POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF THE SOVEREIGN MEMBERS OF THE DOMINION OF MELCHIZEDK

AND

Their Respective Declaration and Notice of Peaceful Settlement and Political Status Change:

By

The Exercise of the Right of Self-Determination and Self-Governance Done By and Through Their Pledge of Support, Association,

and Integration with an Existing State/Society

Executed Under the Authority of Prime Minister Directive 101 by

The Sovereign Head-of-State David-Parker: Williams

_____________________________

: Copyright Claimed in this year: 2014 – by the Dominion of Melchizedek FOREWORD added in year: 2023

FOREWORD

Based on the ancient Law of Nations among the Family of Nations and the codification and progressive development of international law; the Right of the Self-Determination has emerged as a Political Right, a Human Right, and a Legal Right for all peoples. Sovereign States have always been formed by exercising the Right of Self-Determination; whether that was the term used in prior times or only used as a newly adopted modern concept. This Right comes from Customary International Law and the Law of Nations. It is the Universal Maxim and Concept that “once an Individual reaches the age of Discretion” that Individual is under no obligation to accept the conditions and the rules of a Society that said Individual finds to “not be advantageous” and can, therefore, quit a Society that he deems to have “dissolved itself” and then come together with other Individuals and Peoples of like mind “in order to form up a new form”. The essential essence of initially exercising the Right of Self-Determination is to create a new system of Self-Governance via the construction of a “new form” in order to create “new safeguards/protections” for the Political Existence of the New Form; known as the “New State”.

This foreword is an explanation of the order of the Points and Authorities and is intended to give NOTICE to a “candid world” of the Sovereignty of the Dominion of Melchizedek. It is an extant and undeniable principle of International Law that Self-Determination includes the Establishment of a Sovereign and Independent State. However, according to writings of many International Jurists on the topic of Self-Determination, there is no exact or extant Model that defines the “modes of implementing the Right of Self Determination” by a People. We, the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek disagree with the other Jurists; because the modes of Self-Determination are extant as confirmed by history, global agreements, and case law within the major juridical constructs in the Family of Nations.

However, it is incumbent on a People to provide Their Explanations, Meanings, and Claims in the Exercise of the International Right of Self-Determination in order to provide a proper foundation to Their Claim of Sovereignty and Statehood. In this instance, let it be understood that People create States and not territory or land or resources. Therefore, as with the creation of anything, the Sovereignty of a State begins with the knowledge, competence, and reason of those People in the process of their creations and establishments.

Points and Authorities are provided, herein, as substantive proof of the knowledge of the People of Dominion of Melchizedek. This knowledge is a proper understanding on the part of the People of Dominion of Melchizedek for what other Sovereign States among the Family of Nations know and have already agreed to, regarding the Universal Right of Self Determination. The list of the Elements or References in these Points and Authorities is not intended to give a full dissertation on every existing agreement between Nations or all works of International Jurists which expound on the topic of Self Determination; but to provide an understanding that the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek are well-informed about the Principles of Self-Determination, Peace, and Self-Governance.

Before elucidating upon these Universal and “Internationally agreed-on principles”; a reference to the claims and comments of other world leaders is hereby specified, in order to establish that the Principle of Self-Determination became an acceptable synonym or a new alternative term for Self-Governance and emergence into Autonomous and Independent Political Status. The term: “Self-Determination”, has been used for approximately 160 years. It has become an increasingly important topic of discussion and agreement as confirmed by the Charter of the Organization of the United Nations, numerous Treaties, and various United Nations General Assembly Resolutions; in addition to speeches and commentary presented by significant World Leaders within the International Community; both previously and currently, as seen in the following references.

1. Harry S. Truman; 14 Points Speech given during Address on Foreign Policy at the Navy Day Celebration on the date: 10/27/1945; and Verbatim Minutes of the Opening of the United Nations, Ceremony 1945 in San Francisco (respectively)

“We believe that all peoples who are prepared for self-government should be permitted to choose their own form of government by their own freely expressed choice, without interference from any foreign source. That is true in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, as well as in the Western Hemisphere.” (10/27/1945)

“For lasting peace and security men of good will must unite and organize. Differences between men and nations will always remain. In fact, if held within reasonable limits, such differences are actually wholesome”.

• Woodrow Wilson; Address to the Congress of the United States on the date of February 11, 1918;

“National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. ‘Self-determination’ is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of actions which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”

• Vladimir Lenin; Collected Works published in 1^st Edition of “Lenin Collected Works”; from June 1914; published according to the text in Trudovaya Pravda;

“Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations, not by juggling with legal definitions, or “inventing” abstract definitions, but by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. [It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self- determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state.”

• Theodore Roosevelt Speech delivered at University of Wisconsin, Madison, April 15, 1911; published in the Kansas City Star,

“You cannot give self-government to anybody. He has got to earn it for himself. You can give him the chance to obtain self-government, but he himself out of his own heart must do the governing. He must govern himself. That is what it means. That is what self-government means. . . . There must be control. There must be mastery, somewhere, and if there is no self-control and self-mastery, the control and the mastery will ultimately be imposed from without.”

• John F. Kennedy; Address at the University of Washington’s 100th Anniversary Program on the date: 16 November 1961;

“The basis of self-government and freedom requires the development of character and self-restraint and perseverance and the long view. And these are qualities which require many years of training and education.”

• Theodore Roosevelt; Speech at the Jamestown Exposition April 26, 1907;

“It behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him.”

• Vladimir Putin; Article: “On the Historical Unity of the Russians and Ukrainians,” on the date of July 12, 2021;

“Everything changes, including countries and societies. And certainly, a part of one people in the course of its development – due some reasons and historical circumstances; may at a certain point feel and recognize itself as a separate nation. How to respond to this? There is only one way to respond to this: with respect! A new state can be created only on a legitimate basis, with all due respect for the people’s wish to gain sovereignty.”

• Donald Trump; Reuters Article: “Trump to back Palestinian ‘self-determination’ on Mideast trip”; May 12, 2017;

“Trump plans, in talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to “reaffirm America’s unshakeable bond to the Jewish state” and in a meeting with Abbas to “express his desire for dignity and self-determination for the Palestinians,” said McMaster, a decorated Army general with extensive Middle East experience.”

• Theodore Roosevelt; Speech at St. Louis, Mo., March 28, 1912; Mem. Ed. XIX, 234;

Nat. Ed. XVII, 172

“When I say that I believe not only in the right of the people to rule, but in their duty to rule themselves and to refuse to submit to being ruled by others, I am not using a figure of speech. I not merely admit but insist that in all government, and especially in popular government, there must be control; and, furthermore, that if control does not come from within it must come from without. Therefore it is essential that any peoples who engage in the difficult experiment of self- government should be able to practice self-control. There are peoples in the world which have proved by their lamentable experiences that they are not capable of this self-control; but I contend that (there are*) people most emphatically are capable of it. I hold that in the long run, taken as a whole, (there are) peoples who can and will govern themselves a great deal better than any small set of men; can govern them.” (* denotes an emphasis added)

1. John F. Kennedy; Address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, on date: September 25, 1961;

“The great question which confronted this body in 1945 is still before us: whether man’s cherished hopes for progress and peace are to be destroyed by terror and disruption, whether the “foul winds of war” can be tamed in time to free the cooling winds of reason, and whether the pledges of our Charter are to be fulfilled or defied — pledges to secure peace, progress, human rights and world law. For we far prefer world law, in the age of self-determination, to world war, in the age of mass extermination. Political sovereignty is but a mockery without the means of meeting poverty and illiteracy and disease. Self-determination is but a slogan if the future holds no hope.”

1. Trump’s U.N. Speech Was an Ode to Self-determination; Article published Sep 25, 2017 on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform.

“Sovereignty is the “founding principle” of foreign affairs, Trump averred, and every state’s duty is to defend its own people and to guard their rights.”

1. Ara Papian; Armenian lawyer and diplomat; Ambassador to Canada from 2000 to 2006; President of the “Modus Vivendi” Center for Social Science; wrote the following on June 23, 2010 in Opinion, Special Reports – THE ARMENIAN WEEKLY; Article: “On the Principles of ‘Self-Determination’ and ‘Territorial Integrity’ in Public International Law:

“One of the grave misinterpretations of the said notions was by ambassador-to-be (or not to be) Matthew Bryza when he declared: “There’s a legal principle of territorial integrity of states, there’s a political principle of self-determination of peoples.” As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. There is a legal principle of self-determination and there is no such principle of territorial integrity. Self- determination is an ancient political right that is cherished by every people. Ultimately, “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” was incorporated into the UN Charter. The Charter [Article 1(2)] clearly enunciated the principle of self-determination: “The purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determinations of peoples,” and self-determination was conceived as one among several possible “measures to strengthen universal peace.” In other words, there can be no such relations without the observance of this principle. The Charter is dominant over all the other international documents. This provision is set down in Article 103 and is accepted by all the members of the UN. It is clear that the UN considers the self-determination of peoples (self- determination, not just the right of people for self-determination, i.e., the application of this right) as not only one of its basic principles but also as a basis for friendly relations and universal peace. Hence, the rejection of self- determination hinders friendship and universal peace.

1. John Hope Bryant: Founder of Operation HOPE.

“The new definition of freedom is self-determination.”

Explanation and elucidation of these aforementioned comments is unnecessary; “the thing speaks for itself”. The same is true of determining an appropriate “model” or set period for the exercise of the Right of Self-Determination in the development of Statehood and the Assumption of Sovereignty among the Powers of the Earth. This has already been “set in stone” by the fact that all Nations exist due to their exercise of the Right of Self-Determination and Self-Government. There is a necessity to develop in accordance with the Declaration on the Right to Development (UNGA resolution 41/1280); in order to show Knowledge, Competence, and Reason; but the time for such development necessary to show Proof of Concept is not relevant to “when” the State has a right to exist and assert its Sovereignty and Sovereign desires for its Right to Development. This matter has been settled, as shown in various Court Decisions among the major Juridical Systems of the World, such as the United States of America. (Restatement Third; Foreign Relations Law of the United States, 1987)

In the United States Supreme Court: M’ILVAINE v. COXE’S LESSEE at 8 U.S. 209 4 Cranch 209 2 L.Ed. 598, February Term, 1808, we note the following decision applicable as a Source of International Law; “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it.”

Likewise, in the United States Supreme Court: Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793); we note the following decision applicable as a Source of International Law; “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” However, this case provides a distinction between those that “assumed their Station among the Powers of the Earth” and those that are “within Their Sovereignty”. It is clear, according to punctuation and procedure that those who were “citizens of America” cannot be referring to those men that signed a Declaration of Independence and established a government by their Articles of Confederation. It is known that average British colonists were never “sovereigns or citizens of America”. They were subjects of Great Britain. At the Revolution, many either took no side in rebellion or remained Loyalists. In fact, there were no “citizens of” – anything. The “Americas” included many tribes/nations and the States enacted Naturalization to adopt “subjects” into their “declared” United States.

This brings about 2 observations. 1. At the time of this court decision, the Constitution of the United States existed. Naturalization was taken from those States; indicating that the former colonies called the States of America were no longer “Sovereign and Independent States”. It is clear due to the fact that Naturalization was taken over by the Central Authority of the United States FOR the United States of America; and thereafter in 1790, the Legislature passed a new Naturalization Act to nationalize a new population as “citizens of the United States”.

It is hereby observed that, whether the US Supreme Court in Chisholm (sic) used correct terms or not; those people who did not pledge to “form up the New Form” at that time in history, were

called “tenants within the Sovereignty”. Jurists writings and journals on International Law have indicated that the common terms “national, subject, and citizen” are synonyms; and are therefore, not among the Powers of the Earth or the Sovereigns that created the Sovereignty of the United States by exercising the Right of Self Determination.

As the word: “tenant” can only mean a lessor, renter, or “equity deed tax-payer” who holds the property of another, this can only stipulate that those that “created the form” possessed the Sovereignty. It is the Creators or “pledged members” of the (new) State and Juridical Construct that would be able to form their own Government and thereafter possess the Sovereign Power of Eminent Domain. This is not the power of tenancy, which will be further explained in Point #7 of these Points and Authorities; among other Reasons for the Sovereign Members of the Dominion of Melchizedek which validate the causes that compelled each member in their pursuit of Self-Governance, International Autonomy, and Political Status change.

It is noteworthy that in the history of United States Jurisprudence; the Law of Nations principle that One may “quit the Society to which he was destined by birth”; was specifically verified by the United States 40th Congress by passing their Expatriation Act of 1868. This Act provides that; as part of the United States nationality law, that the right of expatriation (i.e. a right to renounce one’s citizenship) is “a natural and inherent right of all people” and “that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”. This Act is consistent with Customary International Law and all Global Agreements and Resolutions that relate to the Right of Self-Determination and the Right to Development.

As stated in Paragraph #2 above, these Points and Authorities are constructed, and are therefore to be construed, in the following manner. Points #1-6 are Elements of Customary International Law, the Law of Nature and Nations, the Charter of the Organization of the United Nations, United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, Human Rights Treaties and Declarations, and other Conventions and Global Agreements among the Family of Nations; such as the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties. All of these represent Global Agreements and Contracts that have formed the Principles of International Law for centuries; and millennia.

In the International law; it is written that “JUSTICE is the basis of all society, the sure bond of all commerce” and “All nations are therefore under a strict obligation to cultivate justice towards each other, to observe it scrupulously, and carefully to abstain from everything that may violate it. Each ought to render to the others what belongs to them, to respect their rights, and to leave them in the peaceable enjoyment of them.” It is likewise stated that “From this indispensable obligation which nature imposes on nations, results the right of every state not to suffer any of her rights to be taken away.” This right is a perfect right; according to Jus Cogens, a peremptory norm. It is extant that Universal and Global Peace have their basis in this required Justice and that the Sacred Faith of Treaties as stipulated, is required by the Pacta Sunt Servanda Rule.

Point #7 within these Points and Authorities, follows an extant methodology that calls for the Understanding that claiming the Right of Self-Determination, establishing a New Sovereign and Independent State, and Assuming One’s “separate and equal station among the powers of the Earth” should not be done for “light and transient causes”. It is observed by the Body Politic of the Dominion of Melchizedek that Secession Movements are not Self-Determination Movements and are illegal in International Law among the Family of Nations; due mainly to fact that most secession movements are instigated by force and/or acts of aggression. It is further agreed that the Right of Self-Determination has a “set apart” position among the Family of Nations and State Members of the United Nations; as “the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes.”

