This is a document I found in one of the comments in the petition to the UN. It's content suggests that governments have a legal duty to act to put an end to the senseless technocratic system and to ensure that all people are provided with a space of love in which to live. I provide the url here in the hope that we can organise legal action to bring governments to justice so they seize their reckless/ Intentional CRIMINAL behaviour and take rapid action to ensure all human beings are offered land on which to create a space of love so that we can uphold our duty of care. http://www.ecotort.gn.apc.org/

"YOU MUST TAKE REASONABLE CARE

TO AVOID ACTS OR OMISSIONS,

WHICH YOU CAN REASONABLY FORESEE,

WOULD BE LIKELY TO INJURE YOUR NEIGHBOUR "

I say just take it back. There's plenty of unused land that goes unnoticed. If people gathered in large enough communities and claimed it at the same time (yes, you can just claim unused land as your own; if you advertise it for a certain period of time...it's yours) there'd be no problem. Queen Elizabeth herself, not her role as head of state, but her herself, owns 1/6 of the world's non-ocean surface. That is a crime against humanity. Each person on this earth has a RIGHT to live and support themselves on a sufficient size of land. Take it back. I'm afraid the process and the time that it would take to ask the persons who intentionally own land for themselves to give it back is almost absurd (although not useless, I commend you on trying).

Besides, it should be known that even if you legally purchased some land, it isn't yours. Nothing short of ALLODIAL title grants you actual ownership. Allodial title nowadays is practically impossible to obtain and is possessed almost exclusively by a handful of countries (people). Allodial title was first recognized as simply being able to defend a territory you occupied. It also grants complete independence from any laws or taxation.

If small communities gather and just take the land back, the ball may be able to get rolling. Once a significant percentage of the population does this, the rate will exponentialize, especially due to the current economy and rate of foreclosure and unemployment. Then the rich folks will be cooped up in their deserted cities with all the product in the world but nobody to buy it. But first and foremost it's the mentality that must change so like-minded people can more easily find and gravitate toward each other. Once the ball is rolling, it'll be hard for the "actual" owners of land, i.e. government to not comply.

Gregh is right, You will not get anywhere by asking these groups or people for permission.

The Small Hand full of people who claim ownership of all the land of this world are not just going to give you a slice of that pie. These beings have committed Genocide to aquire this land and they are not just going to hand it over because you asked. You don't think the people they killed to get it didn't beg for their lives?
Before you beg/ask permission from these organizations for land why don't we all just ask permission, to own ourselves? This may sound stupid but in reality most people have no control over their own lives, Those who claim to own all the land also claim to own your body & mind. So why don't we first start by petitioning these groups for the freedom to do what we wilt with our own bodys?
Also do you think for one second that all these groups like the UN, WHO, FTC, FTA, FDA, CIA, & all the other letter organizations were created for our benefit?
These groups our created to give us the illusion of hope, so we wouldn't act on our own.

In this world, with how things are set up right now. If you want something you better take it (as long as you do not harm *without cause* another or thier property) & be ready to fight for it. If you want to live free on the land out of the controlled citys there are a number of ways to do this. I am in Amerika and here if i wanted to live on the land somewhere i would look into a # of things, For example mining claim of some sort, cost less then $100 a year for 10 acres of land (this is if you want to ask permission).

As for me I am choosing to go onto the land starting here in Utah and traveling through Wyoming & Idaho so i can get into Oregon for the winter then from there going south cutting through California and going into the Sierra Nevada, then heading into Arizona then going north into Colorado and back into Utah kinda like a large circle(spending quality time in each area) then from there i haven't a clue and really thats just a ruff draft we are kinda just going at the seat of our pants or of our saddle however you look at it. The goal is a change of lifestyle and not a destination.
since i am a Vegan I will not need to hunt helpless animals for food I plan on sungazing daily and learning how to control my hunger so it stops controlling me just another step towards freedom.
This is my (mine & my fathers) plan to freedom and true spiritual living.
This is the kind of thing every great spiritual/philosophical teacher throughout history had done and has recommended others do.
If you want something ask your father within for it & not worldly Mammon. Just Do it.
The only difference between a Freeman and a slave is that the freeman asks not permission and the slave lives on permissions. (not to be taken as do whatever you want but when it comes to your body & life do what you want just so long as by doing so you do not directly harm another) With great freedom Comes Great responsibility.

lol, nice spiderman rip-off at the end.

But yeah, I agree. However nobody willingly asks for permission and enslaves themselves. I think where there is any sort of DEPENDENCE there is (or at least the potential) for slavery (mental, physical, wtv).

