13-04-02: US Army: 1 Jud Crt: USA v Bradley Manning: Aequilibriaex Amicus

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIRST JUDICIAL COURT FORT MEADE, MARYLAND UNITED STATES Plaintiff - versus MANNING, Bradley E., PFC US Army xxx-xx-9504 Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 22211 Accused

[1]

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DATE: 02 April 2013 Motion to Enter Appearance as Pro Se, Alien on Pale Blue Dot, Amicus Curiae, and to File Attached Brief In Propria Persona

by Amici Curiae, Alien on Pale Blue Dot, in Support of an Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Perspective to this AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Dispute.

RELIEF SOUGHT: [1.1]

Alien on Pale Blue Dot respectfully moves this Court-Martial for

permission to appear Pro Se - pursuant to Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92 - to appear pro hac vice for the limited purpose of being admitted as an Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence supporting Amicus Curiae.

[1.2]

Alien further moves this Court-Martial for permission to file the

attached Brief In Propria Persona by Amici Curiae, Alien on Pale Blue Dot, in Support of an Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Perspective to the Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, to this Dispute.

[2]

ÆQUILBRIÆX SUSTAINABLE SECURITY AMICUS ARGUMENTS [2.1]

Amici‘s Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Arguments to

this AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Dispute.

A.

Credibility Failure/Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: An analysis of the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, in terms of its preference to regulate (a) the relations between humans, nature

and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological

conflicts;

on

behalf

of

the

exclusive

benefits

of

Anthropocentric males and corporations.

B.

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence argues that a ‗credible‘ Æquilibriæx judicial system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; – is one which accurately and honestly applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related preferred result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance

C.

Equilibriæx: Ecocentric analysis of alleged crime with regard to the laws of nature / ecology. Did criminal act contribute to greater interspecies carrying capacity harmony, or dischord, between between humans, nature and other animals species?

D.

Aquilibriæx: Anthropocentric analysis of alleged ‗crime‘ with regard to the laws of human nature. Did criminal act contribute to greater intraspecies equity harmony, or dischord, between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts?

[3]

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE: [3.1]

The interest of Amicus Curiae1 is to honourably present the Court with

alternative2 important3 -- ‗search for truth‘ (Jaffee v. Redmond4), avoid argument

1

Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229 at p. 266 F-G: “I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf.”

2 Munford, LT (1999): When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 279, 280.

3 Bruce J. Ennis, Effective Amicus Briefs, 33 CATH. U. L. REV. 603 (1984) “[A] common misconception[] about amicus briefs . . . is that [they] are not very important; that they are at best only icing on the cake. In reality, they are often the cake itself. Amicus briefs have shaped the judicial decisions in many more cases than is commonly realized.”

4 518 U.S. 1 (1996).

duplication (Craig v. Harney5), ‗speaks on behalf of an unrepresented party‘ (Sierra Club v. Morton6), ‗presents new ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts and data‘, and ‗presents a unique perspective and specific information‘ (The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company7) -- Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security legal arguments deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular AnthroCorpocentric cases8.

[3.2]

Alien on Pale Blue Dot (aka Lara Johnstone) is a Radical Honoursty

Ecofeminist paralegal / Vermicompost farmer, a member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL), the Radical Honesty9/Honoursty cultures and founder of Tsedaqah Yshmael Guerrylla Æquilibriæx (TYGÆ) Æx-Party10 (an unregistered Æx party, currently drawing up its Constitution and related documents for registration).

Applicant‘s reference to herself as Alien on Pale Blue Dot refers to: A.

ALIEN: Hardin (1980)11: Religious historian, Ernest Renan invented the ―Man from Mars‖, that ―thoroughly rational, inquisitive being, who asks earthlings to explain what they do in terms that can be understood by an intelligence completely free of all traditional terrestrial beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices.‖

B.

PALE BLUE DOT: Sagan C: Pale Blue Dot12: ―Consider again that dot .. home where everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.., every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of

331 U.S. 367 (1947) 405 U.S. 727 (1972): Justice William O‘Douglas dissenting 7 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

8 Smith, PM (1998): The Sometimes Troubled Relationship Between Courts and Their ―Friends‖, note 2, at 26 9 SA Constitutional Court ruling of 03 May 2012 in CCT 23-10, reads as follows: “Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae.”

10 Guerrylla Warrior - Constitution 11 Hardin, G (1980): Limited World, Limited Rights, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA Commentaries: Rights and Liberties, Society, 17 (4):5-8. May/June 1980 12 Sagan, Carl (1994). Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space (1st ed.). New York: Random House.

5 6

blood spilled by generals and emperors so that, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Our posturing, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light….. The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning… knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better to embrace hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal…. Once we overcome our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast Universe that utterly dwarfs — in time, space, and potential — the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors.

[3.3]

Amici’s

Æquilibriæx

Jurisprudence

Sustainable

Security

Principles Perspective to this AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Dispute.

[3.4] A.

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: Æquilibriæx is derived from æquus (equal), libra/æ (balance), libri (books), lex (law). Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence, i.e. Equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law; occurs as Equilibriæx Jurisprudence which adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, which manifests as all species living in carry capacity harmony with another; and Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature, which manifests as fully informed consent harmony between all human members of society.

B.

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence recognizes all Leaver beings, animal and plant species, individuals, corporations, families, tribes, etc., rights to legal personhood; where Leavers are recognized and legally rewarded for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and intra-species harmony, and Takers are recognized and legally penalized for their contribution

towards

disharmony and dischord.

Æquilibriæx

inter

and/or

intra-species

[3.5] A.

Sustainable Security: Sustainability

is

Security:

―There

is

no

security

without

sustainability‖: In the absence of an international new moral order where Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence confront the Military Doctrine reality of Environmental Resource Scarcity induced conflict and resource wars, and implements Guerrylla laws to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour; towards a sustainable, pre-industrial

lifestyle

paradigm;

―overpopulation‖

and

resource

scarcity will result in conflict and war (perhaps nuclear13) confronting regions at an accelerated pace, and ―collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy‖ by 2050.

B.

Sustainable Security acknowledges that the major socio-political driver on planet earth during the 21st century will be the Post-Peak Oil/NNR collapse of Industrial Civilization and all industrialized nation states, in a self-inflicted – economic and population growth addiction illusion – global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.

C.

All AnthroCorpocentric exponential growth addicted industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their left or right wing economic and political orientations, will collapse as a consequence of their dependence

upon

increasingly

scarce

Non

Renewable

Natural

Resources (NNR‘s).

D.

The AnthroCorpoCentric elites who have the greatest vested interest in preserving their AnthroCorpocentric parasitic status quo shall continue to preach their flat earth dogma of ‗economic growth‘; and their submissive believer citizens will not accept gracefully the new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with the inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial Primitivist lifestyle paradigm.

13

Hardin (1968/12/13)

E.

Overpopulation and consumption Scarcity induced resource war social unrest

and

resource

wars

will

degenerate—seemingly

instantaneously—into full fledged conflicts among nations, classes, and ultimately individuals for remaining natural resources. It will become universally understood that the only way to ―stay even‖, is to take from somebody else, preferably someone from a different race, culture or class. Life will become a ―negative sum game‖ within the ―shrinking pie‖ of ―continuously less and less‖. Social institutions will dissolve; law and order will cease to exist; and chaos will fill the void— nations will violently collapse.

F.

Sustainable Security advocates on behalf of CommonSism reduction of population and consumption, and ethnic and cultural secession and economic relocalisation into low/no tech localized self-sustaining cultural or ethnic homogenous relocalized and decentralized Agrarian or Primitivist confederate tribal society; or alternatively NNR scarcity depletion will exterminate us, and force it upon the remaining survivors, if any; in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, preindustrial lifestyle paradigm.

As such Alien on Pale Blue Dot respectfully requests Amicus Curiae status herein.

Dated at George, South Africa, Pale Blue Dot: 02 April 2013

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539, South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 jmcswan@mweb.co.za

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIRST JUDICIAL COURT FORT MEADE, MARYLAND UNITED STATES Plaintiff - versus MANNING, Bradley E., PFC US Army xxx-xx-9504 Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 22211 Accused

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DATE: 02 April 2013 Brief In Propria Persona by Amici Curiae, Alien on Pale Blue Dot, in Support of an Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Perspective to the Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.

TO THE HONOURABLE MILITARY JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIRST JUDICIAL COURT INDEX: Table of Authorities

ii-vii

Introduction & Summary of Argument

01-02

Statement of Facts

02-05

Argument

06-37

Failures/Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence‟s Social Contract: Despotism Æquilibriæx Principles

09-14 10-14 14-21

Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles

16-19

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Tragedy of the Commons Rights and Penalties

19-21

Equilibriæx (Ecocentric) Principles

21-27

Sustainable Leavers follow Ecological Law of Limited Competition

22-24

Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Leavers and Unsustainable Takers

24-25

Reducing Human Impact on the Environment requires population and consumption reduction.