Therefore, the Dominion of Melchizedek makes no claims regarding the Territorial Integrity of any Member of the Family of Nations. It has been observed among Societies and is extant that there are now, existing Sovereign Body Politics that are or were or began “landless”. This includes the Vatican (Holy See), the Knights of Malta, and the United States of America, itself; which at the time of its formation, declared its Independence within the British Empire, vis-à-vis the British North American Colonies…and on the very Land Grants that said colonies had accepted from the King of Great Britain.

The matter of Sovereign Possession and Title to the lands now in the Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States; were not settled for 9 years until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. This, however, did not negate their International Recognition from other Nations such as France; because nothing can negate the Perfect Right of Embassy. This is more especially true in the world today; since the Family of Nations has stipulated in various Human Rights Treaties that the Principle of Brotherhood among all mankind is essential to peace, freedom, and fundamental rights and duties; specifically stating that “all men are born equally in dignity and rights and should conduct themselves as brothers, one to another”. It is axiomatic that the Perfect Right of Embassy is a Peremptory Norm and that Individuals/Nations cannot ignore their obligation to recognize emerging New States and Societies; who properly exercise the Right of Self-Determination in order to seek further perfection, gain more freedoms, fulfill their duties to all of mankind by implementing Self-Government, as their fellow Breathren. International Recognition of a Society/Nation who has the knowledge and competence to properly exercise the Right of Self- Determination peacefully, is therefore an obligation and duty of all Nations in order to establish the effectiveness of the Right of Embassy.

The Knights of Malta have International Recognition as Sovereign Organization and have many embassies within the territory of other Nations due to the Right of Embassy. And, the Vatican City State became a landlocked independent country, city-state, microstate, and enclave within Rome, Italy; based on the Lateran Treaty of 1929. This is in addition to the fact that the Vatican, itself, had been landless, yet it still claims unbroken sovereignty for centuries.

These recognitions have created new paradigms among the Family of Nations by agreement that the Right of Self Determination has culminated in eyes of many a principle and peremptory norm that “Micro-States have become Modern-Day Protected States” and established the acceptance which moves “Toward a New Definition of Micro-Statehood.” Many ancient philosophers

perceived “the small state as an attractive alternative to the big state” and in the previous centuries “the small state was the norm” was stated by J. Peterson 2006, in “Qatar and the world: Branding for a micro-state”. (ref: The Middle East Journal, 60(4), p.735)

The Dominion of Melchizedek has likewise exercised this Right of Embassy to receive International Recognition and, thereby, provide for an extant Proof of Concept that Our Society and Body Politic seek only to live in peace and be a contributor within the Family of Nations and to receive mutual benefits and reciprocal advantages by exercising our Right of Self- Determination based on the Laws of Peace and Neutrality. And, Our desires to live as such and perform Our Duties have been clearly shown, based on Our Knowledge, Competence, and preparedness for Self-Government; regardless of Our Society’s current level of development. Before the new and “modernly-adapted” paradigms for exercising Self-Determination developed due to technological advances and the progressive development of International Law; many held that a “Society must have land and a significant population”. The word: “significant” is arbitrary in its use and nature. The Members of Our Society are “significantly” well-versed in Law of Nations and International Law; in juxtaposition to others who are “willing to suffer evil while evils are sufferable, than to RIGHT themselves”.

Further, with modern Satellite and Global Mapping Technology; moving onto “vacant unclaimed Sovereign land” is not possible without potential negotiations between the numerous pre-existing Self-Determined, and Self-Governing States which exercise Territorial Sovereignty. Since “law” cannot demand impossibility; this brings the Right of Embassy preeminently to the forefront of all Rights among the Family of Nations and Breathren. There is acknowledgement in UNITED NATIONS: FRIEND OR FOE OF SELF DETERMINATION (copyright 2020) that “Indigenous politics exerts a particular pressure on the international system to accept a new, non-state-centric interpretation of self-determination, and it is leading a shift in the meaning of self-determination so that it can be interpreted as the right of Peoples to negotiate freely their political status and representation in the states in which they live” (Daes1993). It is understood among Nations that this “shift” came from the acceptance of “all men as brothers, one to another”. Thereafter, it can be verified that “understandings of decolonization and self-determination have fundamentally shifted with the passage of the Declaration (UNDRIP) towards new future constructions. Old colonial doctrines, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, have been delegitimized.”

There is no need to further expound on the vagaries of colonization. There is much written about this matter; including within the aforementioned United Nations Publication (2020). Any such writings are irrelevant due to Global Non-aggression Agreements. This Precedent has been established in the Charter of the United Nations, Article 46. The confirmed International Peremptory Norm that the Charter is “dominant over all the other international documents”, is quoted above in the World Leaders Comments #12. (Ara Papain) This Peremptory Norm is found within the Sources of International Law in Restatement Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United Sources (1987); wherein it states: “The Charter of the United Nations has been adhered to by virtually all states. Even the few remaining non-member states have acquiesced in the principles it established. The Charter provisions prohibiting the use of force have become

rules of international law binding on all states.” This Non-agreement Principle appropriately created a “formidable challenge is to create a new meaning that does not result in a diminished, second-class self-determination” and that “a future image of self-determination will involve sovereignties and political relations that are grounded in mutual respect and ongoing negotiated power relations.” The challenge is not so “formidable”, since it is clear that “various sovereign political orders can be nestled within and between states” and that these forms already exist and have existed for centuries; as stated. Those previous example are Vatican City State, the Knights of Malta, and the fact that the United States of America was initially established within the British Empire; in the British American colonies.

However, what is lacking in this challenge to redefine Self-Determination as anything other than the Right to Exist as a Separate State; is a definition for the word “indigenous” without a neglect of the Human Rights Principle that “all men are born equal in dignity and rights and therefore, being endowed with reason and conscience, should conduct themselves as brothers one to another”. Since “we” are all born as such; then it follows that the People of the Sovereign Body Politic of the Dominion of Melchizedek are INDIGENOUS to the Earth; without distinction. The attitude of “live and let live” or “letting bygones be bygones” is implied by the very words that a “new meaning of Self-Determination” has evolved in this “progressive development of law”.

The original meaning of the word: Indigenous, is simply “native – from GENE or Genesis, to be born in + dio/god”. However, what is clearly seen is that a “new” false concept of indigenous is being used to create some division among Nations, Peoples, and Breathren. It is extant that “an official definition of indigenous has not been adopted by any UN-system body” or can be found within any International Declaration, Treaty, Resolution, or Convention. This false concept has created an illusion and almost an impossibility for what has been clearly conceptualized by the People of the DoM is that a new State/society (or even a “re-emerging” Society) is not equipped to any level of enforcement with the massive increase in population on Earth since the era of colonization. The agreement and acknowledgement in the Charter of the UN and UNGA Resolution 2625 put an end to colonialism.

Therefore, if there is to be Peace among the Family of Nations while protecting the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination, then the paramount issue is Territorial Integrity. The issue of integrity is determined by enforcement and it is obvious that newly emerging or “re-emerging” States are not as well equipped to provide such enforcement. This is why there is necessity that “various sovereign political orders can be nestled within and between states” without sacrificing Sovereign Rights and Immunities. This is the Reason that Vladimir Lenin wrote that “[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state.”

The principles of maintaining territorial integrity were settled long ago. This has been stated as follows: “The real value of any system of law depends upon the efficacy of its machinery of enforcement. The law of Nations controls individuals through their governments which it holds responsible for the observance of the law. This control of the government over individuals is carried out through the instrumentality of territorial sovereignty, which is thus seen to be the very

heart of the system. Each independent state is as it were, the agent of the law of Nations to enforce international law within the territorial jurisdiction over which it holds sway. In the absence of a strongly organized central authority, no other system is practical.” (Intervention in International Law, 1921 by Stowell, Chapter 1: Interposition)

Since Self-Determination is Self-Governance and any Peoples that exercise this Supreme Right become agents of the Law of Nations; and as Self-Determination is protected even by Municipal Law; which augments international law – there is this necessary expedient to “be nestled within and between states”. It is extant in the Law of Nations that smaller states are to be assisted and protected by older, larger, and more perfected States in their Right to Development. Formerly, this was not a perfect right. But, the progressive development of International Law states that the Rights of those Peoples properly exercising the Right of Self-Determination “cannot be prejudiced” or hindered in the Development of Their Society. With the advent of computer technology and database control of populations, the failure of Nations to assist Peoples with the entry of proper political status, is a hindrance to development and a prejudice against the Right of Self-Determination. Such assistance is consistent with territorial integrity.

Being “prepared for Self-Government” means that the People of any Newly Emerging Society must be prepared to accept the Sovereign Responsibilities and Duties; in accordance with the Law of Nations and all current Peremptory Norms of International and Universal Law. This means to be competent to operate this current peaceful model for the Proper Exercise of Self- Determination based on the Peaceful Paradigms; heretofore agreed. These duties are likewise extant; since it is a Peremptory Norm of International Law among the Family of Nations that “the threat of or use of force” is a violation of International Law.

Finally, it is noted that International Law is the Supreme Law of the Land in all Nations and in all cases the Law of Nations must be augmented by all Government Administrations and Courts of Competent Jurisdiction in both National and Municipal proceedings and/or enforcements among all Member-States of the United Nations and/or Family of Nations. It is expressed in the Law of Nations that a People cannot ascertain their Rights without a correct and proper understanding of their duties and obligations. The People of the Dominion of Melchizedek are well aware of said duties and obligations; and therefore, aware that the Proper Exercise of the Right of Self-Determination simultaneously endows the Pledged Members of the Body Politic of the Dominion of Melchizedek with the Status of Internationally Protected Persons.

These Points and Authorities 1-6 are proofs of Our Understanding of the Principles of Statehood, Self-Government, Human Rights, and International Law; while Point #7 is a Candid Statement of the Reasons that compel Peoples of the Dominion of Melchizedek to “quit our former Society and “assume Our Separate and Equal Station” by Our Right to exercise Self-Determination.

It has been asked of many members of mankind; “what are you willing to die for?” But, to fully gain One’s fundamental freedoms by exercising the International Right of Self-Determination and establishing Statehood and Self-Government requires that all Members understand and acknowledge what they are willing to live for.

Table of Contents

PREAMBLE………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………. 3

1. OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION………………………… 3

1. Charter of the Organization of the United Nations
   1. United Nations General Assembly; Resolution 2625
   1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
   1. United Nations General Assembly; Resolution 3166
   1. Manila Declaration on Peaceful Settlements of International Disputes
   1. Excerpts from the LAW OF NATIONS
   1. Rights and Duties of States
   1. The Implementation of the Right to Self Determination as a contribution to Conflict Prevention
   1. State of Oregon; Bill of Rights
   1. Original Declaration of the State of Maryland

• OF POLITICAL STATUS CHANGE and NATIONALITY/LOSS OF NATIONALITY………………………………………………………………………… 7
  • United Nations General Assembly; 2625
  • The Implementation of the Right to Self Determination as a contribution to Conflict Prevention
  • 8 U.S. Code § 1481: Loss of Nationality
  • Travel.State.Gov – Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality
  • Seventh International Conference of American States
  • . Cal Law Review: Volume 23 (Case Notes)

• OF DIPLOMATIC, HEAD OF STATE, AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY………………………………………………………………………………. 9
  • Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols on Disputes
  • Excerpts from the LAW OF NATIONS
  • The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
  • 22 U.S. Code § 254a – Definitions
  • 22 U.S. Code § 254b – Privileges and immunities of mission of nonparty to Vienna Convention
  • Implied or Express Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity, United States versus Deaver
  • 18 U.S. Code § 112 – Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons
  • Head of State Immunity: Law & Legal Definition
  • Travel.State.Gov-Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality/Seeking Public Office in a Foreign State
  • Vienna Convention on the law of treaties
  • United Nations General Assembly; Resolution 3166
  • Excerpts from the LAW OF NATIONS
  • Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols on Disputes
  • INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: Sovereignty
  • LAW OF WAR DESKBOOK; INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT
  • Public Law: Foreign Government Defined
  • Public Law 1970, 1 Stat. At L 117, Ch 9 (Codified in 22 U.S.C § 252, §253 removed to §4063)

• OF DOMICILE AND OF SETTLEMENT; CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW……………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
  • Domicile versus Nationality
  • Domicile of Origin
  • Domicile of Choice
  • Excerpts from the LAW OF NATIONS

• OF THE RIGHT OF EMBASSY………………………………………………………………………………. 18
  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963
  • Excerpts from the LAW OF NATIONS

• OF HUMAN RIGHTS and DUTIES AND OF PEACE………………. 19
  • Universal Declaration on Human Rights
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Practice and Use
  • American Declaration of the rights and Duties of Man

• OF THE REASONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF SELF-DETERMINATION…………………………………………………………………. 21
  • United States of America: Declaration of Independence
  • United States Constitution
  • U.S Court Cases
  • Writings on the Constitution of the People of the United States for the United States of America
  • Writings on the State of the American Society (post Constitution of 1789, aforementioned)

CLAIM OF WORD MEANINGS…………………………………………………………………………………. 28

1. Merriam-Webster definition of Naturalize
2. Excerpts from LAW OF NATIONS

LIST OF FOOTNOTES ATTACHED TO DOCUMENTS……………………………………………………………………………… 33

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

&

CLAIM OF WORD MEANINGS

Purpose: These Points, Authorities, and Claims are made as a Memorandum of Understanding, in relation to the recognition of Peoples and the Right of Self- Determination (particularly New/Emerging States/societies), between the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek and any/all Global Nation-State Parties and/or High Contracting Parties as a basis for International Authority and Agreement between the Parties; both Nation-States Parties and/or High Contracting Parties.