Lol, ya i admit it sounds like a spider man ripoff but its really not, From reading the documents my founding fathers wrote, is where i learned that, Well they said "With freedom comes responsibility".

A child asks to use the restroom a man takes it upon himself to go.
As for me i have never asked permission from any government or official to do anything a freeman should rightfully be able to do.
Yes that means no SSN, no Birth Cert, no ID, No licenses of any kind. Never have i used them, Never shall i accept them.
If you can sell a man a License you can sell him a chip or mark if for no other reason than for convenience sake.

Yes but this thread is about taking legal action to prosecute governments for their intentionaly criminal actions that prevent people from upholding their duty of care:

"There is a Universal Law of social behaviour which always applies, to any group of creatures, at any time; in the past, and in the present, and in the future; in any place, in any possible universe.

The Universal Law is quite simply that any creatures living in a group do not, as a general rule, injure each other.

If the members of a group injure each other, then that group will get smaller and smaller, until, at the end, if the members continue to injure eachother, there is only one creature left, which is not a group!

It is quite natural in many groups for members to establish pecking-orders and during this process some injury may be done, but once the pecking-order has been established and each group member knows hir place, very little further conflict is seen.

This Law may be applied to any group of creatures, living at any time, in any place; anywhere, in any conceivable Universe.

Therefore, if we are to believe in a Divine Architect who created the Universe, this is a Universal and Divine Principle Of Law, which any religious, political, financial, or industrial leader HAS TO AGREE WITH, or look very foolish!.

Even if we do not believe in a Divinity of any kind, the principle still holds good according to both common-sense and simple logic, so atheists, anarchists, and agnostics have to accept it too...



In British Law today there is a "Duty of Care" which states that:



"YOU MUST TAKE REASONABLE CARE

TO AVOID ACTS OR OMISSIONS,

WHICH YOU CAN REASONABLY FORESEE,

WOULD BE LIKELY TO INJURE YOUR NEIGHBOUR "



This reasonable standard of care,

as outlined in the "Duty of Care" above,

is applied to all persons in the UK

including the Government, the Bankers,

and the Legal System itself...


The failure to uphold the 'Duty of Care' is either:

(1)NEGLIGENT
which is doing something likely to injure your neighbour in circumstances when you would not reasonably be expected to know that the thing you are doing is likely to injure your neighbour, (this is not a criminal offence, one may only be liable for damages in a civil court),
or

(2)RECKLESS
which is doing something you KNOW is likely to injure your neighbour and yet doing it anyway (which IS a criminal offence where one may be arrested, and fined or imprisoned and be liable for damages),
or

(3)INTENTIONAL
which is to intend by your act or omission to injure your neighbour (this is the most serious type of criminal offence which is generally punished with the full weight of the criminal law ).

Not only is the Duty of Care arguably a Divine Principle of Law, it is also used in legal practice today to create precedent or new law. If you can show that your behaviour is "reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned" in the circumstances which you find yourself in, then you are not generally guilty of any crime even if you have broken a particular statute or statutes.

For instance, there are times when it may be seen as "reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned" to disregard a particular law "in order to serve a greater interest." Therefore we may argue that the Duty of Care is both the most fundamental and underlying principle of British law and also that it will over-ride any previous precedents or statutes in certain circumstances.

Indeed we may argue that the Duty of Care is the Law!



THE DUTY OF CARE - EXAMPLES

The Duty of Care is used in court every day to determine the guilt or innocence of every defendant who appears in the dock. Two examples will serve to clarify the point.

1).

(a). A person is driving a car who has no mechanical knowlege, this person has had the car serviced and maintained by qualified personnel and has the service history in the glove box of the car. The tax, MoT and insurance are all up to date. This person has done all that can be REASONABLY expected to ensure that the car is safe, yet when stopped by the police in a routine road check, it is found that they have defective brakes. This is doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour yet having taken all REASONABLE steps to insure that what they were doing was NOT LIKELY to cause injury. The person is still responsible in a civil court for the payment of damages should they injure someone as a result, but they have NOT behaved CRIMINALLY.

(b). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person KNEW that the brakes were defective. This time the person will very likely be tried in a criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour KNOWINGLY, if it is found that the person DID KNOW that the brakes were defective, this is RECKLESS behaviour as such is CRIMINAL.

(c). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person was AIMING TO HIT someone. This time the person will very likely be tried in a criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour INTENTIONALLY, if it is found that the person DID INTEND TO HIT SOMEONE WITH THE CAR then this is obviously a SERIOUSLY CRIMINAL matter.