25-26

Ecological Footprint: Consumption x Procreation Factor Application of Equilibriæx (Ecocentric) Principles

26-27 27-32

Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties:

27-28

Æquilibriæx: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties

28-28

Private Prosecution: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties

28-31

Private Prosecution: Taker Defendants Penalties vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties

31-32

Aquilibriæx (Anthropocentric) Principles

32-34

Cultural Variances in „Human Nature‟:

32-33

Resolving Conflict between Cultural Variances in „Human Nature‟:

33-34

Application of Aquilibriæx (Anthropocentric) Principles

35-37

Conclusion

37-37

Certificate of Filing and Service

38-38

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: International Court of Justice: Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project1 (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 US Supreme Court: Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367 (1947) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 Jaffee v. Redmond 518 U.S. 1 (1996) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633 (1977) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 7th Circuit: The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003). .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 Legislation:

1

issuu.com/js-ror/docs/970925_icj-weeramantry_husl

ii

Public Law 107-40: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States2. S.J. Res. 23 September 14, 2001 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 04 Public Law 107-243: Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 20023. Oct 16, 2002 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 04 Official Publications: Bundeswehr (Sep 2010): Peak Oil: Security Policy Implications of Scarce Resources4; Bundeswehr. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 Bush, GW Snr (1986/02): Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism5, United States Government .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .27 Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Gizewski, Peter (Spring 1997): Environmental Scarcity and Conflict6, by Peter Gizewski, Project on Environment Population and Security, Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of Toronto; Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Archived: Commentary No. 71. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 White House: National Security Council (1974/04/24): National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests7, Cover Letter by Henry Kissinger .. .. … .. .. .. 27 White House: National Security Council (1974/12/10): National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests8, Washington, DC, 227 pp. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. 27 White House: National Security Council (1975/11/26): National Security Decision Memorandum 314: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests9, Washington, DC. 4 pp.; made public policy

by Pres. Gerald Ford. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 White House: Nixon, R. (1969/07/18): Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth10, Public Papers of the Presidents, No. 271, p. 521, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives, Washington, DC, 1971. .. .. … .. .. .. .. 27 White House: Nixon, R (1970/03/16): Remarks of President Nixon on Signing Bill Establishing the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future11, White House. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. 27 White House: Nixon, R. (1972/05/05): Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future12, Public Papers

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.Res23: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf 4 English: http://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf 5 http://www.population-security.org/bush_report_on_terrorism/bush_report_on_terrorism_3.htm 6 http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm71-eng.asp 7 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/740424_wh-nssm200 8 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/740424_wh-nssm200 9 www.population-security.org/12-CH4.html 10 http://www.population-security.org/10-CH2.html 11 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2911 12 http://www.population-security.org/10-CH2.html 2 3

iii

for the Presidents, No. 142, p. 576, Office of Federal Register, National Archives, Washington, DC, 1974. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … 27 White House: Rockefeller Commission Report (1972/03/27): Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future13 (PDF14); a Signet Special Edition, W5219, The New American Library, Inc., 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, March, 1972 .. .. … 27 United Nations: (1974/08): World Population Plan of Action15 (PDF16); Adopted by consensus of the 137 countries represented at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest, August 1974 .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 United States Army: Department of the Army (December 1994): Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations17. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army . .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 United States Army (2001): US Army Posture Statement - FY 200218. .. .. … .. .. . 27 United States Army: Murphy, R (2006/10/24): US Army Strategy of the Environment19, Office of the Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Army, Environment, Safety & Occup. Health: Assistant for Sustainability. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 United States Army & TRADOC (2012): US Army Unified Quest 2012 Fact Sheet20, Unified Quest 2012 is the Army Chief of Staff's annual Title 10 Future Study Plan (FSP). .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. .. 27 United States Army Command and General Staff College: David, MAJ William E (April 1996): Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict21, USA Military Intelligence, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College. .. .. … .. .. 27 United States Army War College: Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace22; US Army War College. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 Bush, Col BX (13 Mar 1997): Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations23; US Army War College. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 Peters, R (1996): The Culture of Future Conflict24, US Army War College: Parameters: Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 Peters, Ralph (Summer 1997): Constant Conflict25, Parameters, US Army War College, pp.4-14 . .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … .. .. .. .. . 27 www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm issuu.com/js-ror/docs/720327_rock-pop 15 www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html 16 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/74_un-pop-actionplan 17 http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm100-23(94).pdf 18 http://www.army.mil/aps/01/default.htm 19 www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/ERDC-CERL_TR-07-9/Session%20I/RichardMurphy.pdf 20 www.army.mil/article/68379/Unified_Quest_2012___Fact_Sheet/ 21 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA314878 22 Butts, Kent Hughes (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DoD Partnership for Peace http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB339.pdf 23 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA326869 24 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/1995/peters.htm 25 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/97summer/peters.htm 13 14

iv

Peters, Ralph (Winter 1998): Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of NonCompetitive States26, Parameters, US Army War College, pp.36-47. .. .. … ... 27 Ubbelohde, LTC Kurt F. (10 April 2000): Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin27, US Army War College. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 United States Department of Defence: Department of Defense (Jan 2012): Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense28. .. 27 United States Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18): The Joint Operating Environment - 201029 (The JOE – 2010). .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 U.S. Forest Service (Dec 2012): Report Predicts a Strain on Natural Resources Due to Rapid Population Growth30. .. .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 27 Authorities: Bell, Tom (Winter 1991/2): Polycentric Law31; Humane Studies Review, Volume 7, Number 1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 Blumenfield, Tami (May 2009): The Na of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths32; Washington Univ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 Bruce J. Ennis, Effective Amicus Briefs, 33 CATH. U. L. REV. 603 (1984) .. .. .. .. 01 Chiarelli, Peter W General (6 Nov 2008): Remarks by General Peter W Chiarelli33, Prof Al Bernstein Lecture Series: School of Advanced International Studies. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 Coombs, David (11 March 2013): PFC Bradley Manning's Statement34, Law Offices of David E Coombs .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 05 Daily Mail (January 2011): Genghis Khan the GREEN: Invader killed so many people that carbon levels plummeted35, Daily Mail.UK .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31 Draffan, George (2000): The Corporate Consensus: A Guide to the Institutions of Global Power36, Apex Press .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 10 Friedman, David (2009): Legal Systems Very Different from Our Own37, Seasteading Conference .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 Friedman, David (March 1979): Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case38, Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 399-415. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 06 Hansen (2011/07/13): Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed39; Wired .. .. .. .. .. .. 04-05 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/98spring/peters.htm http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA378148 28 http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf 29 www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf 30 http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/12/report.shtml 31 http://osf1.gmu.edu/~ihs/w91issues.html 32 http://web.pdx.edu/~tblu2/Na/myths.pdf 33 www.army.mil/article/14199/Address_to_Alvin_Bernstein_Lecture_Series___Johns_Hopkins_University/ 34 http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2013/03/pfc-bradley-mannings-statement.html 35 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbonlevels-dropped.html 36 http://www.endgame.org/corpcon.html 37 http://youtu.be/afGejwdZ9_4 38 http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html 26 27

v

Hardin, G (1968/12/13): Tragedy of the Commons40, Science. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15-19 Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven & Norenzayan Ara (05 March 2009): The Wierdest People in the World41; University of British Columbia .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 33 Hightower, Jim (27 March 2013): The Ballooning Number of Corporate Kangaroo Courts Is Destroying Our Seventh Amendment Rights42; Alternet .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..09 Homer-Dixon, T (1991): On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict43. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28 Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993): Environmental change and violent conflict: Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife44. Scientific American, 268(2), pp. 38-45 . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 28 Homer-Dixon, T (1994): Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. 28 Homer-Dixon, T (June 1995): Strategies for Studying Causation in Complex Ecological Political Systems45. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .28 Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (June 1995): “Urban Growth and Violence: Will the Future Resemble the Past?,”46 Environment, Population and Security. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28 Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Howard, Philip (June 1995), “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Chiapas, Mexico,”47 Environment, Population and Security. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 28 Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Kelly, Kimberley (June 1995): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Gaza,”48 Environment, Population and Security. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28 Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Percival, Valerie (June 1995): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Rwanda,”49 Environment, Population and Security. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..28 Homer-Dixon, T (Sep 1995): The Ingenuity Gap: Can Poor Countries Adapt to Resource Scarcity50. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. ..28 Homer-Dixon & Percival (Oct 1995): Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: Case of South Africa51.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 28 www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html 41 http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Weird_People_BBS_final02.pdf 42 http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/ballooning-number-corporate-kangaroo-courts-destroying-our-seventhamendment-rights 43 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/thresh/thresh1.htm 44 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/evidence/evid1.htm 45 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/evidence/evid1.htm 46 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/urban/urban1.htm 47 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/chiapas/chiapas1.htm 48 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/gaza/gaza1.htm 49 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/rwanda/rwanda1.htm 50 http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/ingen/ingen.htm 51 http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/south/sa1.htm 39 40

vi

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (April 1996): “Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Pakistan,”52 Environment, Population and Security. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28 Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Schwartz, Daniel; Deligiannis, Tom (Summer 2000): “The Environment and Violent Conflict: A Response to Gleditsch’s Critique and Suggestions for Future Research,”53 Environmental Change & Security Project Report: 77-93. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .28 Hopfenberg, Russell (2007): World Food and Human Population Growth54, narrated by Dr‟s. Russell & Edie Hopfenberg .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24 Hopfenberg, R. (2009) Genetic feedback and human population regulation55.

Human Ecology 37: 643-651 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24 IUCN (2007): Species Programme: Red List: Species Extinction – The Facts (2007)56; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).. .. .. .. 09 Jones, Dan (25 June 2010): A WEIRD View of Human Nature Skews Psychologists’ Studies57; Science Magazine, Vol 328, pg.1627 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 33 O‟Brien, Alexa (28 February 2013): Pfc. Bradley E. Manning's Statement for the Providence Inquiry58, Alexa O‟Brien .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 05 Munford, LT (1999): When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 279, 280. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 01 Pongratz, Julia (20 January 2011): War, Plague No Match for Deforestation in Driving CO2 Buildup59, Carnegie Institute Department of Global Ecology [Video60] .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31 TYGAE (Mar 2013): Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence61, Tsedaqah Yshmael Guerryllae AEquilibriaex (TYGAE) AEx-Party .. .. .. .. .. .. 13 Žižek, Slavoj (1997): Multiculturalism or the cultural logic of multinational capitalism62, in: Razpol 10 - glasilo Freudovskega polja, Ljubljana .. .. .. .. .. .. 32 Zizek, Slavoj (15 Nov 2001): 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other'63; Spiked Online .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 34

http://www.homerdixon.com/projects/eps/pakistan/pak1.htm http://www.homerdixon.com/wp-content/uploads/2000/06/Response-to-Gleditsch.pdf 54 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/hopfenberg 55 http://panearth.org/WVPI/Papers/GeneticFeedback.pdf 56 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/species_extinction_05_2007.pdf 57 http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WEIRD%20in%20Science.pdf 58 www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/ pfc_bradley_e_manning_providence_hearing_statement.html 59 http://carnegiescience.edu/news/war_plague_no_match_deforestation_driving_co2_buildup 60 http://youtu.be/pPa-5vOzaZk 61 http://issuu.com/tygae/docs/anthrocorpfraud 62 http://www.soc.aau.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/kbm/VoF/ 63 http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D2C4.htm 52 53

vii

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: [1]

This Amicus Brief presents the Court with alternative1 important2 -- ‗search

for truth‘ (Jaffee v. Redmond3), avoid argument duplication (Craig v. Harney4), ‗speaks on behalf of an unrepresented party‘ (Sierra Club v. Morton5), ‗presents new ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts and data‘, and ‗presents a unique perspective and specific information‘ (The Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company6) -- Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security legal arguments deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular AnthroCorpocentric cases7.