Memorandum: As a High Contracting Party, the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek by and through its Prime Minister: David-Parker: Williams, are grateful to all Members of the Organization of the United Nations; and in particular, the United States of America as a High Contracting Party and United Nations Security Council Member, for continued leadership, support, and promotion of the Right of Self Determination of Peoples. The People of the Dominion of Melchizedek (also known as “the DoM”) agree with the United Nations General Assembly’s recent assessments that the Right of Self Determination is the most effective means of Guaranteeing and Protecting Fundamental Freedoms of all peoples.¹ As stated by the Representative of the Maldives; “It is only through the realization of this very basic right of people to determine, with no compulsion or coercion, their own future, political status and independence that we can begin to address others such as dignity, justice, progress and equity.”² Further, as acknowledged in the Statements made during the Sixth International Conference of American States, the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek are cognizant of the condition of States and Individuals, viz. that ALL individually and collectively are “in favor of accepting their rights, but not so eager to

¹ United Nations; Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/4051 (6 November 2012)

² GA/SHC/4085 Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Concludes (5 November 2013)

impose upon themselves their duties”.³ To this end, the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek emphatically state hereby that the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek and their Governmental Ministers will always endeavor to discharge our duties among the Family of Nations. The People of the Dominion of Melchizedek recognize that rights and duties are correlative and interrelated, and that “the fulfillment of duty by each individual is a prerequisite to the rights” as stated in the Rights and Duties of Man of the Organization of American States⁴; as stated in the Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Sixth International Conference of American States;⁵ and as discussed by Monseiur Emmerich de Vattel in the Preliminaries of his published version of the LAW OF NATIONS.⁶

Self-Determination, although not called “the Right of Self-determination” by Monsieur de Vattel, is set-forth in his version of LAW OF NATIONS.   Self-Determination is described as “self governance and forming up under a new form”. This Right is described as a necessity only for Those People that are jealous of Freedom and Self-Government. It is extant throughout history on Earth that a “people” who determine that “while seeking Their own interest and perfection”; if They deem that They are a part of a Society/State which seems to have “dissolved itself” and are “weary of liberty”; and if They have reached an Age of (such) Discretion, then They have a duty to quit that Society and thereby come together under a New Form for the purpose of pursuing and attaining the Rights and Freedoms which They desire.⁷

Many Societies, Nations, and States have formed throughout centuries on Earth, most of which began as small undertakings by a very select (and usually small) group of People who had the courage to act on Their Necessity. The select group of 56 Men that became Founders of the Nation of the United States of America affirmed this undertaking by Their Acts and Their Actions. They also affirmed that most people do not aspire to this undertaking by stating to this candid world that “experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”.⁸ Within Their Declaration of Independence; this statement speaks directly to those Founders’ personal assessment of “dissolved” Societal and Political conditions. The determination of such “dissolved” conditions is a discretion and assessment for which no Man can determine for any other Man based on the lack of Understanding another Individual’s Mind and Their Individual Jealousy of the Rights and Freedoms espoused within LAW OF NATIONS (as cited herein above). In exact keeping with the Principle stated by Monsieur de Vattel, Those Founders declared that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men” and that “whenever any form of

³ Footnote Attached; Highlighted Sections, from the Sixth International Conference held in Cuba 1928; Discussions of Mr. Maratua, of Peru

⁴ http://www.hrcr.org/docs/OAS_Declaration/oasrights2.html

⁵ Footnote Attached; Highlighted Sections from the Report of the Delegates of the United States of America

6 Footnote Attached; Duties/obligations in relation to Rights — Preliminaries of LAW OF NATIONS

⁷ Footnote attached Highlighted Sections; LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, Sections 32 and 33

⁸ The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (In Congress, July 4, 1776)

government becomes destructive” of the ends (goal) of life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness; “it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”⁹   It is upon this (and other such) clearly established principles and foundations that the Government of the Dominion of Melchizedek, although sitting in interregnum after the resignation of its previous President: Richard James McDonald, was Reformed by the Grant of Head of State Powers on September 11, 2008 to DoM’s duly-appointed Ambassador-at-Large¹⁰: David-Parker: Williams (formerly William-David: Parker, also known as William-David formerly of the Parker Family¹¹ with Notice sent to the United States via US Federal District Court¹²) by the Original Founder: David Korem (a.k.a Branch Vinedresser Korem)

It was announced via the website of the Dominion of Melchizedek, that the new government reforms would be completed and take effect on January 1, 2012.¹³ A new charter was drafted by President; David-Parker: Williams; but not agreed upon by these High Contracting Parties within DoM; the Founder: David Korem and the President: David-Parker: Williams. It has been such disagreements and Internal Disorder that kept the Dominion of Melchizedek in the condition of Interregnum; leaving DoM’s Ambassador- at-Large; David-Parker: Williams as an appointed President sitting “in absentia”; with no effective power to alter course and/or Govern the Dominion. However, thereafter, the original Founder of DoM: David Korem, via his reversion to and acceptance of the status of citizen of the United States of America; was arrested and convicted by the United States. This expounded the time of interregnum, until agreement was reached to fully Grant and Vest all Claims of the Dominion of Melchizedek and therewith, all Sovereignty and all Executive Powers thereby associated to David-Parker: Williams. It is upon this Foundation that David-Parker: Williams as the Sovereign Head of the Dominion of Melchizedek, vested with all Executive Powers; reformed the Government of the Dominion of Melchizedek, changed DoM’s Head of State Position to Prime Minister via Prime Minister Directive 101, received new “pledged” Sovereign Members of the Body Politic, granted new Ministerial and Ambassadorial Appointments, and thereby and therafter executed a (New) Charter of the Dominion of Melchizedek.¹⁴

Based now on our own Authority and these POINTS and AUTHORITIES established in International Law historically within LAW OF NATIONS and all International Treaties, Agreements, Conventions, Conferences, Accords, Charters, Constitutions, and Concordats by and among the Family of Nations…whether all such States or Societies in the Family of

⁹ The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (In Congress, July 4, 1776)

⁹   Footnote attached; Copy of Original Appointment to Ambassador

¹¹ Footnote Attached; Digitized Transcript of Witness: Ambassador Parker (Williams), USA v Gould

¹² Footnote Attached; Weston, Sr., Clerk; Grand Rapids, Michigan with accompany letters and evidence

¹³   Footnote attached; Digital Image of Website Announcement

¹⁴   Footnote attached; Charter of the Dominion of Melchizedek

Nations still exist, changed name, have reformed, or have ceased to exist…as there is no established International Protocol for exercising The Right of Self Determination and implementing that New Form for those Peoples desiring to Assume their Separate and Equal Station Among the Powers of the Earth and also by Peoples struggling against colonialism, alien domination, foreign occupation, racial discrimination and apartheid; the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek STAND to discharge their International Duties and maintain the International Public Order by adhering to the Customary International Law and the “Rights and Duties of States” (and of Man) as set forth in Inter-American Conferences, International Conventions and Treaties, and LAW OF NATIONS.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1.  OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION

A. CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS¹⁵ CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES:

Article 1:

• To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

CHAPTER IX: INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CO-OPERATION:

Article: 55:

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international, cultural and educational cooperation; and
3. universal respect for and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

B.  UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY; 25th Session: Resolution 2625: Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-

operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations¹⁶

¶-2: Recalling that the peoples of the United Nations are determined to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors,

¶-6: Noting that the great political, economic, and social changes and scientific progress which have taken place in the world since the adoption of the Charter give increased importance to these principles and to the need for their more effective application in the conduct of States wherever carried on,

¶-10: Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

¶-11: Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,

¶-12: Reaffirming, in accordance with the Charter, the basic importance of sovereign equality and stressing that the purposes of the United Nations can be implemented only if

¹⁵ Charter of the Organization of the United Nations

¹⁶ Footnote Attached; UN General Assembly; Twenty-fifth Session: Resolution 2625

States enjoy sovereign equality and comply fully with the requirements of this principle in their international relations,

¶-17:    Considering that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:

• The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,
  • The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
  • The principle of sovereign equality of States,
  • The principle that States shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter, so as to secure their more effective application with the international community….(to that end) States have the duty to co-operate with one another, irrespective of the differences in their political, economic and social systems, in the various spheres of international relations, in order to maintain international peace and security and to promote international economic stability and progress, the general welfare of nations and international co-operation free from discrimination based on such differences.

To this end:

1. States shall co-operate with other States in the maintenance of international peace and security;
2. States shall co-operate in the promotion of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and in the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and all forms of religious intolerance;
3. States shall conduct their international relations in the economic, social, cultural, technical and trade fields in accordance with the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention;
4. States Members of the United Nations have the duty to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the United Nations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter.

States should co-operate in the economic, social, and cultural fields as well as in the field of science and technology and for the promotion of international cultural and educational progress. States should co-operate in the promotion of economic growth throughout the world, especially that of the developing countries.

The principle of sovereign equality of States

All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights and duties and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature. In particular, sovereign equality includes the following elements:

1. States are judicially equal;
   1. Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
   1. Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
   1. The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable;
   1. Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;
   1. Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

a.To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

b.To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State, or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people; constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

C.   INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.¹⁷

D.   UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY; 28th Session; Resolution 3166

(14 December 1973)

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents¹⁸

¹⁷ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

¹⁸ Footnote Attached; Twenty-Eighth Session; UN General Assembly Resolution 3166

The General Assembly,

Having elaborated for that purpose the provisions contained in the Convention annexed hereto,

4: Recognizes also that the provisions of the annexed Convention could not in any way prejudice the exercise of the legitimate right to self-determination and independence, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, by peoples struggling against colonialism, alien domination, foreign occupation, racial discrimination and apartheid.

E.  MANILA DECLARATION ON PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

37/10. Peaceful settlement of disputes between States¹⁹

¶-1: Reaffirming the principle of the Charter of the United Nations that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered,

¶-6: Reaffirming the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

¶-7: Bearing in mind the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace and security and the development of friendly relations among States, irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or levels of economic development,

¶-9: Stressing the need for all States to desist from any forcible action which deprives peoples, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination, of their inalienable right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

¶-10: Mindful of existing international instruments as well as respective principles and rules concerning the peaceful settlement of international disputes, including the exhaustion of local remedies whenever applicable,

Determined to promote international co-operation in the political field and to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification, particularly in relation to the peaceful settlement of international disputes,

Solemnly declares that:

1. All States shall act in good faith and in conformity with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations with a view to avoiding disputes among themselves likely to affect friendly relations among States, thus contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security. They shall live together in peace with

¹⁹ Footnote Attached; Manila Declaration on Peaceful Settlements of International Disputes

one another as good neighbours and strive for the adoption of meaningful measures for strengthening international peace and security.

• Every State shall settle its international disputes exclusively by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. States parties to a dispute shall continue to observe in their mutual relations  their obligations under the fundamental principles of international law concerning the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of States, as well as other…recognized principles and rules of contemporary international law.

9. States should consider concluding agreements for the peaceful settlement of disputes among them. They should also include in bilateral agreements and multilateral conventions to be concluded, as appropriate, effective provisions for the peaceful settlement of disputes arising from the interpretation or application thereof.

12.In order to facilitate the exercise by the peoples concerned of the right to self- determination as referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the parties to a dispute may have the possibility, if they agree to do so and as appropriate, to have recourse to the relevant procedures mentioned in the present Declaration, for the peaceful settlement of the dispute.

• LAW OF NATIONS: Book 1: Section 33 (paraphrased)

“..if the question be, to quit a form of government to which alone it appeared that the people were willing to submit on their entering into the bonds of society,…those (citizens) who are more jealous of that privilege, so invaluable to those who have tasted it, though obliged to suffer the majority to do as they please, are under no obligation at all to submit to the (new) government: they may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form…”²⁰

G.  RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES²¹

Article 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Article 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Article 5

The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

²⁰ See Footnote # 6; LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, Sections 32 and 33

²¹ Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

Article 6

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

• IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AS A CONTRIBUTION TO CONFLICT PREVENTION — REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS HELD IN BARCELONA FROM 21 TO 27 NOVEMBER 1998²²

The third idea I think we should keep in mind is the notion that the right to self- determination is a specific contribution to building a culture of peace.

Sometimes the right to self-determination is viewed too simplistically as a rigid choice between all or nothing – between the forming of an independent state or complete denial of a cultural and political identity. I think we must seek those processes and paths that are suited to diversity and we must begin some imaginative experiments in different forms of self-administration. We have already managed to recognize the legitimacy of international intercession and mediation under humanitarian law. Now is time to reflect on ways of ensuring human rights and cultural rights. Dr. Michael C. van Walt van Praag

I. STATE OF OREGON; Bill of Rights²³ Section 1 – Natural rights inherent in people.

We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

J.  ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND²⁴ (paraphrase from Preamble)

…we, the Delegates of Maryland, in free and full Convention assembled, taking into our most serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State, for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare,

Article 4

That all persons invested with the legislative or executive powers of government are the trustees of the public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct; wherefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance, against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

²² Footnote Attached; The Implementation of The Right to Self-Determination as a Contribution to Conflict Prevention

²³ Footnote Attached; State of Oregon; Bill of Rights ( Article 1 specifically)

²⁴ Footnote Attached; ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND

2.  OF POLITICAL STATUS CHANGE AND NATIONALITY/LOSS OF NATIONALITY

1. UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY; Twenty-fifth Session: Resolution 2625:

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations²⁵

The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

¶-1: By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

¶-2: Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

1. To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and
   1. To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned.

¶-5: The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people; constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

¶-6: Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self- determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

• THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AS A CONTRIBUTION TO CONFLICT PREVENTION — REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS HELD IN BARCELONA FROM 21 TO 27 NOVEMBER 1998²⁶

SELF DETERMINATION IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as

²⁵ See Footnote # 15; UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY; Twenty-fifth Session: Resolution 2625

²⁶ See Footnote # 21; The Implementation of The Right to Self-Determination as a Contribution to Conflict Prevention

fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:   All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. (Pg. 9)

• By external self-determination (described by some as “full” self-determination) is meant the right to decide on the political status of a people and its place in the international community in relation to other states, including the right to separate from the existing state of which the group concerned is a part, and to set up a new independent state. (Pg . 13)

C.     8 U.S. CODE § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions²⁷

• A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
  • obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
  • taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;

(4) (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

D.  Travel.State.Gov – Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality and Seeking Public Office in a Foreign State:²⁸

¶-3: because there is no administrative presumption that U.S. nationals who hold policy- level positions in foreign governments necessarily intend to retain their U.S. nationality, efforts are made to adjudicate fully such cases to determine the individual’s intent. Certain policy level positions are inherently incompatible with retaining U.S. nationality. Cases of this nature generally involve heads of state or foreign ministers.

