, in recognizing this perpetual dilemma; and, in presuming that our evolving social contract is vigorously striving to fashion out some common realms of law that will create a patience and rationale best suited for us to move through this 21st century without destroying life on Earth; then, we can, further, assume that we shall construct language to reasonably establish fair rules of occupancy.

The matter of allodial title - or, some interpretations of such - come to mind; wherein, a fundamental, universal birthright is recognized and respected on this issue of adequate land upon which to raise a family is a presumption of creation.

Economists will howl with derision at the very idea of individual, indivisible, entrenched, unimpeachable right of soil; wherein, the individual shall retain this said right of land without fear of loss through warfare or deceit. The very idea of this so-called allodial title is absolutely contrary to fundamental economic logic - perhaps.

Stewardship entails respect for the creation of resources. And, there is a planing process inherent that prescribes mindful conservation.
Evidence exists that the Original Peoples of these two Americas / these Turtle Islands - and, prior to colonial conquest - practised continuous stewardship - partially through migration; but, also, in the more sedentary settlements, with resource management: i.e., the fishing and the hunting.

It has been argued that at the time of European arrival there were in excess of 12 million Peoples populating North America; and, that within less than 10 years buffalo that had been hunted for in excess of 10,000 years were decimated into near extinction.

Today, we are being advised through scientific research that our oceans will be devoid of fish harvests in less than a decade - whereas, Cabot, upon arriving, recorded that the cod were so plentiful that he could walk upon their backs to the shore.

So, how is this "allodial title" matter supposed to resolve resource extinction ?

Well, firstly, we know that our present commercial practises are not working in a sustainable way. Less than 3% of the global population controls more than 90% of all wealth; including this claim of right to real estate ownership.

Our 7 billion global population will increase to more than 9 billion before 2050 - following which there is a predicted decline throughout the balance of this century; stabilizing at circa 5 billion at the gateway to century XXII.

Hence, IF we converted state ownership of land title into a redemption to the individual (allodial title) would there not be an impossible realm of chaos?

Firstly, let us examine how the state acquires land title in the original instance.

A certain territorial citizenship base agrees for the common good to transfer individual land authority into the founding state nation in order to possess security for banks to lend money to this new governance - specifically, for maintaining an army; through which to establish and secure law and order. Redeemable bonds are traditionally issued to the real estate vestors : in the United States, the question remains "How, in the absence of war declaration by the European (British) government / monarch, did individual merchants acquire allodial titles in America? What was the relevance of existing indigenous populations right to land?

Apparently, in this case, it was the European judgement that the 1453 Catholic Papal Bulls that declared non-Christians were non-human (therein, excluding right of land title) that resolved this legal matter of entitlement - and, the 1776 Declaration of Independence provided that Afro-Americans and native American indigenous peoples were to be enslaved without right of land title. It seems that Lincoln's emancipation provisions did not resolve this issue for the indigenous Peoples.

Therefore, again, how is "allodial title" - where every individual on Earth is recognized at birth to be the vested possessor of 100 acres of real estate - supposed to resolve anything???

Well, for the time being - until we issue our secondary clarifications - bear in mind that without direct, democratic individual support, no nation could muster the collateral to gain the financial wherewithal from bankers or private lenders to launch war.

And, keep in mind, that places like Switzerland rely on direct democracy for the majority of their statutes and legislation.

Enfranchising the individual via allodial title creates the New World Order economic stream by inverting the pyramid of wealth ... remember, that within allodial title, there is the fundamental stipulation that the titleholder is the paramount sovereign; not subject to expulsion or loss of property right through incursion / deceit or by mechanisms of war. These land rights exist for both genders; and, commence at age 12 ... So, do the bankers still acquire all at the end of the day ??? ... NOT, if we return to the original banking ethics prior to the days of fractional banking ... bear in mind that the next global banking meltdown is scheduled for 2028.

salus populi suprema est lex