[2]

In considering a new – Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence – perspective The Opinion

of Weeramantry J8, advises to ―follow in the path charted out by Grotius‗ that ―it would be pity indeed if [the wealth of past experience from a variety of cultures] were left untapped merely because of attitudes of formalism which see such approaches as not being entirely de rigueur‖. A court ―needs to be multidisciplinary, drawing from other disciplines .. such wisdom as may be relevant for its purpose‖; since a court ―cannot afford to be monocultural, especially where it is entering newly developing areas of law‖.

[3]

Credibility

Failure/Fraud

of

AnthroCorpocentric

Jurisprudence:

An

Æquilibriæx analysis of the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, in terms of its preference to regulate (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts; on behalf of the exclusive benefits of Anthropocentric males and corporations.

Munford, LT (1999): When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 279, 280.

Bruce J. Ennis, Effective Amicus Briefs, 33 CATH. U. L. REV. 603 (1984) ―[A] common misconception[] about amicus briefs . . . is that [they] are not very important; that they are at best only icing on the cake. In reality, they are often the cake itself. Amicus briefs have shaped the judicial decisions in many more cases than is commonly realized.‖ 3 518 U.S. 1 (1996).

4 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 5 405 U.S. 727 (1972): Justice William O‘Douglas dissenting 6 339 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2003).

7 Smith, PM (1998): The Sometimes Troubled Relationship Between Courts and Their ―Friends‖, note 2, at 26 8 ICJ: Weeramantry J in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project 1 2

1

[4]

The Equilibriæx/Ecocentric analysis of alleged crime with regard to the laws of

nature / ecology. Did criminal act contribute to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony, or dischord, between between humans, nature and other animals species?

[4.1]

An Equilibriæx analysis would include (a) evidence as to whether the

party is an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) or a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent), (b) how the act contributed to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony or dischord between humans, nature and other animal species: how did it affect soil, forests, water, minerals, animals, fish, insects, plants, and air quality; (c) if the defendant is a leaver, Equilibriæx reasons why the charges should be dismissed, and if the defendant is a Taker, Equilibriæx reasons why the penalty should include the death penalty.

[5]

The Aquilibriæx/Anthropocentric analysis of alleged ‗crime‘ with regard to the

laws of human nature. Did criminal act contribute to greater intra-species equity harmony, or discord, between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts?

[5.1]

An Aquilibriæx analysis would include (a) the parties cultural hierarchy

identity, i.e. leaver/taker, Nation/religion/culture/employment culture, etc; (b) each cultural hierarchy‘s relevant cultural legal principles, related to the specific principles in dispute; (c) whether the alleged criminal acts, are legally considered ‗crimes‘ in both parties cultures, (d) if not: whether different cultural values in dispute are mutually reconcilable or irreconcilable, (e) how or why the alleged criminal act, acting in accordance to the parties cultural legal principles, contributed to greater intra-species equity harmony, or discord , between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: ―We are the sum of that which we are allowed to know ... Today's "flat-worlders" are those who believe that information can be

2

controlled. Historically, information always equalled power.

Rulers and civilizations viewed knowledge as a commodity to be guarded, a thing finite in its dimensions and lost when shared.‖ – Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of NonCompetitive States9 ―The advent of this new information age has opened a fresh chapter in the human struggle for, and with, freedom. It will be a bloody chapter, with plenty of computer-smashing and headbashing. The number one priority of non-Western governments in the coming decades will be to find acceptable terms for the flow of information within their societies. They will uniformly err on the side of conservatism--informational corruption--and will cripple their competitiveness in doing so. Their failure is programmed.‖ - Ralph Peters, Constant Conflict10

[6]

Pfc Manning‗s is charged with UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy), UCMJ 92

(Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation); and UCMJ 134 (General article); relating to the alleged leak of the largest amount of classified information in U.S. history to Wikileaks11; the (i) July 12, 2007 air-to-ground attacks12 by two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, New Baghdad, Baghdad, during the Iraqi insurgency and U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq (Wikileaks: ―Collateral Murder‖13), (ii) 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan14; (iii) 250,000 United States diplomatic cables (Wikileaks: Cablegate15); and (iv) 500,000 army reports from Iraq (Iraq War logs) and Afghanistan (Afghan War logs).16 [7]

The Afghanistan War began on October 7, 2001, when the United States,

United Kingdom, Australia, and the Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) launched Operation Enduring Freedom, citing their motives as being the September 11 attacks, dismantling al-Qaeda terrorist organization and removing the Taliban regime from power to create a Duhmockery state. The Iraq war began on March 20, 2003, with the U.S.-led coalition, military invasion of Iraq, motivated

by US & UK‗s claims that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed

Peters, Ralph (Winter 1998) Peters, Ralph (Summer 1997) 11 Wikileaks is an international, online, not-for-profit organisation publishing secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous news sources and whistleblowers.

12 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike 13 www.collateralmurder.com 14 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granai_airstrike 15 wikileaks.org/cablegate.html 16 wikileaks.org/irq/ and wikileaks.org/afg/ 9

10

3

a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. No such WMD were ever found.

[8]

Afghanistan17 and Iraq18 were not ―formally declared wars‖ where ―formal

Declaration of War‖ refers to Congressional legislation with the phrase ―Declaration of War‖ in the title19, being ―authorized by Congress‖20. Sen Paul‗s Amendment21 argues Congress should reclaim its power to ―formally declare war‖.

[9]

Pfc Manning‗s Lamo chat22 implied both Anthropocentric and Ecocentric

Truthseeker23 motivations. Manning‘s Anthropocentric motivation was to ―unmask evil.. by naming it, wherever it is‖24 arose as he confronted the PR slaughterhouse25 reality, his assignment was to be a ―dumb, stupid animal pawn‖26 ―high-class muscle man for Big Business, Wall Street and the bankers‖27 to bring

Public Law 107-40 Public Law 107-243 19 Declaration of War upon UK (1812), Spain (1898), Germany (1917), Austro-Hungary (1917), Japan (1941) Germany (1941); & Act providing for Prosecution of War Between US & Mexico (1846).

20 Doe v Bush: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."

21 Senate Amendment 1064 (S.AMDT.1064); Page: S7674 22 Hansen (2011/07/13): Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed 23 Ibid (03:31:33 PM) I prefer a painful truth over any blissful fantasy. | (10:36:46 AM) living such an opaque life, has forced me never to take transparency, openness, and honesty for granted | (1:10:38-1:12:02 PM) its open diplomacy… world-wide anarchy in CSV format… its Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth… its beautiful, and horrifying… and… its important that it gets out… I feel, for some bizarre reason …. it might actually change something | (02:28:10 AM) i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public | (02:22:47-02:29:18 PM) i mean what if i were someone more malicious… i could‗ve sold to russia or china, and made bank? … [why didn‗t you?] because it‗s public data .. it belongs in the public domain .. information should be free .. it belongs in the public domain .. because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge .. if its out in the open… it should do the public good .. rather than some slimy intel collector .. im crazy like that | (05:53:09-05:56:02 PM) i dont have a doctrine.. socialism / capitalism are the same thing in practice.. i dont quite know.. seen too much reality to be ―polar‖.. i dont like dogma, that‘s one thing i can say without doubt…

24 Ibid (03:29:31 PM) Elie Wiesel summed it up pretty well for me… though his story is much much more important that mine..

25 Ibid (12:59:41 PM) uhm… crazy, almost criminal political backdealings… the non-PR-versions of world events and crises… uhm… all kinds of stuff like everything from the buildup to the Iraq War during Powell, to what the actual content of ―aid packages‖ is: for instance, PR that the US is sending aid to pakistan includes funding for water/food/clothing… that much is true, it includes that, but the other 85% of it is for F-16 fighters and munitions to aid in the Afghanistan effort, so the US can call in Pakistanis to do aerial bombing instead of americans potentially killing civilians and creating a PR crisis 26 Ibid (02:31:02 PM) the thing that got me the most… that made me rethink the world more than anything was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police… for printing ―anti-Iraqi literature‖… the Iraqi federal police wouldn‗t cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the ―bad guys‖ were, and how significant this was for the FPs… it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki… i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled ―Where did the money go?‖ and following the corruption trail within the PM‗s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn‗t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees… everything started slipping after that… i saw things differently.. i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

27 Butler (1935) 17 18

4

Duhmockery28 to Iraq. Ecocentrically his Pale blue dot perspective29 was that humanity is destroying its home30.

[10]

Pfc Manning‗s statement for the Providence Enquiry31, focuses primarily on his

Anthropocentric motivations.

[11]

On 15 October 2013, Amici legally challenged Defendant Pfc Manning, his

alleged ‗Peacenik‘ supporters and their ‗Anti-War‘ and ‗Peace‘ community friends, to demonstrate their sincere commitment to addressing the overpopulation and overconsumption causes of Scarcity related resource war conflict.

[12]

They were challenged to answer the question: Are you Willing to Pay the One

Child Per Family Price for Peace? If so, they could demonstrate their sincere commitment

to

addressing

resource

scarcity,

due

to

overpopulation

and

overconsumption, by signing the Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath. [Amici submitted32 her own signed Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child Oath, to USCAAF Judges and the then Director General of the Central Intelligence Agency: General David Petraeus (PDF33)] [13]

As of date, neither Defendant Pfc Manning, nor any of his ‗Peacenik‘ or ‗Anti-

War‘ supporters have so far demonstrated their sincere commitment to peace, by being willing to address the root overpopulation and overconsumption of scarcity induced resource war conflicts.

Hansen (2011/07/13) (12:21:24 PM) say… a database of half a million events during the iraq war… from 2004 to 2009… with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures… ? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective?