E.       SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL   CONFERENCE   OF   AMERICAN   STATES   –

Convention on Nationality; Montevideo, Uruguay, December 3-26, 1933²⁹

Article 1

Naturalization of an individual before the competent authorities of any of the signatory states carries with it the loss of the nationality of origin.

²⁷ Footnote Attached; 8 U.S. Code § 1481

²⁸ Footnote Attached; Travel.State.org

²⁹ The Seventh International Conference of American States; Convention on Nationality: Montevideo,Uruguay, December 3-26, 1933

Article 2

The state bestowing naturalization shall communicate this fact through diplomatic channels to the state of which the naturalized individual was a national.

Article 5

Naturalization confers nationality solely on the naturalized individual and the loss of nationality, whatever shall be the form in which it takes place, affects only the person who has suffered the loss.

F.   CONFERENCE ON THE CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, The Law of Nationality; Hague Convention March-April 12, 1930³⁰

Article 13

Except as otherwise provided in this convention, a state may naturalize a person who is a national of another state, and such person shall thereupon lose his prior nationality.

G.  CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS – THE HAGUE – 12 APRIL 1930

(Notice in any Naturalization Event)³¹

Article 7

In so far as the law of a State provides for the issue of an expatriation permit, such a permit shall not entail the loss of the nationality of the State which issues it, unless the person to whom it is issued possesses another nationality or unless and until he acquires another nationality.

An expatriation permit shall lapse if the holder does not acquire a new nationality within the period fixed by the State which has issued the permit. This provision shall not apply in the case of an individual who, at the time when he receives the expatriation permit, already possesses a nationality other than that of the State by which the permit is issued to him. The State whose nationality is acquired by a person to whom an expatriation permit has been issued, shall notify such acquisition to the State which has issued the permit.

H.     SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW: Volume 23 (Case Notes)³²

… Although a citizen has a right to voluntarily expatriate himself, Congress cannot convert this right into a liability, so as to divest a native born citizen of his birthright. The only means of divesting one’s self of United States citizenship is by voluntarily undergoing a naturalization process in a foreign state. Kiyokuro Okimura v. Acheson, 99 Fed.Supp. 587 (D. Hawaii 1951).

³⁰ Footnote Attached

³¹   Footnote Attached; So. Cal. Law Review: Volume 25 (Case notes)

³²   Footnote Attached; So. Cal. Law Review: Volume 25 (Case notes)

3.   OF DIPLOMATIC, HEAD OF STATE, AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

1. VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS³³; Done at Vienna April 18, 1961

¶-1: Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents,

¶-2: Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

¶-4: Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficiency of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 31 (Selected Applicable Sections)

1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
   1. a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
   1. an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
   1. an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.
2. No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent except in the cases coming under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.
3. The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.

Article 38

1. Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanent resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.

Article 39

1. Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.

³³ Footnote Attached; Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes, December 13, 1972

Article 40

1. If a diplomatic agent passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him a passport visa if such visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or to return to his post, or when returning to his own country, the third State shall accord him inviolability and such other immunities as may be required to ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of any members of his family enjoying privileges and immunities who are accompanying the diplomatic agent, or travelling separately to join him or to return to their country.

Article 41

1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
2. All official business with the receiving State entrusted to the mission by the sending State shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed.

• LAW OF NATIONS³⁴ — Book 4: Section 113 (Paraphrased)

The independency of a public minister is the true reason of his exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which he resides. No legal process can be directly issued against him, because he is not subject to the authority of the prince or the magistrates…In general, whatever lies within the extent of a country, is subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the sovereign (Book I. § 205, and Book II. §§ 83, 84). If any dispute arises concerning effects or goods within or passing through the country, it is to be decided by the judge of the place But a foreign minister, as we have already shown, is independent

of the jurisdiction of the country; and his personal independence in civil cases would be of little avail, unless it extended to everything which he finds necessary in order to enable him to live with dignity, and quietly to attend to the discharge of his functions. Besides, whatever he has brought with him, or purchased for his own use as minister, is so connected with his person as to partake of the same fate with it. Since the minister entered the territory on the footing of independence, he could not have it in contemplation to subject his retinue, his baggage, or his necessaries, to the jurisdiction of the country. Everything, therefore, which directly belongs to his person in the character of a public minister, — everything which is intended for his use, or which serves for his own maintenance and that of his household, — everything of that kind, I say, partakes of the minister’s independency, and is absolutely exempt from all jurisdiction in the country. Those things, together with the person to whom they belong, are considered as being out of the country.

Book 4: Section 117 (Paraphrased)

The independency of the ambassador would be very imperfect, and his security very precarious, if the house in which he lives were not to enjoy a perfect immunity, and to be inaccessible to the ordinary officers of justice. The ambassador might be molested under a thousand pretexts; his secrets might be discovered by searching his papers, and his person exposed to insults. Thus, all the reasons which establish his independence and inviolability

³⁴ Footnote Attached; Highlighted Sections; LAW OF NATIONS, Book 4, Sections 113 and 117

concur likewise in securing the freedom of his house. In all civilized nations, this right is acknowledged as annexed to the ambassadorial character; and an ambassador’s house, at least in all the ordinary affairs of life, is, equally with his person, considered as being out of the Country…The house of an ambassador ought to be safe from all outrage, being under the particular protection of the law of nations, and that of the country; to insult it, is a crime both against the state and against all other nations.

C.    VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS: CHAP. II. Section II – Facilities, Privileges and Immunities Relating to Career Consular Officers and Other Members of a Consular Post³⁵

Article 40

Protection of Consular Officers

The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity.

Article 41

Personal Inviolability of Consular Officers

1. Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
   1. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.
   1. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay.

Article 43

Immunity from Jurisdiction

1. Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not, however, apply in respect of a civil action either:
   1. arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a consular employee in which he did not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of the sending State; or
   1. by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving State caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

³⁵ Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963.

Article 46

Exemption from Registration of Aliens and Residence Permits

1.Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from all obligations under the laws and regulations of the receiving State in regard to the registration of aliens and residence permits.

Article 49

Exemption from Taxation

1. Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except:
   1. indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services;
   1. dues or taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, subject to the provisions of Article 32;
   1. estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties on transfers, levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of Article 51;
   1. dues and taxes on private income, including capital gains, having its source in the receiving State and capital taxes relating to investments made in commercial or financial undertakings in the receiving State;
   1. registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duties, subject to the provisions of Article 32.
2. Members of the service staff shall be exempt from dues and taxes on the wages which they receive for their services.
3. Members of the consular post who employ persons whose wages or salaries are not exempt from income tax in the receiving State shall observe the obligations which the laws and regulations of that State impose upon employers concerning the levying of income tax.

• 22 U.S. CODE § 254a – Definitions³⁶ (selected applicable sections)

As used in this Act—

• the term “members of a mission” means—
  • the head of a mission and those members of a mission who are members of the diplomatic staff or who, pursuant to law, are granted equivalent privileges and immunities,
  • members of the administrative and technical staff of a mission, and
  • members of the service staff of a mission,

as such terms are defined in Article 1 of the Vienna Convention;

• the term “mission” includes missions within the meaning of the Vienna Convention and any missions representing foreign governments, individually or collectively, which are extended the same privileges and immunities, pursuant to law, as are enjoyed by missions under the Vienna Convention; and
• the term “Vienna Convention” means the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (T.I.A.S. numbered 7502; 23 U.S.T. 3227), entered into force with respect to the United States on December 13, 1972.

³⁶ Footnote Attached; 22 U.S. Code § 254a

E.    22 U.S. CODE § 254b – Privileges and immunities of mission of nonparty to Vienna Convention³⁷

With respect to a nonparty to the Vienna Convention, the mission, the members of the mission, their families, and diplomatic couriers shall enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in the Vienna Convention.

F.      IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WAIVER OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY, United States versus Deaver³⁸

The basis for the assertion that the Executive (President of the United States) has the authority to determination status and waiver rests on the Executive’s exercise of power to conduct foreign affairs, make treaties, and specifically to “receive Ambassadors and other public Minister.” This blanket authority is generally accepted by the courts when the Executive determines that a foreign government is entitled to immunity. However, in response to concerns that Executive determinations may reflect political, rather than legal considerations, Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereigns Immunities Act and “transferred the determination of Sovereign Immunity from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.”

Diplomatic Immunity arises not under the Constitution, but under the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 and the Vienna Convention (on Diplomatic Relations; per footnote, Maryland Journal, see footnote). The Constitution is, however, the judicial power that extends “to all Cases…arising under…the Laws of the United States and Treaties [and]…to all Cases affecting Ambassadors….” Therefore, the courts have jurisdiction over proceedings concerning diplomatic immunity because they arise under the Act and the Vienna Convention, or, as in the Deaver case, the subject’s (i.e.: Canadian Ambassador Gottlieb’s) status as ambassador is not at issue. (Maryland Journal of International Law; from its footnote “concerning diplomatic immunity” as underlined above; states the following: “The Constitution also provides that “[I]n all Cases Affecting Ambassadors. the Supreme Court

shall have original jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is not exclusive by virtue of its original character. Exclusiveness may be provided or denied by Congress. Bors v. Preston 11 U.S. 252 – 1984).

The Act provides that diplomatic immunity “may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of [an] individual, or as otherwise permitted by law of applicable rules of procedure.” This clearly places the determination of right to diplomatic immunity within the purview and jurisdiction of the United States Supreme and Federal Courts.

G.        18   U.S.   CODE    §   112-Protection   of     foreign       officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons

• Whoever assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or offers violence to a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person or makes any other violent attack upon the person or liberty of such person, or, if likely to endanger his person or liberty, makes a violent attack upon his official premises, private accommodation, or means of transport or

³⁷ Footnote Attached; 22 U.S. Code § 254b

³⁸ Footnote Attached; Maryland Journal of International Law, Vol .12; Richard C. Kay, United States v. Deaver: 12 Md. J. Int’l L. 259 (1988).

attempts to commit any of the foregoing shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Whoever in the commission of any such act uses a deadly or dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

• Whoever willfully—
  • intimidates, coerces, threatens, or harasses a foreign official or an official guest or obstructs a foreign official in the performance of his duties;
  • attempts to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass a foreign official or an official guest or obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties; or
  • within the United States and within one hundred feet of any building or premises in whole or in part owned, used, or occupied for official business or for diplomatic, consular, or residential purposes by—
    • a foreign government, including such use as a mission to an international organization;
    • an international organization;
    • a foreign official; or
    • an official guest;

congregates with two or more other persons with intent to violate any other provision of this section; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(Head of State Immunity)

H.   HEAD OF STATE IMMUNITY — Law & Legal Definition³⁹

Head-of-state immunity is a doctrine of customary international law. Generally speaking, the doctrine maintains that a head of state is immune from the jurisdiction of a foreign state’s courts, at least as to authorized official acts taken while the ruler is in power, like foreign sovereign immunity, head of state immunity is based upon the notion of comity between independent states. Any immunity enjoyed by a sitting head of state or retained by a former head of state belongs to the foreign sovereign and not the individual. Thus, head of state immunity may be waived by the foreign state.

I.     ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. NATIONALITY AND SEEKING PUBLIC OFFICE IN A FOREIGN STATE — US State Department; Bureau of Consular Relations⁴⁰

¶-3: because there is no administrative presumption that U.S. nationals who hold policy- level positions in foreign governments necessarily intend to retain their U.S. nationality, efforts are made to adjudicate fully such cases to determine the individual’s intent. Certain policy level positions are inherently incompatible with retaining U.S. nationality. Cases of this nature generally involve heads of state or foreign ministers. Except with respect to these positions, the Department will not typically consider employment in a policy-level position to lead to loss of nationality if the individual says that he or she did not intend to lose their U.S nationality and if the individual’s actions were consistent with the retention of U.S. nationality.

³⁹ Footnote Attached; Head of State Immunity Law & Legal Definition

⁴⁰ See Footnote # 27; Travel.State.org

J.     VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: ⁴¹

Article 7

FULL POWERS

¶-2: In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:

(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;

(b). Heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;

Article 67

INSTRUMENTS   FOR   DECLARING   INVALID, TERMINATING, WITHDRAWING FROM OR SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

¶-2: Any act declaring invalid, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty pursuant to the provisions of the treaty or of paragraphs 2 or 3 of article 65 shall be carried out through an instrument communicated to the other parties. If the instrument is not signed by the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs, the representative of the State communicating it may be called upon to produce full powers.

K.   UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY; Twenty-Eighth Session; Resolution 3166:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents,⁴²

¶-1: Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the maintenance of international peace and the promotion of friendly relations and cooperation among States,

¶-2: Considering that crimes against diplomatic agents and other internationally protected persons jeopardizing the safety of these persons create a serious threat to the maintenance of normal international relations which are necessary for cooperation among States,

¶-4: Convinced that there is an urgent need to adopt appropriate and effective measures for the prevention and punishment of such crimes,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

¶-1: “Internationally protected person” means:

• A Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the functions of a Head of State under the constitution of the State concerned, a Head of Government or a Minister for Foreign Affairs, whenever any such person is in a foreign State, as well as members of his family who accompany him;
• Any representative or official of a State or any official or other agent of an international organization of an intergovernmental character who, at the time when and in the place where a crime against him, his official premises, his private accommodation or

⁴¹ Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (with annex). Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

⁴² See Footnote # 17 Twenty-Eighth Session; UN General Assembly Resolution 3166

his means of transport is committed, is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection from any attack on his person, freedom or dignity, as well as members of his family forming part of his household.

(Sovereign Immunity)

• LAW OF NATIONS⁴³ — Book 1: Section 50 (Paraphrased)

It is not sufficient that the prince be above the penal laws: even the interest of nations requires that we should go something farther. The sovereign is the soul of the society; if he be not held in veneration by the people, and in perfect security, the public peace, and the happiness and safety of the state, are in continual danger. The safety of the nation then necessarily requires that the person of the prince be sacred and inviolable…. Whatever a prince may be, it is an enormous crime against a nation to deprive them of a sovereign whom they think proper to obey.

• VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS⁴⁴; Done at Vienna April 18, 1961⁴⁵

Article 1

For the purpose of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:

1. The “head of the mission” is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity;

Article 2

The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.

Article 3

1. The Functions of a diplomatic mission consist inter alia in:
2. protecting in the receiving State the interest of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law;
3. negotiating with the Government of the receiving State;
4. Nothing in the present Convention shall be construed as preventing the performance of consular functions by a diplomatic mission.

Article 20

The mission and its head shall have the right to use the flag and emblems of the sending State on the premises of the mission, including residence of the head of the mission and on his means of transport.

Article 22

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

⁴³ Footnote Attached; Highlighted Sections;  LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, Section 50

⁴⁴ Footnote Attached; Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes, December 13, 1972

⁴⁵ See Footnote # 29; Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes Dec 13, 1972

• The receiving State is under special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

• The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property, thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Article 24

The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be.

N.     INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: Sovereignty (Paraphrased)⁴⁶

Each independent state is, as it were, the agent of the law of nations to enforce international law within the territorial jurisdiction over which it holds sway.

O.      LAW OF WAR DESKBOOK; INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATION LAW DEPARTMENT – The United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School⁴⁷

1. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

(A.) Definition. International law is defined as “rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of States and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.” Regulating those relations is generally viewed through two different lenses: public and private. Public international law is that portion of international law that deals mainly with intergovernmental relations. Private international law is primarily concerned with the “foreign transactions of individuals and corporations.” (Page 1, Section)

(B.) States. International law developed to regulate relations between States, and States are the focus of the international legal system. International law establishes four criteria that must be met for an entity to be regarded as a State under the law: (Page 2, Section)

1. Defined territory (which can be established even if one of the boundaries is in dispute or some of the territory is claimed by another State);
   1. Permanent population (the population must be significant and permanent even if a substantial portion is nomadic);
   1. Government (note that temporary occupation by enemy forces during war or pursuant to an armistice does not serve to extinguish statehood even if the legal control of the territory shifts temporarily); and,
   1. Capacity to conduct international relations.

⁴⁶ Footnote Attached; INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, by Ellery C. Stowell @ 1921 by JOHN BYRNE & CO.; Page 1, Chapter 1, Section 1

⁴⁷ Footnote Attached; LAW OF WAR DESKBOOK; INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT – The United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Page 2

(C.) Consequences of Statehood. Under international law, a State has: (Page 2,)

1. Sovereignty over its territory and general authority over its nationals;
2. Status as a legal person, with capacity to own, acquire, and transfer property, to make contracts and enter into international agreements, to become a member of international organizations, and to pursue, and be subject to, legal remedies; and
3. Capacity to join with other States to make international law, as customary law or by international agreement.

P.     PUBLIC LAW: FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DEFINED⁴⁸

11. The Term “foreign government”, as used in this title, includes any government, faction, or body of insurgents within a country with which the United States is at peace, irrespective of recognition by the United States

Q.    PUBLIC LAW 1970, 1 STAT. AT L 117, CH 9 (Codified in 22 U.S.C §252, §253 removed to §4063)⁴⁹

43. The term “Public Minister” = Take rank among themselves; in each class, according to the date of official notification of the arrival at the tribunal.

D. Immunity of Public Ministers. The rule that tribunals have no jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign extends also to its public ministers. Public law 1970, 1 Stat. At L. 117, ch. 9 (codified in 22 U.S.C § 252), it is provided that wherever any writ or process is sued out or prosecuted by a person in any tribunal of the United States or of a state or by a judge or justice whereby the person of any public minister of a foreign jurisdiction, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such minister is arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are detained, seized, or attached, such writ or process is sued out in violation of this prohibition, every person by who the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as a Party or as attorney or as solicitor, and every officer served in executing it, shall be deemed a violator of the laws of the nations and a disturber of the public repose, and shall be subject to the penalty provided by law.

4.   OF DOMICILE AND OF SETTLEMENT; CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. DOMICILE VERSUS NATIONALITY (why domicile is important)

1. Principle of Domicile

The basic principles are that:

1. no person can be without a domicile
   1. no person can at the same time for the same purposes have more than one domicile

⁴⁸ Footnote Attached; Public Law; Page 2, Paragraph 11

⁴⁹ Public Law 1970, 1 Stat. At L 117, Ch 9 (Codified in 22 U.S.C § 252)

• an existing domicile is presumed to continue until it is proved that a new domicile has been acquired. The burden of proving a change of domicile lies on those who assert it. The change of a domicile of origin must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: the change of a domicile of choice may be proved on a balance of probabilities.

Domicile (the lex domicilii) has a dominating role in family and matrimonial property law and a role in other areas such as capacity of persons to make contracts. (Domicile cannot be defined with precision) Old cases such as Whicker v Hume [1858] 7 HLC 124, 160 defined domicile as ‘permanent home’. However, you will find many reported cases where a person has lived in a place for 30 or 40 years and has not been held to have acquired a domicile there. (Domicile is ‘an idea of law’) Domicile diverges from the notion of permanent home in three ways: Firstly, the elements required for the acquisition of a domicile go beyond those required for the acquisition of a permanent home. Thus, to acquire a domicile of choice in a country a person must intend to reside in it permanently or indefinitely. Secondly, the law attributes a domicile to everyone, whether they have a permanent home or not. Thirdly, certain persons, for example children under 16, cannot acquire independent domiciles.

Domicile is the status or attribution of being a permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently (that is to say, if that person has not yet moved to a different state, or has not yet formed an intention to remain there indefinitely). LORD CHELMFORD in WHICKER V HUME in defining domicile said, …“That place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and his family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose but with a present intention of making it his permanent home.” ⁵⁰

In international law, “domicile” means a residence at a particular place, accompanied with positive or presumptive proof of intending to continue there for an unlimited time. State

v. Collector of Bordentown, 32 N. J. Law, 192. That place in which a man has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with the present intention of making a permanent home, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home. In re    Garneau, 127 Fed. G77,

02 C. C. A. 403. In its ordinary acceptation, a person’s domicile is the place where he lives or has his home. In a strict and legal sense, that is properly the domicile of a person where he has his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. Anderson v. Anderson, 42 Vt. 350, 1Am. Rep. 334. “Domicile” and “residence” are not synonymous. The domicile is the home, the fixed place of habitation; while residence is a transient place of dwelling. Barlett

v. New York 5 Sandf. (X.Y.) 44.

• Nationality

Nationality is a relationship between an individual and a country (to which a person owes his allegiance to). Nationality normally confers some protection of the individual by the state and some obligations on the individual towards the state. Where the state and country

⁵⁰ Footnote Attached; The Law of Domicile Conflict of Law Group 2: DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY

is federated into separate legal systems the two (domicile and nationality) will be different. But where the country is federated into separate legal systems the two will be different.

• Nationality and Domicile Contrasted (Paraphrased)

Domicile can be distinguished from nationality in that one may be allowed to have dual nationality but not more than one domicile at a time as it was held in the case of ODIASE V ODIASE. Nationality represents a man’s political status, by virtue of which he owes allegiance to some particular country; domicile indicates his civil status and it provides the law by which his personal rights and obligations are determined. Nationality depends, apart from naturalization, on the place of birth or on parentage; domicile is constituted by residence in a particular country with the intention of residing there permanently. It follows that a man may be a national of one country but domiciled in another.

• DOMICILE OF ORIGIN

1. The    Law    of    Domicile    Conflict       of       Law    Group               2:       DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY⁵¹

c) A foundling has his domicile of origin in the jurisdiction in which he was found.

A domicile of origin is more tenacious than a domicile of choice. It is more difficult to prove that it has been abandoned. The point of domicile of origin ensures that everyone has one domicile and only one domicile at all times. If a person leaves the country of his domicile of origin, intending never to return to it, he continues to be domiciled there until he acquires a domicile of choice in another country. But if a person leaves the country of his domicile of choice, intending to never return to it, he ceases to be domiciled in that country unless and until he acquires a new domicile of choice, his domicile of origin revives.

2)  Domicile under International Law⁵²

Every person acquires at birth a domicile of origin. This is the domicile of his father at the time of his birth if he is legitimate. It is the domicile of his mother if he is illegitimate or if his father dies before he is born.

• DOMICILE OF CHOICE

1. DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY — Law of Domicile Conflict of Law Group 2⁵³ Every independent person can acquire a domicile of choice by the jurisdiction of residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence but not otherwise. According to the DOMICILE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS ACT, every person in the world who is over the age of sixteen and is not mentally incapable is able to acquire a domicile of choice by residing in one country with the present intention of making it his permanent home. Thus there are two important requirements, namely; fact and intention. They are normally referred to as factum and animus. Factum is fact or residence, while animus is

⁵¹   See Footnote # 42; The Law of Domicile Conflict of Law Group 2: DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY

⁵²   University of London External Programme

⁵³ See Footnote # 42; The Law of Domicile Conflict of Law Group 2: DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY

intention. A person can therefore abandon a domicile of choice in a jurisdiction by ceasing to reside there (fact) and by ceasing to reside there either permanently or indefinitely (intention). That is to say leaving “animus non revertendi”.

• INTENTION⁵⁴ Every independent person can acquire a domicile of choice by the combination of residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence. ‘Residence’ means physical presence ‘as an inhabitant’ (see IRC v Duchess of Portland [1982] Ch 314, 318-319). It is not necessary that residence should be of long duration. In an American case (White v Tennant 8 SE 596 [1888]), part of a day was enough. An immigrant can acquire a domicile immediately on arrival if he or she intends to settle.

Intention’ is intention to reside permanently or indefinitely in a country, that is not for a limited period or a particular purpose. If the person will leave upon the occurrence of a contingency, this possibility will be ignored if the contingency is vague and indefinite (e.g. winning the lottery), but if it is clearly foreseen and reasonably anticipated (e.g. coming to the end of employment), it may prevent the acquisition of a domicile of choice. Naturalization is relevant, but it is not decisive as a matter of law. It is a circumstance and any circumstance which is evidence of a person’s residence, or his intention to reside permanently or indefinitely, must be considered in determining whether he has acquired a domicile of choice in that country. Most disputes as to domicile turn on the question of whether the necessary intention accompanied the residence.

D.   LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural- born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

§ 218. Settlement.

Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to choose another. The acquired settlement is that where we settle by our own choice.

⁵⁴ University of London External Programme

5.  OF THE RIGHT OF EMBASSY

1. LAW OF NATIONS⁵⁵

Book 4: Section 57

Every sovereign state then has a right to send and to receive public ministers; for they are necessary instruments in the management of those affairs which sovereigns have to transact with each other, and the channels of that correspondence which they have a right to carry on. In the first chapter of this work may be seen who are those sovereigns, and what those independent states, that are entitled to rank in the great society of nations. They are the powers to whom belongs the right of embassy.

Book 4: Section 62

The right of embassy, like all the other rights of sovereignty, originally resides in the nation as its principal and primitive subject. During an interregnum, the exercise of that right reverts to the nation, or devolves on those whom the laws have invested with the regency of the state. They may send ministers in the same manner as the sovereign used to do; and these ministers possess the same rights as were enjoyed by those of the sovereign. The republic of Poland sends ambassadors while her throne is vacant: nor would she suffer that they should be treated with less respect and consideration than those who are sent while she has a king, Cromwell effectually maintained the ambassadors of England in the same rank and respectability which they possessed under the regal authority.

B.     VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS: Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963⁵⁶

Article 31:

Inviolability of the consular premises:

1. Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article.
2. The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The consent of the head of the consular post may be, therefore, (necessarily) assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action.
3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity
4. The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defense or public utility. If expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions, and prompt, adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the sending State.

⁵⁵ Footnote Attached; LAW OF NATIONS, Book 4, Section 57 and 62

⁵⁶ Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963

Article 32

Exemption from Taxation of Consular Premises

1. Consular premises and the residence of the career head of consular post of which the sending State or any person acting on its behalf is the owner or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for services rendered.

Article 33

Inviolability of the Consular Archives and Documents

The consular archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be.

Article 34

Freedom of Movement

Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which is prohibited or regulated for reasons of national security, the receiving State shall ensure freedom of movement and travel in its territory to all members of the consular post.

6.  OF HUMAN RIGHTS and DUTIES…AND OF PEACE

1. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS⁵⁷

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 15.

• Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

B.     AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN⁵⁸ —

Adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948

⁵⁷ Universal Declaration on Human Rights

⁵⁸ AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN (Adopted by the American States, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948)

WHEREAS:

The American peoples have acknowledged the dignity of the individual, and their national constitutions recognize that juridical and political institutions, which regulate life in human society, have as their principal aim the protection of the essential rights of man and the creation of circumstances that will permit him to achieve spiritual and material progress and attain happiness;…The American States have on repeated occasions recognized that the essential rights of man are not derived from the fact that he is a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of his human personality;… The affirmation of essential human rights by the American States together with the guarantees given by the internal regimes of the states establish the initial system of protection considered by the American States as being suited to the present social and juridical conditions, not without a recognition on their part that they should increasingly strengthen that system in the international field as conditions become more favorable; …

The Ninth International Conference of American States AGREES: To adopt the following:

PREAMBLE

All men are born free and equal, in dignity and in rights, and, being endowed by nature with reason and conscience, they should conduct themselves as brothers one to another (duty) . The fulfillment of duty by each individual is a prerequisite to the rights of all. Rights and duties are interrelated in every social and political activity of man. While rights exalt individual liberty, duties express the dignity of that liberty. Duties of a juridical nature presuppose others (duties) of a moral nature which support them in principle and constitute their basis. Inasmuch as spiritual development is the supreme end of human existence and the highest expression thereof, it is the duty of man to serve that end with all his strength and resources. Since culture is the highest social and historical expression of that spiritual development, it is the duty of man to preserve, practice and foster culture by every means within his power. And, since moral conduct constitutes the noblest flowering of culture, it is the duty of every man always to hold it in high respect.