It may be seen from the above that not only does there have to be an unlawful ACT (the 'actus reus') COMMITTED (i.e. driving the car with defective brakes); for a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, the MENTAL STATE (the 'mens rea') OF THE ACCUSED PERSON HAS ALSO TO BE OF A CRIMINAL NATURE.



(2). The other example is rather heavy, but it does prove the point:

In the case of Micheal Ryan, who you may remember shot around 30 people at Hungerford a few years ago, and then shot himself (rest his soul!); if a REASONABLE, PRUDENT, and WELL-INTENTIONED person had been present and had shot him, (to prevent him from shooting anyone else), they would NOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME, even if the person had had to use REASONABLE FORCE to take a gun from someone else or from a shop. In ordinary circumstances, a person who stole a gun, and then shot someone with it would (almost certainly) be found guilty of assault, battery, theft of a firearm, unlawful posession and use of a firearm, and murder, and would receive a heavy gaol sentance (around 30 years).

It is therefore apparent that:-

(1). From the first example: For a defendant to be convicted of crime there has to be both:

(a) an unlawful act or omission, (the 'actus reus') AND

(b) the state of mind (the 'mens rea') of the accused has to be of a criminal nature,



(2). And from the second example that:

Reasonable, Prudent Well-Intentioned Behaviour is not criminal, (notwithstanding any acts of parliament, previous case law, or common law).

Or to put it another way, if a person can show that they upheld the Duty Of Care In the circumstances they found themselves in, then they are not guilty of a crime.



There have been many cases which are relevant on the eco front, the most dramatic of which was that of the Ploughshares Women who broke into British Aerospace and damaged combat aircraft which were to be exported to the Indonesian Government in order to subjugate the natives who were (and still are!) trying to resist the encroachment of western hotel complexes (etc etc) into the forests which are their home.

Normally, to break into British Aerospace and damage combat aircraft would, I believe, be a treasonable offence which is still punnishable by death. However, when it was found that prior to this action the women had taken all REASONABLE steps to make their point known (they wrote petitions and staged peaceful demonstrations etc), and it was realised that the matter was genuinely felt to be of sufficient urgence to justify such an action, the women (after serving seversl months remanded in custody) were found NOT GUILTY of any crime.

Another case in point is that many thousands of eco-activists have been arrested under the Criminal Justice And Public Order Acts, eg. for "Criminal Damage" to GM modified crops, yet only a very few have been found guilty of any crime.

This is because it is unarguably the case that in the face of the threat due to UUEDD being of a similar magnitude to the threat that a war would pose, it is REASONAVLE, PRUDENT AND WELL-INTENTIONED to take NonViolentDirectAction on Environmental Issues.




THE DUTY OF CARE APPLIED TO UUEDD

Bearing in mind the huge increase in public awareness of UUEDD over the last five or ten years, it is no longer possible for anyone in a position of responsibility to claim that they are unaware of the threat of UUEDD to the nation's (not to mention the planet's) well-being and security.

Therefore, any acts or omissions leading to further UUEDD, committed by person(s) in positions of responsibility are done in the full knowledge that such acts and omissions are already injuring all of us, on a massive scale, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

THEREFORE ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS LEADING TO FURTHER UUEDD

COMMITTED BY PERSONS IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY

ARE RECKLESS AND

CRIMINAL.


THE DUTY OF CARE APPLIEDTO GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

It would appear that successive British Governments have (knowingly) both acted, i.e. passed illegal acts of parliament (which are supposed to be enactments of the law) to allow UUEDD, and have omitted to control it, which they ought to have done according to law.

Therefore it would appear that the British Government is manifestly reckless by act and by omission in it's duty of care for us and our environment.

The British Government is voted in, and paid, by the British People to serve the best interests of the British People. To this end therefore the Government is the servant of the British People, and the People are the Masters of the Government.

In law, it is illegal for a master to employ a servant to commit a reckless act ( the vicarious responsibility of a master for the act of a servant ); so if the British Government is reckless in it's duty of care for the environment, then it is illegal for the British People to employ -i.e. pay tax to- the Government as long as the Government continues to be reckless.

Our intention is not to persuade people to withhold their taxes (desirable as that may be to a great many of us); to do so would hardly be seen as reasonable, prudent and well intentioned.

It is our intention to inform the people of this country of the facts and thereby to exert as much political pressure as we may upon the Government to cease their apparent recklessness.