29 Ibid (03:15:38-03:25:28 PM) i dont know… im just, weird i guess.. I cant separate myself from others.. i feel connected to everybody… like they were distant family … i… care? Pale blue dot.jpg <– sums it up for me … i probably shouldn‗t have read sagan, feynman, and so many intellectual authors last summer… >sigh< … we‗re human… and we‗re killing ourselves… and no-one seems to see that… and it bothers me … apathy … apathy is far worse than the active participation 30 Ibid (02:21:18-02:24:13 AM) and god knows what happens now … hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms … if not… than we‗re doomed … as a species … i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens | (02:29:31-02:31:49 AM) or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid… [which do you think it is?] im hoping for the former.. it cant be the latter.. because if it is… were fucking screwed … (as a society) … and i dont want to believe that we‗re screwed | (03:35:44-03:36:18 PM) i think ive been traumatized too much by reality, to care about consequences of shattering the fantasy … im not brave, im weak | (1:13:10 PM) i just… dont wish to be a part of it… at least not now… im not ready… i wouldn‗t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn‗t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy… | (03:06:48 PM) i had about three breakdowns… successively worse, each one revealing more and more of my uncertainty and emotional insecurity | (01:49:28-01:50:57 AM) too many words in political spheres… too short of an attention span… too short of goals .. humanity can accomplish so much… but its like herding cats … getting the smart people with ideas to cooperate, that is 31 Coombs, David E (11 March 2013); Alexa O‘Brien (28 February 2013) 32 http://sqswans.weebly.com/15-oct-price4peaceoath.html 33 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-1015_uscaaf_petition_reconsideration_rule31_mblpoath_signedcrtsvc.pdf 28

5

ARGUMENT ―The basic idea is that all human societies face roughly the same problems, namely how do disputes get resolved and rights enforced. They have solved them in an interesting variety of ways and you can learn something from studying the different ways different societies have solved things. I like to claim that Iceland shows that the American legal system is a mere thousand years behind the cutting edge of legal technology, since their legal system had a simple feature, which I argue would improve ours.‖ - David Friedman, Legal Systems Very Different From Ours34. ―As any cynic will confirm, money and law have a lot in common.

But their ties run even deeper than most suspect. Money and law had similar origins: both arose spontaneously out of the undirected actions of individuals seeking common standards for mutual coordination. Money and law developed in parallel fashion, too: medieval Europeans enjoyed competition in currencies and legal systems until monarchies took over both fields. And state monopolies in money and law now present common hazards: they are imposed by fiat, inefficiently operated, and (as the cynics point out) jointly corrupting.‖ – Tom Bell, Policycentric Law35

What is a Credible - Æquilibriæx - Legal System?

[14]

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence argues that a ‗credible‘ Æquilibriæx judicial

system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment36; – is one which accurately and honestly applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related preferred result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance; i.e.

[14.1]

the laws of nature/ecology, recognizing that a healthy ecological

environment, with due regard for regulating human procreation and resource

Friedman, David (2009); Friedman, David (March 1979) Bell, Tom (Winter 1991/2): Polycentric Law; Humane Studies Review, Volume 7, Number 1 http://osf1.gmu.edu/~ihs/w91issues.html 36 Blumenfield, Tami (May 2009) 34 35

6

utilization

behaviour

in

accordance

with

the

carrying

capacity

laws

of

sustainability is a sine qua non37 for all other constitutional rights38; and [14.2]

the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural,

religious, and ideological laws of human nature39, are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.

[15]

The socio-political problem solving system of the Gender Balanced agrarian

Mosuo culture in South West China is plausibly the most credible system of jurisprudence on planet earth. The people of Mosuo have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide, no prisons, no mental illness, no mental institutions, no unemployment and no homelessness; as a result of abiding by (a) the laws of nature and tribal control of population and consumption, and (b) the laws of human nature, in terms of public problem solving, and a socio-political focus on root cause problem solving.40 [16]

In Mosuo culture, women are the head of the house, property is passed through

the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society. The traditional Mosuo religion worships nature, is called Daba, with Lugu Lake regarded as the Mother Goddess and the mountain overlooking it venerated as the Goddess of Love. Their focus is their close relationship to the land that supports them and with their neighbours, who also support them.

â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Environmental Protection as a Principle of International Law : The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this, as damage to the environment can impair and undermine all; the human rights spoken of in the Universal Declaration and other human rights instruments.â&#x20AC;&#x2013; -- Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206.

38 Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation, Al Bartlett, Ph.D., Population & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 1, Sep 2000, pgs. 63-71; Bartlett (1994/09): Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; Clugston, C (2009): Sustainability Defined (WakeUpAmerika) 39 Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven, Norenzayan Ara (05 March 2009); Watters, Ethan (25 Feb 2013); Jones, Dan (25 June 2010) 40 Tami Blumenfield (May 2009): The Na of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths; Washington Univ http://web.pdx.edu/~tblu2/Na/myths.pdf 37

7

What is an AnthroCorpocentric Legal System?: [17]

An AnthroCorpocentric judicial system is one which regulates inter and intra-

species relational conflicts – (the relations and conflicts between (a) humans, nature and other animals species, and (b) humans amongst themselves, in terms of gender, culture, religion and ideological differences) – almost exclusively for the benefit of Anthropocentric males and corporations; such as: Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)41; Munn v. State of Illinois (1876)42; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)43; Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)44; Lochner v. New York (1905)45 ; Liggett v. Lee (1933)46; Ross v. Bernhard (1970)47; U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply (1976)48; Marshall v.

Barlow (1978)49; First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)50; Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Comm. of NY (1980)51; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)52; Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002); Nike v Kasky (2002)53; Randall v Sorrell (2006)54. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010)55; Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana56.

Corporate charters are ruled to have constitutional protection.

Property cannot be used to unduly expropriate wealth from a community (later reversed) 43 The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of ―corporate personhood,‖ thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a ―natural person.‖ This story was detailed in ―The Theft of Human Rights,‖43 a chapter in Thom Hartmann‘s recommended book Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights 44 A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment) 45 States cannot interfere with ―private contracts‖ between workers and corporation — marks the ascension of ―substantive due process‖ (later mitigated after President Roosevelt threatend to add Justices to the Court).

46 Chain store taxes prohibited as violation of corporations‘ ―due process‖ rights.

47 7th Amendment right (jury trial) granted to corporations 48 A corporation successfully claims 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

49 The Court creates 4th Amendment protection for corporations — federal inspectors must obtain a search warrant for a safety inspection on corporate property.

50 Struck down a Massachusetts law that banned corporate spending to influence state ballot initiatives, even spending by corporate political action committees. Spending money to influence politics is now a corporate ―right.‖ Justice Rehnquist‘s dissent is a recommended read.

51 This oft-cited decision concerns a state ban on ads promoting electricity consumption.

52 Upheld limits on corporate spending in elections.

53 Nike claims California cannot require factual accuracy of the corporation in its PR campaigns. California‘s Supreme Court disagreed. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case on appeal, then issued a non-ruling in 2003.

54 While this case dealt with the legality of Vermont‘s contribution limits, not corporations directly, it carried important implications for corporate political influence 55 In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overrules Austin and a century of federal legislative precedent to proclaim broad electioneering rights for corporations.

56 The U.S. Supreme Court overruled Montana‘s Supreme Court ruling, which had upheld a challenge to the state‘s century-old ban on corporate electioneering.

41 42

8

[18]

In The Ballooning Number of Corporate Kangaroo Courts Is Destroying

Our Seventh Amendment Rights57, Jim Hightower writes that ―If you've been gouged by your bank, discriminated against, sexually harassed, unfairly fired, you'll most likely find that you're barred from the courthouse door.‖ Since binding mandatory arbitration "agreements" are written by corporate lawyers, it's no surprise that they stack the deck in favor of corporations. But — wow! — the percentage of rigged wins is disgusting.

For example, Public Citizen found that one giant firm, the National Arbitration Forum, heard over 34,000 consumer-versusbank cases in California. It sided with financial giants 95 percent of the time. Even more astonishing, the city of San Francisco found that of the 18,045 cases brought by banks and other powers against overmatched California consumers, NAF's private judges sided with the corporations 100 percent of the time.

[19]

Since AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence does not even grant nature, animals,

plants automatic legal personhood, it is fair to say that they have, and continue to effectively be barred from the courthouse door, to protest the extermination of their habitats and total extinction of their species58, and that AnthroCorpocentric Despotic Jurists and Legislators have sided with Corporations and Anthropocentric males, 99.999% percent of the time.

FAILURES/FRAUD OF ANTHROCORPOCENTRIC JURISPRUDENCE:

Hightower, Jim (27 March 2013) IUCN (2007) ―• 16,928 plant and animal species are known to be threatened with extinction. This may be a gross underestimate because less than 3% of the world‘s 1.9 million described species have been assessed for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. • Only 1.9 million species have been described out of an estimated 13-14 million species that exist. • In the last 500 years, human activity is known to have forced 869 species to extinction (or extinction in the wild). • One in four mammals and one in eight birds face a high risk of extinction in the near future. • One in three amphibians and almost half of all tortoises and freshwater turtles are threatened. • The current species extinction rate is estimated to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural or ‗background‘ rate. • The total number of known threatened animal species has increased from 5,205 to 8,462 since 1996. • Habitat loss and degradation affect 89% of all threatened birds, 83% of mammals, and 91% of threatened plants. • All 22 species of albatross are under threat as a result of long-line fishing. • A total of 8,457 threatened plants are listed. This is around 2% of the world‘s described plants. As only approximately 4% of the world‘s described plants have been evaluated, the true percentage of threatened plant species is much higher.‖ 57 58

9

―[l]ike frankfurters, laws cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.‖59 ―Corporations are a Frankenstein monster which States have created by their corporation laws.‖ - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916 ―The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….‖ - United States Congressional committee, 1941 ―The state need not allow its own creation to consume it.‖ - U.S. Supreme Court, First National Bank v. Bellotti, 1977 ―Corporations have gained the position of an imperial, dictatorial power by the subordination of all of our societal values to the single unrealistic aim of somehow maintaining endless economic growth and ever greater short-term profit for the wealthy few (no matter what the cost).‖ - Karen Coulter, Corporations and the Public Interest, Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy, 1999, 98 "El Paso - 200 children - $5 to $10,000 per kid." -- Handwritten notes of Gulf Resources vice president Frank Woodruff, calculating Gulf's liability for poisoning 500 children with lead from its Bunker Hill smelter in Kellogg, Idaho; Gulf concluded it was cheaper to poison the children than to replace pollution control equipment.60

[20]

Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence:

[21]

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence asserts that AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence

lacks credibility as a system of Jurisprudence, in terms of its (a) failure to provide legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology, and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature, when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

[22]

AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence‟s Social Contract: Despotism: ―When it comes to grazing at the federal trough, no one sits taller in the saddle than corporate cowboys.‖ - Paul Rogers and

E. ESAR, COMIC DICTIONARY 158 (1943). Indiana legislators are fond of quipping, "The making of law, like the making of sausage, should not be witnessed." Of course, having seen sausage made, we may choose never to eat it again; we have no choice but to be consumers of law.