[NOTE: This is a premiere section of the Dominion of Melchizedek’s Points and Authorities; based on the unanimous agreement of Our Body Politic with these extant International Duties. It is extant that Rights (and therefore Authority) cannot accrue to any Individual (person or people) without the fulfillment of Natural, Social, and Political Duties (obligations) on the Part of all Individuals of a Society. The lack of fulfillment of these Duties on the part of some other Nation, State, Group, or other Individual(s) gives rise to the Right, Duty, and Authority to Peoples; to quit a State, Society, and Nation that the Peoples (of Dominion of Melchizedek) deem to have “dissolved themselves”. It is this cause that creates RIGHT and AUTHORITY to “form a new form” of Statehood and Self-Governance as THE MODE of implementing Self-Determination.

It is further noticed that even within the United States Code at Title 1, Section 1; that the first definition of terms that APPLY TO ALL ACTS OF CONGRESS; are the words: “insane and insane person”. There is no definition in that code for the word: SANE.

In addition; it is noticed that the United States NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH has posted articles and “time-honored” quotes on the MADNESS OF CROWDS on its website. Further; the United States CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) has posted entire Preparedness Protocols and Procedures for “dealing with” what the United States has identified and labeled as “The Zombie Apocalypse”. This clearly indicates the United States Government has been for many decades; well aware of deteriorated mental conditions among the Citizenry of the United States of America. How is it possible for a Society to “fulfill its International Duties” and to “conduct themselves as Brothers, one to another”; in a condition of madness and insanity? We, the People of the Dominion of Melchizedek did not make these determinations, but having observed that “if” the United States must consider it “necessary” to give NOTICE to its own citizens and others in its civilian population under the United States Territorial Sovereignty; then no more proof or confirmation must be given to those seeking “good will” and committed to the fulfillment of their International Duties to all Mankind, in order that they justly “quit such a Society” when deeply in the throes of such deteriorated mental conditions.

As a final NOTE and comment about these Human Rights and Obligations; when considering the current Aristocratic Republics and Monarchies among the Members of the United Nations – We: the Members of the Body Politic of the Dominion of Melchizedek found no other Nation, State, or Society that possesses Our commitment to Peace and living according to these Human Rights. This does not mean that it does not exist; only that the Members saw no other Society adhering to this Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. We see within each Nations’ citizenry and territory that most civilian populations do not “treat all of mankind as Brothers”. It is also true among Members of the O.U.N. who are instigating ILLEGAL International Wars of Aggression; in violation of the “agreed-upon” Prohibitions against apartheid, genocide, and any form of discrimination. The Charter of the United Nations states that membership “is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations”. The Members of the Dominion of Melchizedek, as a Micro-State; have no allusions about becoming a part of the United Nations. Therefore, Our Choice to exercise Self-Determination by Assuming Our Separate and Equal Station and Reforming the Dominion of Melchizedek in order to eliminate all Duality and possible previous International violations; was weighed against becoming part of another Federated State and being deemed to be a part of that “SOLE PERSON”. No true choice was found and thereby NECESSITY gave cause to break all political bands with our “Originating State” and create new Safeguards by Creating Self-Governance”. “We, the People of DOM” make no other judgments on anyone; except in regard to our own moral rectitude.]

AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN⁵⁹ —

Chapter 1: Rights (selected sections, relating to Self Determination and Self Governance)

1.     Right to Life, Liberty and personal security

Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.

⁵⁹ AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN (Adopted by the American States, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948)

2.     Right to equality before law.

Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.

• Right to protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.

4.      Right to a family and protection thereof

Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefore.

5.      Right to residence and movement

Article VIII. Every person has the right to fix his residence within the territory of the state of which he is national, to move about freely within such territory, and not to leave it except by his own will.

6.      Right to education

Article XII. Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.

7.      Right to nationality

Article XIX.   Every person has the right to the nationality to which he is entitled by law and to change it, if he so wishes, for the nationality of any other country that is willing to grant it to him.

8.      Right to asylum

Article XXVII. Every person has the right, in case of pursuit not resulting from ordinary crimes, to seek and receive asylum in foreign territory, in accordance with the laws of each country and with international agreements.

9.      Scope of the rights of man

Article XXVIII. The rights of man are limited by the rights of others, by the security of all, and by the just demands of the general welfare and the advancement of democracy.

Chapter 2 — Duties.    (Selected sections, relating to Obligations, Necessity, and Self Governance)

1.      Duties to society

Article XXIX. It is the duty of the individual so to conduct himself in relation to others that each and every one may fully form and develop his personality.

2.      Duties to instruction

Article XXXI. It is the duty of every person to acquire at least an elementary education.

3.      Duties to work

Article XXXVII. It is the duty of every person to work, as far as his capacity and possibilities permit, in order to obtain the means of livelihood or to benefit his community.

4.      Duties to refrain from political activity in a foreign country

Article XXXVIII. It is the duty of every person to refrain from taking part in political activities that, according to law, are reserved exclusively to the citizens of the state in which he is an alien.

7.   OF THE REASONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF SELF-DETERMINATION (quitting a Society)

1. United States of America: Declaration of Independence⁶⁰ (reasons that impel separation and establishment of new government and new safeguards; in accordance with necessity)

Reason #1 (abuse and oppression): But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government….

Reason #2 (necessity): “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, a decent

respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (necessity).”

Reason #3 (security): “…(men are) endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” (continuing…) “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Reason #4 (safety and happiness): “… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Reason #5 (acquisition and assumption of Standing and Power): ” and to assume among

the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” (and continuing) ”    that as Free and Independent States, they

have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

Reason #6 (strength in numbers and mutual perfection; or “no man is an island“): ” and

for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Explanatory Note: These salutary statements with the U.S.A. Founders’ Declaration of Independence are consistent with Book 1 Section 33 of the LAW OF NATIONS (Vattel); whereby those Nation/State Founders that created/made the United States of America, likewise cited clear determinations about the “dissolved” conditions and other abuses (Their Perceptions in the years before 1774) within “his Britannic Majesty’s Dominions”. The Dominions had been long acknowledged as the British North American Colonies in many treaties and documental-records since the time of the establishment of the Jamestown Colony in 1609. The U.S.A. Founders’ statements are consistent with the actions that become necessary by a People in accordance with the remedy for said “dissolved”

⁶⁰ United States Declaration of Independence

conditions by the Assumption of Authority to come together and “establish new safeguards” to secure their rights and to effect their “safety and happiness” under “a new form”. This “remedy” to “come together again under a new form” was established millennia ago and is replete throughout governmental and religious text, such as the Exodus from Egypt and the split-up of the “Ten Tribes” in the ancient Sacred Scripts of the Hebrews. Vattel and others restate this remedy in other texts on International Law and Statehood, such as LAW OF NATIONS. Therefore, establishing a New Sovereign and Independent State in accordance with historical records, in accordance Book 1 Section 33 of LAW OF NATIONS, and also in accordance with UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 2625 for all individuals willing to “join together” collectively to resist “abuses and dissolved conditions” within a Society, in order to Establish Their New Safeguards and Pursue Their Happiness and Perfection (as a Society). Further, in accordance with the aforementioned UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION 2625; this is a Pacific Settlement of Disputes and/or grievance with the former Society. However, it is extant that this “New Sovereign State” establishment, which is made by the Assumption of such Authority/(Right); is irrelevant without the commitment demonstrated by the “Pledge” of Life, Fortune, and Honor.

Further; regardless of the actual Financial Amount of this “pledge” (which should be determined by the necessity of the Preservation and Perfection of the State/Society on its own Merits and Determinations); the associated words leading from the conception of “forming a new form/(State)” to the conception of “declaring to a candid world” the Reasons for said “new form”/(State); and the subsequent “willing Pledge to Each Other (the Founders or Developers of the State) for the building of said “new form”/(State)…are among the most laudable terminology ever stated within a Declaration by the Founders of any State/nation/society. It has become axiomatic that the terminology; “To Assume Among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them” has become “The Standard” (today) among Peoples who are jealous of Freedom, Duty, and Self-Governance. The laudable nature of this “Standard” (i.e. the Right/Duty to Assume One’s Equal Station among the Powers of the Earth via One’s “pledge of life, fortune, and honor” to build a New Society/State and its associated Government and Governmental Administrations; in order to institute the appropriate and necessary safeguards against oppression, colonialism/servitude, or alien domination)…was demonstrated by the adoption of this “Standard” by the American States at its Sixth Conference (held in Habana, Cuba from January 16 – February 20, 1928). “The Standard” was originally promulgated at the American Institute of International Law during its first session in Washington, DC on January 6, 1916….and contained the exact language of the Declaration of Independence of the Founders of the United States of America (sic)(~1776), to wit: “Every Nation is in law and before law the equal of every other nation belonging to the Society of Nations, and all nations have the right to claim and according to the Declaration of Independence of the United States; to claim among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the law of nature and nature’s God entitle them.” It’s is acknowledged in the American States that the founder of the American Institute of International Law: Mr. James Brown Scott, played a significant role in the establishment of public international law from the 1890’s to the 1940’s. The American Institute of International Law, itself; was initiated in 1912 and operated until 1938. This organization submitted 27 drafts to the Pan American Union and played a key role in the Codification of International Law by the adoption of at least 13 drafts made to the Conferences of American States during its operation. In addition; subsequent to this 1916 session of the

American Institute of International Law, Mr. Scott wrote a treatise and review of said session on “The Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations”. In the Foreword of this treatise and review⁶¹; Mr. Scott wrote the following:

“The Declaration differs from other projects of a like kind in that it is not based solely, or indeed at all, upon philosophic principles, but is based exclusively upon decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is therefore fair to say that the principles of the Declaration are, as far as the United States is concerned, the law of the land, and an examination of the practice of the other American countries shows that these principles obtain in each of the American Republics, so that the Declaration is in reality a statement of the fundamental principles of international law, as they are understood in the New World.

Although this terminology was not included within the minutes of the Sixth International Conference of American States within Inter-American RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES later signed and ratified by the Contracting States Parties at the Seventh International Conference of American States held in Montevideo, Uruguay in 1933; it is hereby affirmed by reference and principle as laudable and meaningful in relation to Article 33 of the LAW OF NATIONS, and United Nations Resolution 2625, and the Rights and Duties of States. It is not a matter of what States or Peoples do.   It is a matter of what States and Peoples ought to do; based on Their willingness and ability to fully discharge Their global international duties/obligations. The discharge of many; if not all, of said duties becomes impossible under “dissolved” conditions…making the Right of Self Determination and Self Governance a necessity for Peace, Freedom, and the Proper Discharge of Our Natural Obligations to all Mankind.]

B.    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION⁶² (reasons which are tyrannical and adverse to the freedoms and perfection of the Individual)

Article 1: Section 5

¶-3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

[Explanatory Note: In the words of John F. Kennedy in his ADDRESS BEFORE THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, APRIL 27, 1961

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”

Secrecy in government violates the maxim of Individual Responsibility and is detrimental to the fulfillment of Individual Duties. Example: In Stowell’s 1921 book; INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, secrecy in the Governance of any Society hinders, and possibly renders impossible, the International Obligations of every Individual

⁶¹ Footnote Attached; Treatise of James Scott Brown on the “Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations” (selected relevant sections)

⁶² Footnote Attached; Blacks Law Sixth Addition (Selected Definitions)

“To meet this responsibility fully he must be ready to commend his government for its just action, to condemn it for its violations of international law, and to lend his support for the adoption of a policy of enlightened self-interest which neither sacrifices essential interests to quixotic and ill-balanced impulses, nor yet is unmindful of the common interest of all the states to maintain peace and to preserve the health and rightful independence of each of the states separately…”; which Duty can only be met by “enlightened public opinion of the states concerned and of the whole world to support the governments that reasonably observes the law.” Secrecy can never ensure, and will always be detrimental to meeting “this responsibility”.)

Article 1: Section 8: “Congress shall have the power…………………………………………………………………… “

¶-18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Explanatory Note: In an Aristocratic and Monarchical Republic, where Individuals of a Society have forfeited their ability to Self Govern by delegation of Governance to another; the Individuals of that Society have agreed that someone else can define what is “necessary”. If men or women holding office in Congress have the Power to define whatever they deem “necessary”; then it follows that said men and women can pass any law they wish by simply declaring any such law to be “necessary” according to their own whims. However, since Article 1, Section 5 gives them the authority to keep secrets; then any law that is enacted has no requirement to be declared.

In the words of Patrick Henry; “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates:

“But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? Where is the responsibility? They must make the law      for there is

no existing law to do it. For after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to public and divulge their iniquity, when they have in their power to suppress and conceal it.   This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility      and

that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

What explanation is actually necessary; when all experience and history of the United States Government has proven that they have no obligation to inform any member of the public about any law that is enacted by Congress? This is the purest form of despotism and tyranny espoused in any Constitution or Social Compact.]

Article 2: Section 3 (Powers of the President)

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,

and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper…”

[Explanatory Note: This Article produces the same effects as Article 1 Section 8 of the aforesaid Constitution; whereby “if” the Power of determining “what is necessary” is abused or inconsistent with any Individual in a Society, whether based on fact or merely presumption; reason is given to the Individual to exercise Article 33 of Book 1 of LAW OF NATIONS, or to otherwise change Nationality and/or Political Status via the Exercise of the Right of Self Determination according to stipulation within United Nations Resolution 2625. As spoken by Theodore Roosevelt at the Jamestown Exposition in 1907; “…man can never escape being governed. He must either govern himself or submit to being governed by others.” It is axiomatic that governments can become oppressive and create “dissolved conditions” within any Society among the Family of Nations. If an Individual’s “necessity” is to not be bound to such “dissolved conditions” and thereby to Self Govern; this Article strips an Individual of any input into the Governance of Society by the mere inference that a Head-of-State can ASSUME ALL POWER and thereafter become a Tyrant or Despot. Just the mere suggestion of such possibility, in many cases, “necessitates” that said Individual, in order to meet their “necessity” for peace, safety, and happiness, must exercise the protocol established in the USA DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and Article 33 of Book 1 of LAW OF NATIONS and “institute” a new form in order to create “new safeguards”.]