The only way the government can cease this apparent environmental recklessness is to provide:

ALL REASONABLY AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR GREEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,


-anything less being an omission which is reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause further physical, emotional, mental and spiritual injury to us, the neighbours of the apparently reckless government.

The question which then arises is `What are these -all reasonably available resources?'

When asked, most people will agree that the threat of UUEDD is of a similar magnitude to the threat of war, therefore, we may assert that the resources reasonably available to fight such a threat are of similar magnitude to those which would be made available if we were to have to fight a war.

In other words, it would appear that according to law we should declare a state of national emergency in order to mobilise (without unreasonable financial constraint) our collective resources to fight this most serious threat to our well-being and security; after all, we cannot have a healthy economy when our workforce is suffering from the effects of an unreasonably unhealthy environment!"

Ibid.

Just seems all a bit naive to me.

How do you enforce laws against the law makers? Well, you don't. You change the people so they change the law makers. Or you get rid of law making all together. (I'm for the latter for what it's worth).

Well diniz i do agree with your legal thoughts on the matter.
Although i do think you should bring this topic to one of the follow legal forums

http://suijurisclub.net/
http://thinkfreeforums.org/index.php

The above forums are thee best lawful forums on the web on your mentioned topic.

Although again do not petition the UN or the US government for rights, these creations have no rights they can issue, they can only grant privileges when rights for the same are forfited.
As freeman we all have the right as sons & daughters of the creator to Life & Liberty and of course in order to have either of the two you must be able to have a spot of land to stand or sleep on. These are God given things not something to beg from some Satanic group of men and woman. Learn your rights, If you are an american learn how to use the constitution. Stop asking for permission to do what is already rightfully yours to do.

If i want a plot of land that is unclaimed(there is plenty of public or so called government land to claim) i would claim a spot with my foot and start on building on it(of course i would not build a huge house, just something the is eco freindly and would not disrupt the surounding area.
I am not telling anyone to do what i am not willing to do myself because this is basically what i am leaving to do in a couple of days. Although i have studied the law for years and i do know how to lawfully defend myself if a government official thought i was doing wrong.

You are a freeman not a slave. A freeman does what he thinks is right a slave asks for permission! These government official are meant to make our lives easyer and to protect are interests not to restrain us from what is rightfully ours.

Well i just noticed your in the UK, well basically the same laws apply all over the world(commercial, admiralty law) accept you do not have a constitution to stand on. although if your in the England (donno) you may think about reading the Magna Carta excellent document.

But it all comes down to are you a freeman or a slave. Look through the forums posted above for some excellent lawful info, The thinkfree forum is a canadian/UK forum which i think would be helpful.

One last thing, As a freeman the UK & UN laws do not apply to you, only the laws of your country actruly have any affect on you. Although as a slave who doesn't know his rights or who he is then yes all laws, codes , statutes & regulation apply to you.

I really like the idea of taking back land. We shoul map out all the land that is basically massively owned and should pretty much go unnocticed. We could start working as a team, and directing peopel to different sections of land. We could plant a forest barrier of trees to make it harder to breach the area and make it more private. And the more people who get the land, than if anyone does try and take it back than we can challenge the laws. I think people should take the land back first, than work to chamge laws. Remember when Vladimir tried to build the organization in book two before writing the book, I can see how this is similar. Maybe we should organize? Just being aware of how many people are owning their own and making it on their own might be suffiecient so that we'll know we aren't alone and we'll be aware that things are really taking a change for the better. I wrote a letter to Safeway company that if they are choosing to sell GMOs without notifying the public they are actively choosing profits over the people and if they really do care like their ad says they do they should choose not to support this terrible crime against all of humanity.

^ I'd be down for that. I'm planning on getting some land in Ontario Canada this spring, legally or not we'll see. Probably through a tax sale so I get it cheap and don't have to hassle with the legal issues. Even though we would be in the right by taking some land for ourselves, practically speaking it'll be tough and the land will probably be forcefully repossessed.

HOWEVER, if enough people join together and massively reclaim spots of land in a public demonstration (they can't arrest us all right? even if they did, wtv, run lol!) it can work. It probably won't work the first few times, but if we get enough media coverage and enough people joining in for the principle, not the actual land, we can gradually reclaim larger plots of land as an actual public domain and just settle in it as communities with whomever is willing.

Even if I have my own land by then, I'll gladly come and help with this sort of protest via reclaiming land.

Paradigm Shifter, you remind me of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq_hijAJM_Y

Not that that's a bad thing.

LOL
I seen that video a month ago & i loved it..

I loved that video too