60 Draffan, George (2000) 59

10

Jennifer LaFleur, "Damage Goes on at Taxpayer Expense,", San Jose Mercury News, November 7, 1999. ―Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve, wilderness, or indigenous culture will survive the global market economy. We know that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating... There is no polite way to say that business is destroying the world.‖ - Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability, 1993, 3. ―Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.‖ - Benito Mussolini

[23]

Social Contract n: an implicit agreement among people that results in the

organization of society; where the individual surrenders liberty in return for protection.

[24]

The English philosopher John Locke, whose thinking helped inspire the

American Revolution, said that society should be governed by an understood set of values he termed the social contract. Individuals form states in order to maintain social order, where ‗law and order‘ are considered to be a state of community relations that contribute to social conditions which reduce conflict. By giving up their warlike ―state of nature‖ posited to exist before such a hypothetical social contract is agreed upon, they agree to uphold their citizen responsibilities in order to benefit from the social order provided by the State, whose social contract responsibility is to guarantee them with a reasonable guarantee of peace and security. Social contract theory has consequently formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that for any state to be considered legitimate, their authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.

[25]

According to the US Supreme Court in Roberts v. Louisiana61, the core of the

Lockean ―social contract‖ idea is that a ―society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few.‖62

Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633 (1977) ―It is no service to individual rights, or to individual liberty, to undermine what is surely the fundamental right and responsibility of any civilized government: the maintenance of order so that all may enjoy liberty and security. Learned Hand surely had it right when he observed: ―And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their 61 62

11

[26]

Consequently in a credible Lockean ―social contract‘, man must recognize

limitations to his freedoms, limitations to his ‗unbridled will to do as he likes‘; to benefit from the maintenance of law and order and the ensured sustainability of the social contract. In a non-credible social contract, certain men do not recognize limitations on their freedoms, limitations to their ‗unbridled will to do as they like‘; choosing instead to become a society where freedom to do as one likes, is ―the possession of only a savage few.‖ [27]

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence asserts that a credible sustainable social contract

requires Legislators and Jurists to recognize that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by the laws of nature/ecology, which dictate that a healthy ecological

environment,

with

due

regard

for

regulating

procreation

and

consumption in accordance to the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) the laws of human nature; which generally have proven that a culture‘s sustainable organic internal harmony is directly proportional to the quality of its members honesty, transparency, accountability and fully informed consenting agreements.

[28]

Conversely when Legislators and Jurists enact legislation/jurisprudence while

which ignores the limits imposed by the laws of nature/ecology and/or the laws of human nature; they are consciously choosing to become a society where freedom to do as one likes, is ―the possession of only a savage few.‖ Such legislators/jurists can well be described as a form of government which has become destructive, whose long train of abuses and usurpations, evinces a design towards AnthroCorpocentric Juristic Despotism. If so, it is the right and duty of all citizens, particularly those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic; to overthrow such AnthroCorpocentric Juristic Despotism.

[29]

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence asserts that the political, academic and legal

captains of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic, refusal to recognize that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by the laws of nature/ecology and human nature; are driving SV AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic full speed

freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.‖ The Spirit of Liberty 190 (3d ed., 1960).‖

12

to their ‗suicide pact‘ collision with the Laws of Ecology and Human Nature, their scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg.

[30]

Examples of AnthroCorpocentric Social Contract: Despotism:

[31]

The

TYGAE

Report:

Credibility

Failure

of

AnthroCorpocentric

Jurisprudence63, details the following arguments: [I] AnthroCorpocentric Legislator‘s/Jurists Despotic Failure to Recognize their Legislative / Juristic Freedoms are limited by Laws of Nature/Ecology and Human Nature: [A] Conflict with Laws of Ecology: Finite Resource Reality: Inaccurate Assumption: NNR Abundance: [B] Conflict with Sustainable Security Military Doctrine advocating Overpopulation & Consumption induced Scarcity as a cause of Conflict: [C] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to apply laws of Nature/Ecology to legally differentiate between Sustainable and Unsustainable Procreation and Consumption behaviour.

[D] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to legislate credible International Peace Treaties which confront Scarcity induced Conflict to legally differentiate between Sustainable (Peaceful) and Unsustainable (Scarcity Combatant) Procreation and Consumption behaviour.

[II] AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudences Endorsement of ‗Control of Reproduction‘ Human Farming Poverty Pimping Economy Racket.

the War

[A] Masculine Insecurity: Foundation of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence‘s Human Farming ‗Control of Reproduction‘ War Economy Racket.

[B] Legislation of Occupational Licences for hundreds of occupations, sometimes even from children for lemonade stands, required to allegedly protect those occupations consumers from incompetent service and products.

[C] Total Legislative Failure to legislate Breeding / Parenting licences, to (a) protect the rights of unborn and unwanted children, from unloving and incompetent parenting; and (b) prevent overpopulation.

[D] Failure to Legislate Breeding/Parenting Licence, an endorsement of Masculine Insecurity‘s use of the Control of 63

http://issuu.com/tygae/docs/anthrocorpfraud

13

Reproduction as a Weapon of War. [E] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Cannon Fodder Population.

[F] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Vote and Poverty Pimp Fodder Population.

[III] Corporate Jurisprudence

Influence

[A] The Hidden Personhood.

History

[B] AnthroCorpocentric Making.

and of

Control

of

Corporations

Influence

on

Anthropocentric and

Judicial

Corporate Decision

[C] Corporate Cultural Imperialism, Cultural Identity and the Eurocentric ideology of Ecological Destruction and Compulsive Development.

[D] Melting Pot Multiculturalism: the ideal Egotist Consumptionism Ideology of Multinational Capitalism.

ÆQUILIBRIÆX PRINCIPLES ―The law locks up the man or woman who steals the goose from the common. But the greater villain the law lets loose, who steals the common from the goose.‖ -- 17th century protest against English enclosure ―To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it.‖ - Lloyd George ―Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.‖ - Winston Churchill

[32]

Æquilibriæx is derived from æquus (equal), libra/æ (balance), libri (books), lex

(law). Æquilibriæx – i.e. Equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law/jurisprudence occurs as Equilibriæx Jurisprudence which adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, and Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature.

[33]

Æquilibriæx jurisprudence occurs when Legislators and Jurists recognize that

their -- Roberts v. Louisiana64 Lockean ―social contract‖65 duties - that their

64

Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633 (1977)

14

legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by (a) the laws of nature/ecology, which dictate that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating procreation and consumption in accordance to the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature66, are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.

[34]

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence recognizes all Leaver beings, species, individuals,

corporations, families, tribes, etc., rights to legal personhood; but based upon the principles of CommonSism, distinguishes between Sustainable Leavers who are recognized and legally rewarded for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and intra-species harmony, and Unsustainable Takers who are recognized and legally penalized for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and/or intraspecies disharmony and discord.

[35]

CommonSism, or Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons,

is inspired by -- among others -- the Taker vs. Leaver and Leaver Law of Limited Competition ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin, and the Order of Melchizedek ideas of Yakov Rabinovich, as expressed in Stairway to Nowhere: Chapter 8: Melchizedek — Ecological War. [36]

CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence,

unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the absence of Ecocentric Jurisprudence combined with the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence. ―It is no service to individual rights, or to individual liberty, to undermine what is surely the fundamental right and responsibility of any civilized government: the maintenance of order so that all may enjoy liberty and security. Learned Hand surely had it right when he observed: ―And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.‖ The Spirit of Liberty 190 (3d ed., 1960).‖ 66 Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven, Norenzayan Ara (05 March 2009); Watters, Ethan (25 Feb 2013); Jones, Dan (25 June 2010) 65

15

[37]

Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their

AnthroCorpocentric adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal, including voting rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties, including denial of rights, including voting rights, to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.

[38]

Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between

the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status. An organisation or corporation who only employs Leavers is a Leaver organisation, and one which has one or more Takers, is considered a Taker organisation.

[39]

The Tragedy of the Commons is an ecological concept that refers to the

depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in â&#x20AC;&#x2022;The Tragedy of the Commonsâ&#x20AC;&#x2013;.67 [40]

Social Trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a

group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group.

[41]

67

Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles:

Hardin, G (1968/12/13)

16

[42]

Garrett Hardin‘s Tragedy of the Commons, 1968 essay focussed on clarifying

how the population problem was a moral problem, and required a moral solution.

Hardin showed why Adam Smith's laissez-faire doctrine and belief that the invisible hand enables a system of individuals to pursue their private interests which will automatically serve the collective interest; is flawed.

[43]

Hardin‘s key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) showed why Smith

was wrong. Hardin argued that when a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. When many people think this way, the tragic result is the overexploitation and ruin of the commons. Similar to the herdsman, couples expect to experience a large benefit from having a second child, or consuming above carrying capacity, without having to bear the full social and ecological cost of their choices.

[44]

Hardin‟s Tragedy of the Commons Assumptions & Solutions: [44.1] A.

The world is biophysically finite.

The more people there are, and the more they consume, the less each person's share must be.

B.

Technology (ie, agricultural) cannot fundamentally alter this.

C.

We can't both maximize the number of people and satisfy every desire or "good" of everyone.

D.

Practically, biophysical limits dictate we must both stabilize population, and consumption.

E.

Both steps will generate opposition, since many people will have to relinquish their procreation and/or consumption behaviour.

[44.2]

Over-population and overconsumption are example‘s of the tragedy of the

commons (ToC).

A.

Commons are un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.

17

B.

Hardin's ToC model assumes that individuals are short-term, selfinterested "rational" actors, seeking to maximize their own gains.

C.

Such actors will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, overconsume) as long as they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits.

D.

The system of individual welfare insulates individuals from bearing the full costs of over-reproducing, and corporate welfare insulates corporations from bearing the costs of overproduction.

E.

When every individual believes and behaves in this manner, commons are quickly filled, degraded, and ruined along with their erst-while exploiters.

F.

A laissez-faire system (letting individuals choose as they like) will not "as if by an invisible hand" solve over-population and/or overconsumption.

[44.3]

The "commons" system for breeding and consuming must be abandoned

(as it has been for other resources).

A.

In other words, something must restrain individual reproduction and consumption.