Article 6:

¶-1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

[Explanatory Note: Maxim of Law — “The borrower is slave to the lender.” The “engagements” entered into before the adoption of that Constitution…or “engagements” entered into by any “State/Society” before an Individual’s birth and arrival on Planet Earth…may not, and are usually not, in the best interest of the said Individual; in relation to said Individual’s Peace, Safety, and Happiness. Debts arise from binding agreement; and once an Individual reaches the “age of discretion” as discussed by Monsieur de Vattel, said Individual can thereafter “reason” for himself/herself and thereby determine what best serves their Interests, along with the furtherance of their own perfection, and their ability to discharge their natural duties. Engagements that bind a citizen of a State/society, also bind the children of a citizen prior to the Age of Discretion. The accrual of these prior debt engagements also increase the amount of tax to the Natives and citizens under the Sovereign Power of those actually engaging in said Debt Engagements. In addition to this “increase” in the burden of supporting “prior debt engagements” of the State; there exist the possibly of default of payment to the lender, which thereafter can Breach the Peace. Such a Breach of Peace can have 2 consequences that are not favorable to any Individual who is desirous of Peace and Freedom. The first consequence is War that could be evinced to secure collaterals from the Debtor State/society for just payment. The second consequence arises from the Sovereigns power of Eminent Domain. Vattel writes in LAW OF NATIONS Book 4, [§ 12. How the sovereign may in a treaty dispose of what concerns individual] that; “The necessity of making peace authorizes the sovereign to dispose of the property of individuals; and the eminent domain gives him a right to do it (Book I. § 244).

He may even, to a certain degree, dispose of their persons, by virtue of the power which he has over all his subjects.” Therefore, those Individuals desiring to “not live under the burdensome yoke” of someone else’s debt or some Society’s debt or desiring “not to live under the threat of being disposed of” by a Sovereign or Sovereign Power that has previously engaged in debt; is at liberty at the Age of Discretion to make a determination about said Societal condition of debt in relation to that Debtor State. Monsieur de Vattel in LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, Section 220 states; “…every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it … man’s obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another.” Therefore, in conclusion of this Explanatory Note…the condition of debt has been established as a position of servitude and slavery for untold centuries, even dating back to the days of Hammurabi’s Code. And further, personal debt that is contracted with One’s consent, although possibly questionable or imprudent, is a separate matter between Individuals. However, being liable for “previous debt engagements” at the whim of someone else or even an entire Society before One was even born, is deplorable…because being placed into a position of being “sold for debt as a citizen or the child of a citizen” is “shocking to the Conscience of the Universe”. For “those citizens who are more jealous of that privilege [of freedom/liberty], so invaluable to those who have tasted it, though obliged to suffer the majority to do as they please”, are under no obligation at all to submit to burdensome debt, especially encumbered via some “previous engagement”…”; is pernicious and destructive to an Individual’s Peace, Safety, and Happiness. This condition is more than untenable and gives immediate Reason after the Age of Discretion to exercise the Right of Self Determination and “quit” that Society that has “dissolved” itself into such a “state” of servitude.]

C.     COURT CASES: United States of America

1. Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368, 372 (4th Circuit 1994), to wit:⁶³

‘Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121,

103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.

1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).

[Objective Note 1: LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1 § 17. And to preserve its members. If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no less obliged carefully to preserve all its members. ..since the loss even of one of its members weakens it, and is injurious to its preservation. It owes this also to the members in particular, … for those who compose a nation are united for their defense and common advantage; and none can justly be deprived

… of the advantages he expects to derive from it, while he on his side fulfils the conditions. The body of a nation cannot then abandon a province, a town, or even a single individual who is a part of it, unless compelled to it by necessity, or indispensably obliged to it by the strongest reasons founded on the public safety.]

⁶³ Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368, 372 (4th Circuit 1994)

2. Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982). ⁶⁴

“The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let ‘We the People of the United States’ alone; it does not require their agency federal government or their state(s) to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. for those

not a party to the contract (Constitution). Thus, because there is no constitutional duty to provide such protection for the Public at Large,”

[Objective Note 2:   LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, § 16. A nation is under an obligation to preserve itself. In the act of association, by virtue of which a multitude of men form together a state or nation, each individual has entered into engagements with all, to promote the general welfare; and all have entered into engagements with each individual, to facilitate for him the means of supplying his necessities, and to protect and defend him.]

3. Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)⁶⁵.

“But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it.” (emphasis added).

[Objective Note 3: This case demonstrates is why there is no such thing as a U.S. citizen having Constitutional Rights. The courts of the United States at all levels, Municipal, State, and Federal consistently deny “constitutional” claims made by citizens. But, to what extent do U.S. citizens have rights and from what source? Is it simply “the truth” that alleged rights that are granted; can be “Un-Granted”? Many of the Sovereign Members of the Dominion of Melchizedek being former citizens of the United States of America, would readily admit that this issue of the “source of rights” is not taught in most of the public schools and/or Universities and/or other institutes of higher education within the United States of America. As such, since the matter of “quitting a society” is open to the conscience of the Individual and One’s Private Knowledge and Beliefs; no judgment of right or wrong is made in relation to either the “Pinder, Bowers, or Padleford” cases, aforementioned. In the words of Mark Twain; “I never let my schooling interfere with my education.” People and/ an entire society are 100% “at choice” as to the “appropriateness” of their Government, since in accordance with the LAW OF NATIONS; a “people/nation” is to “know itself” and the “Sovereign is to know his/its people/citizens”.]

D.  Writings about the Compact called Constitution of the People of the United States for the United States of America

1. Speech of Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788) (Paraphrased)⁶⁶

“This Constitution can counteract and suspend any of our laws, that contravene its oppressive operation; for it is expressly provided, that they can make all laws necessary for carrying their powers into execution; and. Besides the expenses of maintaining the Senate

and other House in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty

⁶⁴ Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982

⁶⁵ Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)

⁶⁶ Patrick Henry Speech; http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-7-1788).php

President, with the powers of a King: He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence: So that all of our property may be taken by this Government, by laying what taxes and giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws. at their pleasure”.

2.  The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse: John Quincy Adams (1839)⁶⁷

The powers of declaring war, of regulating commerce, defining and punishing piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS, are among the special grants to Congress, but over that law itself, thus expressly recognized and all-comprehensive as it is, Congress has no alterative power. While the power of executing it is conferred in unlimited terms upon the President of the United States…The exercise of this more than dictatorial power is indeed controlled (by the placement of) checks upon the abusive application of the granted power. But the power is not the less granted.  (NOTE: What control? Dictators are beyond control by definition.)

3.  George Mason:⁶⁸

The Senate have the Power of altering all money Bills, and of originating appropriations of money, & the Salaries of the Officers of their own Appointment [and] although they are not the Representatives of the People, or amenable to them. … and their being a constant existing Body, almost continually sitting, joined with their being one complete Branch of the Legislature will destroy any Balance in Government, & enable them to accomplish what Usurpations they please upon the Rights and Liberty of the People.

4.  Federalist #84: ⁶⁹

“This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties is vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act.

E.   Writings on the Intents of the Founders of the United States and the conditions of the United States Society (prior to and post U.S. Constitution of 1789)

1. Letter: John Adams to Roger Sherman 18 July 1789 The Works of John Adams.

In my letter of yesterday I think it was demonstrated that the English government is a monarchical republic. Let us now inquire whether the new constitution of the United States is or is not a monarchical republic, (exactly) like that of Great Britain. The monarchical and the aristocratical power in our constitution are not hereditary; but this makes no difference in the nature of the power or in the name of the species of government. A nation might unanimously create a dictator or a despot, for one year or more, or for life, or for perpetuity

⁶⁷ The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse; http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm

⁶⁸ Footnote Attached; George Mason: http://www.glencoe.com/va_timeline/modern_timeline/media/Mason_to_Washington.pdf

⁶⁹ Federalist #84; http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

with hereditary descent.   Let us consider what our constitution is, and see whether any other name can with propriety be given it, than that of a monarchical republic. The duration of our president is neither perpetual nor for life; it is only for four years; but his power during 4 years is much greater than a king of Poland; nay, than a king of Sparta. I know of no first magistrate in any republican government, excepting England and Neuchatel, who possesses a constitutional power comparable to his. (NOTE: What Revolution? If you begin with a Monarchical Republic and end with a Monarchical Republic; then nothing was accomplished except changing Master Fox that guards The Chickens.)

2.  Benjamin Rush; Founder and Signatory on the USA Declaration of Independence. “Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,” 1786.

I wish to see a SUPREME REGARD TO THEIR COUNTRY inculcated upon them. When the Duke of Sully became prime minister to Henry the IVth of France, the first thing he did, he tells us, was to subdue and forget his own heart.” The same duty is incumbent upon every citizen of a republic. Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property.

3.  Charles Thomson; Founder, Scribe, and Secretary of the meetings of “Continental Congress” from 1774 to 1789

For years, Thomson’s brain held the best record of what really happened in the Continental Congress. He was literally in “the room where it happened” for fifteen years. In his memoirs, Benjamin Rush called Thomson “a man of great learning and general knowledge,” and recounted this story:

“He was once told in my presence, that he ought to write a history of the revolution. ‘No (said he) I ought not, for I should contradict all the histories of the great events of the revolution. Let the world admire the supposed wisdom and valor of our great men. I shall not undeceive future generations.”

4.  George Washington to John Jay; Letter written on 15 August 1786⁷⁰

“Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility, where thirteen sovereign, independent, disunited States are in the habit of discussing & refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the Land. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. What a misfortune it is the British should have so well grounded a pretext for their palpable infractions?—and what a disgraceful part, out of the choice of difficulties before us, are we to act?

What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal & fallacious!

• TYRANNY UNMASKED (1822) by John Taylor of Caroline, Section One;

“Good maxims are often worshiped with pretended devotion, and clothed with the splendors of eloquence, when their subversion is meditated… The report of the Committee of Manufactures dated the 15th day of January, 1821, commences with the

⁷⁰ Footnote Attached; George Washington to John Jay 1 August 1786

usual zeal and with the common eulogy of principles intended to be violated. It is like a road smoothly paved at the beginning, but terminating in rocks and precipices. It embraces a great scope of information, condenses the arguments in favor of the advocated system, and is embellished by a style, only assailable by the truth.

The Committee state — (paraphrased)

That at the end of thirty years our debt is increased $20,000,000; that our revenue is inadequate to our expenditure in a time of peace; that the national domain   is   impaired,   and   $20,000,000   of   its   proceeds   expended;   that

$35,000,000 have been drawn from the people by internal taxation, and

$341,000,000 by impost, and yet the public treasury is dependent on loans; that there is no national interest which is in a healthful thriving condition; that it is not a common occurrence in peace, that the people and the government should reciprocally call on each other to relieve their distresses; that the government has been too unwise to profit by experience, especially the experience of other nations; that its policy has been adopted for war and not for peace; that other nations shun our principles of political economy and profit;… that the true economy of individuals is to earn more than they expend, yet this is said to be bad policy for a nation; that if the debts of the country were deducted from the value of property, the nation is poorer than in 1790; that an overflowing treasury indicates national prosperity; that the causes of this distress cannot be in the people, and must be in the government;… that we flourished in war and are depressed in peace, because manufactures then flourished and are now depressed; that the people are groaning under a restrictive system of bounties, premiums, privileges and monopolies imposed by foreign nations; and that they trace the true principles of political economy to the conduct and the interest of the individuals who compose the nation.

The leading facts from which the Committee have extracted their conclusion, are unquestionably true. In thirty years the people have paid in taxes $376,000,000; the public debt has increased $20,000,000, and the public lands have produced the same amount. The Federal treasury, having received $416,000,000 in thirty years, is bankrupt, and the people are distressed.

• James Traficant’s U.S. Bankruptcy Speech (sic)

United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the

U.S. Government…. some say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

The government already raises our kids, defends our families, educates our kids, feeds our kids, houses our kids…and the government is doing a very poor job of it. Finally, I don’t think the budget makes one damned bit of difference. We “waive it” all the time, and I don’t think we’ve ever followed it.” (Has there ever been: account-ability?)

FINAL NOTES AND CONCLUSIONS

These statements within Point #7 – OF THE REASONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF SELF- DETERMINATION (or quitting a Society) were made by many Notable Men during different periods in History. These same statements have been the assessments made about many Nations throughout the entire History of Planet Earth and are among many reasons that so many Nations/Societies exist among the Family of Nations today. Based on the Right of Self-Determination and changing paradigms it is evident that more Societies will be created and evolve in order to find protection of their Rights and Freedoms; once more Individuals ascertain their International Obligations to all mankind.

These statements are likewise among the reasons that many Nations and Societies no longer exist. For whatever reasons States have failed, it was the dissolved conditions in those Societies that caused their dissolution. These conditions seem to replicate in predictable patterns throughout history. This produces “THE REASON” for Individuals who are jealous of Freedom to exercise the Duties and Rights espoused in Article 33 and 220 in the LAW OF NATIONS, and in UNGA Resolution 2625, to come together in good will and institute new safeguards for Themselves.

It is extant within Article 220 of the LAW OF NATIONS that “quitting a country” (society) should not be done for “light and transient causes”. The conceptualization of these POINTS AND AUTHORITIES could have been more lengthy; but to what end?   There is nothing in any of the POINTS that is “light or transient”.

As previously asserted within the Preamble of these POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, only the Individual can speak directly to their personal assessment of dissolved conditions; and as such, these are the conditions for which no Man can assess for any other Man. To do so is to have total understanding of another Individual’s Mind and Their “jealousy” of the Rights and Freedoms espoused within the Great Universal Law; Customary International law; also known as: LAW OF NATIONS. As stated previously by Woodrow Wilson; “peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent”. This elevates the Exercise of SELF- DETERMINATION to a highly individual, “free will” choice.

In Book 1 of LAW OF NATIONS, Monsieur de Vattel acknowledges that (in § 25). A nation ought to know itself. The reasons for knowing itself is as follows; “Without this knowledge it cannot make any successful endeavors after its own perfection. … Without this knowledge a nation will act at random, and often take the most improper measures. It will think it acts with great wisdom in imitating the conduct of nations that are reputed wise and skillful, — not perceiving that such or such regulation, such or such practice, though salutary to one state, is often pernicious to another.”