B.

but it must not be individual conscience; appealing to conscience will only result in fewer people with conscience in the population (assuming here that it is genetic, or perfectly transmitted by learning).

C.

It should be accomplished by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."

D.

Sacrificing freedom to breed and consume will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost.

E.

"Coercive" restrictions on breeding and consuming could take a number of forms.

F.

The "right" to determine the size of one's family and socio-economic consumption status, must be rescinded.

G. [44.4]

This will protect the conscientious traits in the population.

The problem is then to gain peoples' consent to a system of coercion.

18

A.

People will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate and consumption growth rate, be set only by individuals' choices.

B.

Educating all people about the ToC, its consequences, and the alternatives to it, is necessary.

C.

Then various restraints and incentives for low reproduction and consumption, below the commons carrying capacity limits, can and must be instituted.

[45]

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Tragedy of the Commons Rights and

Penalties: [46]

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Taker and Leaver Rights and Penalties are

designed

to

remove

the

AnthroCorpocentric

jurisprudence

breeding

and

consumption war incentives to violate the Commons carrying capacity. If or when an individual chooses to procreate or consume above the Commons carrying capacity (be a Taker), they thereby make their own voluntary decision to deny themselves access to the Commons social contract‘s protection of rights to liberty, life and property, etc. They choose – by their decision to overbreed and overconsume -- to no longer be entitled to the social contract protections to life, liberty and property, etc.

[47]

Right to Life: Leavers are entitled to state social contract protection of their

right to life, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract right to life (within the law of limited competition). Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‗right‘ to life, since their procreation and/or consumption lifestyle deliberately violates the ‗right to life‘ of nature and animals and plant species. For example: If or where a Taker is murdered, either by another Taker or a leaver, it is for the Takers‘ family to prosecute the matter as a civil matter, and attempt to convince the Jury how or why the Taker should be given an exemption access to the Leaver‘s right to life. If the accused (Taker or Leaver) can prove to the court, that the person who was murdered, was – in terms of their Taker procreation and consumption behaviours – committing murder of Leavers, and nature, by denying and stealing their land and access to their habitats, then

19

the murder of such a Taker, would have been beneficial to Æquilibriæx harmony, since the murdered Taker was creating disharmony by his procreation and/or consumption greedy practices.

[48]

Property Ownership: Leavers are entitled to social contract protection of

their property rights, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract property rights. Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‗right‘ to protection of their property, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the property rights of nature and animals and plant species. If Takers allege their property has been damaged or stolen, they can prosecute the matter as a civil matter. For example: If a robber robs a bank, and is again robbed by another robber outside the bank, who steals his ‗stolen property‘, he has no ‗right‘ to claim that it was his ‗lawful property‘. Similarly any individual who is living above Commons carrying capacity, cannot claim that his ‗property‘ is his own ‗lawful property‘, because in violating the Commons Carrying capacity, he is stealing property, liberty, and life from other species and nature; hence his property is ‗stolen property‘.

[49]

Right to Vote & be Employed as Civil Servant: Leavers are entitled to

social contract right to vote, and to be employed as a civil servant, including the right to legislate social contract laws, since they are living a lifestyle which demonstrates their competency to respect all other species life, voting and property rights, in accordance to carrying capacity principles. Takers are not entitled to the ‗right‘ to vote, or to be employed as a civil servant, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their incompetence or moral delinquency.

[50]

Right to Freedom of Speech, Liberty etc: Similarly, leavers are entitled to

these social contract rights; whereas Takers are not entitled to these rights. If or where a Taker considers any such ‗right‘ to have been violated, they are however entitled to prosecute the matter as a civil matter.

[51]

Penalties for Civil Prosecutors acting for Takers: If or where an Attorney

chooses to proceed to prosecute a civil matter on behalf of a Taker‘s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client‘s argument, his 20

first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‗Tragedy of the Courts Commons‘ death penalty.

EQUILIBRIÆX (ECOCENTRIC) PRINCIPLES ―At present, we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP.‖ - Paul Hawken, Speech at University of Portland ―The world will no longer be divided by the ideologies of ‗left‘ and ‗right,‘ but by those who accept ecological limits and those who don‘t.‖ - Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institute

[52]

In an Æquilibriæx court, both parties would be required to submit evidence to

the court, of the Equilibriæx and Aquilibriæx nature and consequences of the alleged criminal act.

[53]

Equilibriæx analysis Facts:

[54]

This dispute involves one non-insect human mammal entity (defendant) and

one non-insect human fictional legal concept state/corporate entity (United States Government) on planet Earth.

[55]

Earth is home to millions of species, including humans. An approximate

number of total number of eukaryotic68 species is likely to be 5 ± 3 million of which about 1.5 million have been already named. Current estimates of various eukaryote phyla are: A.

1.5 million fungi; 3,067 brown algae; 17,000 lichens;

B.

321,212 plants (including: 10,134 red and green algae, 16,236 mosses, 12,000 ferns and horsetails, 1,021 gymnosperms, 281,821 angiosperms);

C.

1,367,555 non-insect animals including: 1,305,250 invertebrates (2,175 corals, 85,000 mollusks, as many as 1.1 million arachnids, including ~1 million mites and ~100,000 other arachnids, 47,000 crustaceans, 68,827

A eukaryote is an organism whose cells contain complex structures enclosed within membranes. Eukaryotes may more formally be referred to as the taxon Eukarya or Eukaryota. The defining membrane-bound structure that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells is the nucleus, or nuclear envelope, within which the genetic material is carried.

68

21

other invertebrates); 63,649 vertebrates (31,300 fish, 7,093 amphibians, 9,768 reptiles, 9,998 birds, 5,490 mammals); D. [56]

As many as 10–30 million insects.

Earth‘s mineral resources and the products of the biosphere contribute

resources that are used to support all of earth‘s species populations, including the mammalian human population. 29.2% (148.94 million km2, or 57.51 million sq mi) of planet earth is not covered by water and consists of mountains, deserts, plains, plateaus, and other geomorphologies.

[57]

Equilibriæx Jurisprudence groups Human‘s into Unsustainable Takers

(Scarcity Combatants) and Sustainable Leavers (Eco-Innocents) cultures and societies.

[58]

Sustainable Leavers follow Ecological Law of Limited Competition:

[59]

Daniel Quinn defines the Ecological Law of Limited Competition as such: you

may compete to the full extent of your capabilities but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food.

[60]

Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food.

You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you.

[61]

A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat

the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law.

[62]

How The Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of

all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space.

22

[63]

Elimination doesn't occur instantly. It takes place when there is nowhere left

to expand, no competitors left to destroy. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory.

[64]

And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of

time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly. Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy.

[65]

When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been

destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated.

[66]

Quinn argues that humans are the only species to have broken this law,

beginning with Agriculture, 10 000 years ago.

[67]

Law of Limited Competition Principles: “You may compete but you

may not wage war.”: [68]

Takers exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens

in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors' territories and pre-empt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat." When animals go hunting—even extremely aggressive animals like baboons—it's to obtain food, not to exterminate competitors or even animals that prey on them."

[69]

Takers systematically destroy their competitors' food to make room for their

own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone."

23

[70]

Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may

deny your competitors access to what you're eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, `This gazelle is mine,' but you can't say, `All the gazelles are mine.' The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn't defend the herd as its own." "Bees will deny you access to what's inside their hive in the apple tree, but they won't deny you access to the apples."

[71]

Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Leavers and Unsustainable Takers:

[72]

World

Food

Human

and

Population

Growth, describes how food supply

drives

human

population growth, and how human

population

adversely

affects

growth our

environment and our ability to sustain

our

culture.

This

began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing The

food

production.

consequences

of

Agricultural expansion are: * decreased

carbon

sequestration

(80%),

decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).69 [73]

In Genetic feedback and human population regulation 70, Russell

Hopfenberg clarifies the different consequences between the practices of these two Agri-Cultures:

69 70

Hopfenberg, Russell (2007): Chapter 32-33: Before â&#x20AC;&#x201C; After Forest Conversion to Cropland Hopfenberg, R. (2009)

24

―Lack of cultural variability is precisely the situation in which the human species finds itself. Except for a tiny minority of tribal peoples on the planet, the human species can be seen as participating in a monoculture.

This monoculture, called civilization (Quinn 1992; Cohen 1995), has as its foundation, the basic feature of continually increasing food production. As Cohen (1995) stated, ―The ability to produce food allowed human numbers to increase greatly and made it possible, eventually, for civilizations to arise.‖ Farb (1978) pointed out that ―intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.‖ He also asserted ―the population explosion, the shortage of resources, the pollution of the environment, exploitation of one human group by another, famine and war—all have their roots in that great adaptive change from foraging to production.‖ Farb‘s statement makes clear that the ―adaptive change from foraging to production‖ is coming into focus as one that has provided some relatively short-term benefits and many long-term difficulties.

These difficulties may ultimately lead to an environment that is no longer capable of sustaining human life (Pimm et al. 1995).‖

[74]

Current Arable land is a category of agricultural land, which, according to

Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) definition, additionally includes land under permanent or perennial crops, such as fruit plantations, as well as permanent pastures, for grazing of livestock. In 2008, the world's total arable land amounted to 13,805,153 km², and 48,836,976 km² was classified as "agricultural land."71 [75]

Reducing Human Impact on the Environment, requires population

and consumption reduction.

[76] the

The impact of humans on environment

and

the

demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology.

FAO Resources page". FAO.org. 2010. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-publications/ess-yearbook/essyearbook2010/yearbook2010-reources/en/ 71

25

[77]

The two most important conclusions deriving from this relationship are that: [77.1]

the Earth can support only a limited number of people, at a certain level of

affluence, in a sustainable manner; and [77.2]

Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.

[78]

Ecological Footprint: Consumption x Procreation Factor:

[79]

Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint72 procreation and consumption

behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)73 (60 % of 1.8 gha)74 in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan75; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 2076)] [80]

Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha

(Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha.

[81]

Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20

gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha.

EcoFootprint: The difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country. A biocapacity deficit occurs when the Footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. If there is a regional or national biocapacity deficit, it means that the region is importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. Global biocapacity deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and is overshoot.

73 Sustainable Footprint Biocapacity: A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species. 1 gha is 60 % of 1.8 gha, therefore .8 hectares is set aside for other species.

74 International Biocapacity: In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. In 2008, there were ~ 12 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on Earth. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year (6.7 billion) gives 1.79 global hectares per person. This assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans. If for example, there were only 3.5 billion people alive that year, that would have provided everyone with 3.5 gha. If there were only 1 billion people, their would be 12gha biocapacity for each persons needs.

75 Bhutan Proactive Conservation: Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas. Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund.

76 Paul Murtaugh (7-31-09): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University 72

26

[82]

For example: Amici‘s Consumption Footprint77 using Sustainable Economy's

Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. Amici has no children, consequently her procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. Her Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed like her, we would need 0.81 earths.78 Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths79.

APPLICATION OF EQUILIBRIÆX (ECOCENTRIC) PRINCIPLES [83]

Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties: [83.1]

If the non-insect human mammal entity, known as the Defendant: Pfc

Bradley Manning‘s consumption footprint was that of an average American, i.e. in 2007 (8 gha)80, then it would be below 20 gha, then he would be a Leaver, considering that he has no children.

[83.2]

If the non-insect human fictional legal concept state/corporate entity,

known as the United States Government, employed only Leavers, and consumed below carrying capacity, in terms of its number of employees, it would be considered a Leaver entity, but since it employs thousands of Takers, and – except for small pockets of Leaver Conscious Sustainable Security81 (Scarcity induces

http://myfootprint.org/en/your_results/?id=2559685 http://sqworms.weebly.com/lara-johnstone-eco-081.html 79 President Zuma‘s consumption footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 65.66 global hectares (gha). President Zuma‘s Procreation Factor is 500 [President Zuma has 25 children. His procreation footprint factor is 25 x 20* = 500. (Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20 )]. President Zuma‘s Net Consumption & Procreation Footprint is 33280 gha [Consumption (65.66) x Procreation (500) = Net Footprint of 33280 gha]. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Zuma, we would need 2,090 earths. http://sqworms.weebly.com/jacob-zuma-ego-2090.html 80 "Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010". Global Footprint Network. 13 October 2010. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010 81 Bundeswehr (Sep 2010); Butts, Kent (25 April 1994); Bush, Col BX (13 Mar 1997); David, MAJ William E (April 1996); United States Army Command and General Staff College; Department of the Army (December 1994); Department of Defense (Jan 2012); Gizewski, Peter (Spring 1997); Koppel, T (2000); Military Advisory Board (MAB)(April 2007); Murphy, R (2006/10/24); Parthemore, C & Nagl, J (2010/09/27); Peters, Ralph (1996); Rickover, H (1957/05/14); Schultz, S (2010/09/01); Ubbelohde, LTC Kurt F. (10 April 2000); Chiarelli, Peter W General (6 Nov 2008); United States Army & TRADOC (2012); United States Joint Forces Command (15 March 2010); U.S. Forest Service (Dec 2012); White House (1974); Chiarelli, Peter W General (6 Nov 2008) 77 78

27

Conflict82) Military Doctrine Believers – is one of the most Taker focussed Governments on planet earth, it is a Taker.

[83.3]

Defendant Pfc Manning consequently has Leaver Right to Life, Liberty

and Property; whereas Plaintiff‘ United States Government has Taker Penalties denial of rights to Life, Property, Voting or employment as a Civil Servant Employee.

[84]

Æquilibriæx: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties: [84.1]

All charges against Leaver Defendant Manning should be dismissed, as

the Plaintiff United States Government has no ‗Leaver‘ right to access to a State Prosecution to charge Leaver Manning [84.2]

All members of the Prosecution who are Takers, have no right to be

employed as a Civil Servant, and should be discharged, for failing to procreate and/or consume below carrying capacity and are deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their Commons incompetence or moral delinquency.

[84.3]

If the Taker United States Government wishes to proceed with their

charges against Leaver Pfc Manning, they should hire – from their own individual finances – a Private Attorney to launch a Civil Prosecution against Pfc Manning.

[84.4]

If or where an Attorney chooses to proceed to prosecute these charges as a

civil matter on behalf of the Taker‘s Plaintiff‘s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client‘s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‗Tragedy of the Courts Commons‘ death penalty; to be executed by his Taker clients.

[85]

Private Prosecution: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs

Penalties:

Homer-Dixon, T (1991); Homer-Dixon, T, & Boutwell, J, & Rathjens, G (1993); Homer-Dixon, T (1994); Homer-Dixon, T (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Howard, Philip (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Kelly, Kimberley (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Percival, Valerie (June 1995); Homer-Dixon, T (Sep 1995); Homer-Dixon & Percival (Oct 1995); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Gizewski, Peter (April 1996); Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Schwartz, Daniel; Deligiannis, Tom (Summer 2000).

82

28

[86]

The Taker Plaintiffs can hire an attorney at their own individual cost, and

choose to proceed to prosecute these charges as a civil matter, where such Taker Plaintiff‘s charge Leaver Manning with UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy)83, UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation); and UCMJ 134 (General article)84.

[87]

UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)

85

and UCMJ 134

(General article)86: [87.1]

These charges are problematic for the Plaintiff Takers to the extent that

Defendant Manning is a Leaver, and is entitled to rights to liberty, property, life, free speech, etc. The Taker Plaintiff‘s argument is that the Leaver Defendant stole their ‗proprietary information‘, their property. However the Taker‘s have no ‗right‘ to ‗their‘ stolen property; since it is common knowledge that Takers are Takers, precisely because they have violated the Common‘s Carrying Capacity rules regarding to other species rights to life, liberty and property.

[87.2]

Taker Plaintiff would need to present evidence that (a) although they are

Takers, their specific actions related to this dispute were in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles, and hence they should be granted temporary Exemption status access to any particular Leaver Right to ‗Property Ownership‘, etc.; and/or 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.

Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code: (i) 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute. (ii) 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case. (iii) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.

85 9 counts. Mostly related to computers: (i) Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems; (ii) Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes; (iii) Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms; (iv) Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information.

86 Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code: (i) 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute. (ii) 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case. (iii) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.

83 84

29

(b) that although the Defendant is a ‗Leaver‘, his specific actions related to this dispute were in support of Taker Equilibriæx principles, and hence his automatic access to Leaver Rights should be diminished or voided in this particular dispute circumstance.

[88]

UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy)87: Spec. 1: Knowingly giving intelligence to the

enemy through indirect means: [88.1]

These charges are also problematic for the Plaintiff to the extent that

Defendant Manning is a Leaver, and the alleged ‗intelligence‘ is considered to be the Taker Plaintiff‘s ‗stolen property‘.

[88.2]

Leaver Enemy: It is not possible for a ‗Leaver‘ to be an automatic enemy of

nature or any animal species, while procreating and consuming in accordance to the Commons Carrying Capacity social contract; since they do not engage in the scarcity combatant‘s – procreation or consumption war – behaviour. A Leaver can only be temporarily considered a ‗Taker‘ if they participate in an act or event, in support of Taker Equilibriæx principles; i.e. advocacy or actions on behalf of population growth, or economic growth, i.e. any action which contributes to the Taker war against Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species.

[88.3]

Taker Enemy: Conversely all Takers, choose to violate the Commons

Carrying Capacity social contract; by engaging in scarcity combatant‘s – procreation or consumption war – behaviour against all other species and nature‘s Commons social contract rights. A Taker can only be temporarily considered a ‗Leaver‘ if they participate in an act or event, in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles; i.e. advocacy or actions on behalf of the defence of Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species, from the Taker War against them.

[88.4]

If it is determined that the alleged enemy is a ‗Leaver‘, then his Leaver

rights to access to information, access to justice, in terms of his ‗Leaver Enemy‘ actions on behalf of restoration of the Commons Social Contract, against a Taker Scarcity Combatant; shall heavily trump the Taker‘s Penalty claims to ‗rights‘ to his stolen property.

87

1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.

30

[88.5]

If it is determined that the alleged enemy is a ‗Taker‘, the Plaintiff‘s

dispute relates to two Taker robbers arguing about who has lawful ownership of stolen property, which originally and lawfully belongs to Leavers.

[88.6]

The Leaver Defendant can enhance his argument by providing evidence

that his alleged criminal act, was in defence of Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species, from the Taker War against them.

[88.7]

Conversely the Plaintiff Taker can enhance his argument by providing –

for example – a ‗Genghis Khan the Leaver Warrior‘88 argument: evidence their Taker ‗war‘ actions, were only killing Scarcity combatants, on such a scale as to make a significant return of former agricultural or cultivated land, to forest or uncultivated land, for significant long term benefit of nature and other animal species diversity. Put differently, their Taker war was ultimately in defence of Leavers, and a return of stolen land to Leavers, nature, plant and animal species.

[89]

Private Prosecution: Taker Defendants Penalties vs. Taker Plaintiffs

Penalties: [89.1]

If the non-insect human mammal entity, known as the Defendant: Pfc

Bradley Manning‘s consumption footprint was above 20 gha, then he would be a Taker.

[89.2]

Since both parties are Takers, both would need to present the court with

evidence, that although they are Takers, their specific actions related to this dispute, were in defence of Leavers, or in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles, and hence should be granted temporary Exemption status access to any particular Leaver Right to ‗Property Ownership‘, ‗liberty‘ or ‗freedom of access to information‘, etc.

[89.3]

If no Taker party is able to attain temporary access to Leaver Rights, they

are the equivalent of two robbers fighting over stolen property, which was stolen from nature, animals and plants species. If either of the parties made any effort to steal the already stolen property to return it to its lawful owners: nature, animals Pongratz, Julia (20 January 2011): Genghis Khan the GREEN: Invader killed so many people that carbon levels plummeted. ―Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest. .. The 700 million tons of carbon absorbed as a result of the Mongol empire is about the same produced in a year from the global use of petrol.‖ 88

31

or plants, such a Taker party‘s actions may not be enough to entitle them to ‗Leaver rights‘, but should be deemed as actions on behalf of, or motivated by Leaver Equilibriæx principles.

[89.4]

If the Taker Plaintiff‘s Civil Prosecutor fails to convince more than 40% of

the jurors of his Taker client‘s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‗Tragedy of the Courts Commons‘ death penalty, to be delivered by his Taker Client.

AQUILIBRIÆX (ANTHROPOCENTRIC) PRINCIPLES ―How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of Nation State in our era of global capitalism? .. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically oriented right-wing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. .. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live in banana republics.‖ – Slavoj Žižek, Multiculturalism or the cultural logic of multinational capitalism89

[90]

Cultural Variances in „Human Nature‟:

[91]

Aquilibriæx jurisprudence believes that there are great cultural variances in

the ‗laws of human nature‘. Such cultural diversity should be recognized and honestly confronted and honest transparent solutions found to resolve disputes between diverse culture‘s with totally different ‗laws of human nature‘. People from different cultures, see the world in the socially and cultural constructed ways of their particular culture. Under our skins and particularly in our minds, in terms of how we view the world, and subsequently how we act in terms of our worldview, we are culturally very different.

[92]

Aquilibriæx jurisprudence recognizes that culture shapes human cognition,

including but not limited to ―visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ‖.

89

Žižek, Slavoj (1997)

32

[93]

Our culture‘s socially constructed worldview and practices shape our minds,

actions, beliefs and ideas. Our minds mould themselves to our cultural and environmental practices. Our culture‘s mould our most fundamental conscious and unconscious thinking and perception. We see and relate to the world, through the prism of our cultural values and social and environmental practices.

[94]

As argued in The Weirdest People in the World90: Behavioural scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology, cognition, and behaviour in the world‘s top journals based on samples drawn entirely from highly educated segments of Western societies.

Researchers—often implicitly—assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these ―standard subjects‖ are as representative of the species as any other. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioural sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that standard subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species—frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The comparative findings suggest that members of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, or behaviour — hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioural phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioural sciences to best tackle these challenges.

Resolving Conflict between Cultural Variances in „Human Nature‟: [95]

Aquilibriæx jurisprudence argues that the most effective ways to resolve inter-

cultural conflict, is: [96]

Transparent Simple Clarity: A cultures honesty and transparency is

considered directly proportional to how explicitly clear and succinct they define

90

Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven & Norenzayan Ara (05 March 2009)

33

their values in simple language, and how consistently they live in accordance to such cultural values.

[97]

Reconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are

reconcilable, i.e. the differences are not mutually exclusive, but capable of culturally intimate coexistence.91 [98]

Irreconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are

irreconcilable, i.e. the differences are mutually exclusive, a cause of friction when members of the culture‘s interact, and hence incapable of intimate cultural coexistence.

[99]

Melting

Pot

Multiculturalism:

Culture‘s

with

reconcilable

cultural

differences are capable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their various reconcilable cultural differences.

[100]

Melting Pot Multiculturalism only works when both cultures voluntarily

coexist

with

their

mutually

reconcilable

differences.

When

Melting

Pot

multiculturalists force or coerce one or more cultures who have irreconcilable differences, to coexist in a Melting Pot, then the culture which is coerced into suppressing and denying the practice of their cultural values, shall build up anger and resentment towards both their perceived ‗enemy‘ culture, and the coercing authority; which shall eventually – like a pressure cooker build up and finally explode into extremely violent conflict (For example: Anders Breivik).

[101]

Separatist

Multiculturalism:

Cultures

with

irreconcilable

cultural

differences are incapable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their cultural values. Such cultures can only coexist by implementing

separatist

multiculturalism

between

their

cultures,

thereby

respecting and honouring both cultures rights to exist separately with the least amount of contact between the cultures possible, thereby also denying both cultures the opportunity to resolve their irreconcilable differences by means of physical, economic or other forms of cultural colonization.

91

Zizek, Slavoj (15 Nov 2001)

34

APPLICATON OF AQUILIBRIÆX (ANTHROPOCENTRIC) PRINCIPLES [102]

Parties Cultural Hierarchy Identity:

[103]

It is quite possible the Leaver Defendant, even though he qualifies for Leaver

Rights, does not personally identify, in terms of his lifestyle aspirations, with Leaver culture. Given the opportunity, he could welcome, the opportunity to violate the Commons Social Contract, and overconsume and overbreed.

[104]

Leaver Defendant‘s cultural hierarchy identity could, for example, be: (1)

Aquilibriæx Lifestyle aspirations: Taker, (2) Nation: American, (3) Ethnicity: Irish, (4) Religion: Catholic, (5) Gender: Bisexual, (6) Employee: US Army, (7) Social: Platoon. Each sub-culture is embedded in a hierarchy of individual identity cultural values.

[105]

Cultural Hierarchy‟s Relevant Cultural Legal Principles:

[106]

Leaver Defendant‘s Cultural values towards the alleged criminal issues: ‗theft

of property‘ ‗aiding the enemy‘ ‗insubordination‘.

[107]

Leaver Defendant could argue – for example – that in fact the Taker‘s

commitment to criminalizing theft of property is not consistent, in terms of the Taker US Governments failure to prosecute the theft of property of (a) land from the Indians upon colonization, (b) legalizing of theft from taxpayers by Banks and Politicians handing out ‗bailouts‘, (c) invading Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretence of thieving their natural resources; and so on.

[108]

Defendant‟s Cultural Values Include Alleged Crimes as Criminal Acts:

[109]

It would appear both the parties recognize the legal concepts of property and

theft of property, although they may have different interpretations as to whether their cultural values of theft of property are consistent, i.e. whether they hold their own elite cultural members accountable for such practices, or whether the alleged ‗theft of property‘ is simply a law which is used to deny the proles access to the property which has already been stolen by the elite, of the particular culture.

[110]

Cultural Values are mutually Irreconcilable:

[111]

If – for example – the alleged criminal act is ‗hate speech‘, which is only

recognized by one culture, who adhere to cultural values of sycophancy and political 35

correct arsekissing; other cultures who are committed to encouraging freedom of speech, no matter how insulting, would not have cultural laws, or cultural values, recognizing criminal acts, such as ‗hate speech‘.

[112]

In such a case, it would be more respectful to both culture‘s to encourage

Separatist Multiculturalism, where both parties are capable of practicing their distinct ‗Sycophancy‘ and ‗Brutal Honesty‘ cultural values, as opposed to coercing these cultures into a Melting Pot Multicultural venue, where one culture‘s values are coerced and forced down the other cultural members throats. Both cultures can consequently be encouraged to come to agreements how their separatist Multiculturalism shall be practiced and implemented.

[113]

So far, it appears that both parties are firmly committed to Bullshit the Public

Relations Image management, equally intent on shoving their Bullshit the Public Relations Image management practices particularly down the throats of cultures who prefer brutal honesty. So their actions breed more and more Breiviks, as the scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg drifts ever closer and closer.

[114]

How & Why Criminal Act Contributed to Intra-Cultural Equity:

[115]

Examples and evidence how or why the alleged criminal act, acting in

accordance to the parties cultural legal principles, contributed to greater intraspecies equity harmony, or discord , between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts.

[116]

The Defendant could for example argue that exposing the hypocrisy of the elite

of his own employment/nation/religion‘s culture, contributes to Transparent Simple Clarity, between all cultures. Or that he was motivated to expose the deception of his National Cultural Political elite‘s cultural ‗Duhmockery‘ colonization of new markets, on behalf of the profits of multinational corporations.92 [117]

The Plaintiff could argue that the Defendant‘s alleged ‗Peacenik‘ motives are

not, and were not, sincere, and most certainly not actions on behalf of Transparent Simple Clarity, between all cultures. The Defendant is not sincerely committed to addressing resource scarcity, due to overpopulation and overconsumption. The Defendants motives were purely AnthroCorpocentrically motivated, demonstrated 92

Žižek, Slavoj (1997)

36

by

his total

failure

to

distance

himself

from

the

worlds

most

prized

AnthroCorpocentric pseudo-peacenik prize: the Nobel ‗War is Peace‘ Whore Prize.

Conclusion: [118]

The Amici respectfully urges the Court to:

[118.1] Defend the Constitution as a Sustainable Social Contract, to stand with the small pockets of Leaver Conscious Sustainable Security (Overpopulation and Overconsumption induced Scarcity causes resource war Conflict) Military Doctrine Believers; against America‘s domestic Consumption and Breeding War Taker emenies: AnthroCorpocentric Juristic Despots and pseudo-Peaceniks / War is Peace Whores93.

[118.2] Take a stand against the political, academic and legal captains of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic, refusal to recognize that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by the laws of nature/ecology and human nature; are driving SV AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic full speed to their ‗suicide pact‘ collision with the Laws of Ecology and Human Nature, their scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg.

Dated at George, South Africa, Pale Blue Dot: 02 April 2013

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539, South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 jmcswan@mweb.co.za

In Valour of Ignorance, Homer Lea‗s perspective of a nations traitor enemies, are (I) those ―high or low‖ who only regard [the Nation] in a parasitical sense, as a land to batten on and grow big in, whose resources are not to be developed and conserved for the furtherance of the Republic‗s greatness, but only to satisfy the larval greed of those who subsist upon it‗s fatness; and (II) International Arbitrationists and Disarmamentists who advocate on behalf of disarmament and arbitration without understanding the true origins of war: ―Only when arbitration is able to unravel the tangled skein of crime & hypocrisy among individuals can it be extended to communities & nations. As nations are only man in the aggregate, they are the aggregate of his crimes and deception and depravity, and so long as these constitute the basis of individual impulse, so long will they control the acts of nations.‖ 93

37

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I certify that the original was electronically filed to: Staff Judge Advocate, US Army Ft George Meade Garrison, Maryland: 4217 Roberts Ave., Fort Meade, MD, 20755. Tel: (301) 677-9536 or (301) 677-9504; c/o Public Affairs Office: fggm.pao.web@us.army.mil and contemporaneously served electronically to: 1. Plaintiff: United States Government: Captain Chad M. Fisher - Chad.m.fisher.mil@mail.mil 2. Defendant: Pfc Bradley Manning David Coombs Esq - coombs@armycourtmartialdefense.com 3. US Army First Judicial Court Military Judge: Judge Denise Lind - dlind@law.gwu.edu 4. USCAAF Transparency Copy: CCR/Wikileaks Mr. Shayana D. Kadilal - shanek@ccrjustice.org 5. USCAAF Transparency Copy: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Mr. Gregg P. Leslie - gleslie@rcfp.org 6. USCAAF Transparency Copy: USCAAF Clerk of the Court DeCicco, William, CIV, USCAAF - bill.decicco@armfor.uscourts.gov Dated at George, South Africa, Pale Blue Dot: 02 April 2013

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se PO Box 4052, George, 6539 South Africa Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 jmcswan@mweb.co.za

38