Likewise; the same is true of the Sovereign or Sovereign Authority (-ies). In §44. He ought to know the nation…“This obligation devolves on the sovereign, since it is he who is to watch over the preservation and perfection of the nation. The duty which the law of nature here imposes on the conductors of nations is of extreme importance, and of considerable extent. They ought exactly to know the whole country subject to their authority; its qualities, defects, advantages, and situation with regard to the neighboring states; and they ought to acquire a perfect knowledge of the manners and general inclinations of their people, their virtues, vices, talents, &c. All these branches of knowledge are necessary to enable them to govern properly.

Failure to make a decision is a decision…it means “no”. We, the Body Politic of DoM have full knowledge that there must be control and that People cannot make excuses for their failures. The Dominion of Melchizedek has already been assisting Our Breathren by doing Humanitarian Aid and establishing NGOs to build schools/universities for the purpose of developing an increase in Education in other Nations, since 1998. We will continue to assist, whenever we can, to the Family of Nations and Mankind. We will endeavor to increase Our Capacity and Understanding of the Progressive Development of International Law that moves Men toward peace.

These POINTS AND AUTHORITIES are specific to the Dominion of Melchizedek and, as such, written only to clarify the competence of the Body Politic to Self-Govern and to state candidly Our Causes in relation to Our exercise of the Right of Self-Determination. They are for no other Society. Let All Individuals judge and then choose for themselves what “conditions” they deem proper to affect their own Peace, Safety and Freedoms. And, We: The People of the Dominion of Melchizedek will continue to Develop Our Reason and Knowledge in order to maintain Self Control via Our own Governance. This is Our Choice.

Based on the progressive development of Global Law and the development of Our Knowledge thereof; Addendums to these POINTS AND AUTHORITIES will be forthcoming

CLAIM OF MEANINGS

There is only one meaning inserting in these POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, which was foremost in considerations made by the Dominion of Melchizedek for the purpose of Exercising the Right of Self-Determination; vis-à-vis “What is Our Nature or What are Our Natural Obligations and Rights, in accordance with the Law of Nature?”

Naturalize – to bring into conformity with nature⁷¹

REFERENCES from the LAW OF NATIONS⁷²

or

The Law of Nature applied to Societies and Sovereignties

Book 1: Section 91-Nature of the right of buying,

In virtue of the natural liberty which belongs to all men, it is I who am to judge whether I have occasion for them myself, or can conveniently sell them to you; and you have no right to determine whether I judge well, or ill, because you have no authority over me. If I, improperly, and without any good reason, refuse to sell you at a fair price what you want, I offend against my duty: you may complain of this, but you must submit to it: and you cannot attempt to force me, without violating my natural right, and doing me an injury. The right of buying the things we want is then only an imperfect right, like that of a poor man to

⁷¹ Footnote Attached; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalize

⁷² Footnote Attached; Highlighted Sections from the LAW OF NATIONS

receive alms of the rich man; if the latter refuses to bestow it, the poor man may justly complain: but he has no right to take it by force.

Book 1: Section 104 –Abuse of this Right (Natural Right of Passage)

But a law so just in its origin frequently degenerates into great abuses. There are countries where no care is taken of the highways, and where nevertheless considerable tolls are exacted. This is a manifest extortion, and an infringement of the natural rights of mankind. For the division of lands, and their becoming private property, could never deprive any man of the right of passage. Every man inherits this right from nature, and cannot justly be forced to purchase it. (47)

Book 1: Section 111 –Instruction (Natural State)

It is necessary to instruct the people to seek felicity where it is to be found; that is, in their own perfection, — and to teach them the means of obtaining it. The sovereign cannottake too much pain in instructing and enlightening his people, and informing them to useful knowledge and wise discipline. A just and wise prince feels no apprehensions from the light of knowledge: he knows that it is ever advantageous to a good government. If men of learning know that liberty is the natural inheritance of mankind; on the other hand they are more fully sensible than their neighbors, how necessary it is, for their own advantage, that this liberty should be subject to a lawful authority: — incapable of being slaves, they are faithful subjects.

Book 1: Section 128 –Rights of Individuals (Liberty of Conscience)

Every man is obliged to Endeavour to obtain just ideas of God, to know his laws, his views with respect to his creatures, and the end for which they were created. Man doubtless owes the most pure love, the most profound respect to his Creator; and to keep alive these dispositions, and act in consequence of them, he should honor God in all his actions, and show, by the most suitable means, the sentiments that fill his mind. This short explanation is sufficient to prove that man is essentially and necessarily free to make use of his own choice in matters of religion. His belief is not to be commanded; and what kind of worship must that be which is produced by force? Worship consists in certain actions performed with an immediate view to the honor of God; there can be no worship proper for any man, which he does not believe suitable to that end. The obligation of sincerely endeavoring to know God, of serving him, and adoring him from the bottom of the heart, being imposed on man by his very nature, — it is impossible that, by his engagements with society, he should have exonerated himself from that duty or deprived himself of the liberty which is absolutely necessary for the performance of it. It must then be concluded, that liberty of conscience is a natural and inviolable right. It is a disgrace to human nature that a truth of this kind should stand in need of proof.

Book 1: Section 151.6 – Independence Immunities (Natural Right of States)

For an entire body of men, numerous and powerful, to stand beyond the reach of the public authority, and be dependent on a foreign court, is an entire subversion of order in the republic, and a manifest diminution of the sovereignty. This is a mortal stab given to society, whose very essence it is, that every citizen should be subject to the public

authority. Indeed the immunity which the clergy arrogate to themselves in this respect is so inimical to the natural and necessary rights of a nation, that the king himself has not the power of granting it. But churchmen will tell us they derive this immunity from God himself; but till they have furnished some proof of their pretensions, let us adhere to this certain principle, that God desires the safety of states, and not that which will only be productive of disorder and destruction to them.

Book 1: Section 159 – To Establish Good Laws

There are two methods of making justice flourish — good laws, and the attention of the superiors to see them executed. If men were always equally just, equitable, and enlightened, the laws of nature would doubtless be sufficient for society. But ignorance, the illusions of self-love, and the violence of the passions, too often render these sacred laws ineffectual. Sometimes even it is necessary to deviate from natural equity, in order to prevent abuses and to accommodate ourselves to circumstances; and, since the sensation of duty has so little influence on the heart of man, a penal sanction becomes necessary, to give the laws their full efficacy. Thus is the law of nature converted into civil law.

Book 1: Section 162 -How he is to dispense justice. (Natural Power of Sovereigns)

The executive power naturally belongs to the sovereign, — to every conductor of a people: he is supposed to be invested with it, in its fullest extent, when the fundamental laws do not restrict it. When the laws are established, it is the prince’s province to have them put in execution. To support them with vigor, and to make a just application of them to all cases that present themselves, is what we call rendering justice. And this is the duty of the sovereign, who is naturally the judge of his people.

Book 1: Section 169 Punishment of Transgressors (Natural Right of Self Preservation)

The right of punishing, which in a state of nature belongs to each individual, is founded on the right of personal safety. Every man has a right to preserve himself from injury, and by force to provide for his own security against those who unjustly attack him.

Book 1: Section 180 –Valor (A Foundation in Nature)

Nature gives the foundation of valor; but various causes may animate it, weaken it, and even destroy it, A nation ought then to seek after and cultivate a virtue so useful.

CHAP. XVII.

HOW A NATION MAY SEPARATE ITSELF FROM THE STATE OF WHICH IT IS A MEMBER, OR RENOUNCE ITS ALLEGIANCE TO ITS SOVEREIGN WHEN IT IS NOT PROTECTED.

Book 1: Section 200 -Difference between the present case and those in the preceding chapter.

WE have said that an independent nation, which, without becoming a member of another state, has voluntarily rendered itself dependent on, or subject to it, in order to obtain

protection, is released from its engagements as soon as that protection fails, even though the failure happen through the inability of the protector.

Book 1: Section 220 Whether a person may quit his country (Natural Ties to a Nation)

Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.(60)

— 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born…. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it. A man’s obligations to his natural country may change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.

Book 1: Section 223 -Cases in which a citizen has a right to quit his country. (Nature of the Social Compact)

There are cases in which a citizen has an absolute right to renounce his country, and abandon it; a right founded on reasons derived from the nature of the social compact.

1. If the citizen cannot procure subsistence in his own country, it is undoubtedly lawful for him to seek it elsewhere. For, political or civil society being entered into only with a view of facilitating to each of its members the means of supporting himself, and of living in happiness and safety, it would be absurd to pretend that a member, whom it cannot furnish with such things as are most necessary, has not a right to leave it.

• If the body of the society, or he who represents it, absolutely fail to discharge their obligations towards a citizen, the latter may withdraw himself. For, if one of the contracting parties does not observe his engagements, the other is no longer bound to fulfill his; as the contract is reciprocal between the society and its members.

• If the major part of the nation, or the sovereign who represents it, attempt to enact laws relative to matters in which the social compact cannot oblige every citizen to submission, those who are averse to these laws have a right to quit the society, and go settle elsewhere. For, they cannot be supposed to have subjected themselves to the authority of men, in affairs of conscience; and if the society suffers and is weakened by their departure, the blame must be imputed to the intolerant party; for it is they who fail in their observance of the social compact — it is they who violate it, and force the others to a separation.

Book 1: Section 225 – Sources of their Right (Natural Right of the Social Compact)

Their right to emigrate may arise from several sources. 1. In the cases we have just mentioned (§ 223), it is a natural right, which is certainly reserved to each individual in the very compact itself by which civil society was formed.

Book 1: Section 226 – The exile and banished man have a right to live somewhere. (Natural Right of Dwelling)

A man, by being exiled or banished, does not forfeit the human character, nor consequently his right to dwell somewhere on earth. He derives this right from nature, or rather from its Author, who has destined the earth for the habitation of mankind; and the introduction of property cannot have impaired the right which every man has to the use of such things as are absolutely necessary — a right which he brings with him into the world at the moment of his birth.

Book 1: Section 230 –Nature of this Right

But though this right is necessary and perfect in the general view of it, we must not forget that it is but imperfect with respect to each particular country. For, on the other hand, every nation has a right to refuse admitting a foreigner into her territory, when he cannot enter it without exposing the nation to evident danger, or doing her a manifest injury, what she owes to herself, the care of her own safety, gives her this right; and, in virtue of her natural liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge, whether her circumstances will or will not justify the admission of that foreigner (Prelim. § 16). He cannot, then, settle by a full right, and as he pleases, in the place he has chosen, but must ask permission of the chief of the place; and, if it is refused, it is his duty to submit.

Book 1: Section 232 -A nation cannot punish for faults committed out of its territories.

If an exiled or banished man has been driven from his country for any crime, it does not belong to the nation in which he has taken refuge to punish him for that fault committed in a foreign country. Nature does not give to men or to nations any right to inflict punishment, except for their own defense and safety (§ 169); whence it follows that we cannot punish any but those by whom we have been injured.

Book 1: Section 251 –The Same Right

The same rule ought to be observed in regard to those common things which are consumed in using them. They belong to the person who first takes possession of them with the intention of applying them to his own use: and a second, who comes after, has no right to take them from him, I repair to a common forest, and begin to fell a tree: you come in afterwards, and would wish to have the same tree: you cannot take it from me: for this would be arrogating to yourself a right superior to mine, whereas our rights are equal. The rule in this case is the same as that which the law of nature prescribes in the use of the productions of the earth before the introduction of property.

Book 4: Section 1 –What Peace is. (Natural state of Man)

PEACE is the reverse of war: it is that desirable state in which everyone quietly enjoys his rights, or, if controverted, amicably discusses them by force of argument. And if, by “the natural state of man,” we understand (as reason require that we should) that state to which he is destined and called by his nature, peace should rather be termed his natural state. For, it is the part of a rational being to terminate his differences by rational methods; whereas, it is the characteristic of the brute creation to decide theirs by force. Man, alone and destitute

of succours, would necessarily be a very wretched creature. He stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his species, in order to enjoy the sweets of life, to develop his faculties, and live in a manner suitable to his nature. Now, it is in peace alone that all these advantages are to be found: it is in peace that men respect, assist, and love each other: nor would they ever depart from that happy state, if they were not hurried on by the impetuosity of their passions, and blinded by the gross deceptions of self-love.

Book 4: Section 2 –Obligation of cultivating it

Nations who are really impressed with sentiments of humanity, — who seriously attend to their duty, and are acquainted with their true and substantial interests, — will never seek to promote their own advantage at the expense and detriment of other nations: however intent they may be on their own happiness, they will ever be careful to combine it with that of others, and with justice and equity. Thus disposed, they will necessarily cultivate peace. If they do not live together in peace, how can they perform those mutual and sacred duties which nature enjoins them? And this state is found to be no less necessary to their happiness than to the discharge of their duties. Thus, the law of nature every way obliges them to seek and cultivate peace. That divine law has no other end in view than the welfare of mankind: to that object all its rules and all its precepts lend: they are alt deducible from this principle, that men should seek their own felicity; and morality is no more than the art of acquiring happiness. As this is true of individuals, it is equally so of nations, as must appear evident to anyone who will but take the trouble of reflecting on what we have said of their common and reciprocal duties, in the first chapter of the second book.

Book 4: Section 8 –General effects of peace.

The general and necessary effects of peace are the reconciliation of enemies and the cessation of hostilities on both sides. It restores the two nations to their natural state.

Book 4: Section 43 – Justifiable self-defense is no breach of the treaty. (Natural right to self-defense)

Justifiable self-defense is no breach of the treaty of peace. It is a natural right which we cannot renounce.

FOOTNOTES

All footnotes in these POINTS AND AUTHORITIES can be accessed online at: https://www.melchizedek.com/authorities

The footnotes are posted online pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties and current Global Agreements (treaties) on the acceptance of Digital Evidence. The information in these footnotes is already known or should be known in every Nation, Society, and/or Juridical Entity on Planet Earth.

1. United Nations; Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/4051 (6 November 2012)

• GA/SHC/4085 Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Concludes (5 November 2013)

• Highlighted Sections, from the Sixth International Conference held in Cuba 1928; Discussions of Mr. Maratua, of Peru

• http://www.hrcr.org/docs/OAS_Declaration/oasrights2.html

• Sections from the Report of the Delegates of the United States of America

• Highlighted Sections; LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, Sections 32 and 33

• The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (In Congress, July 4, 1776)

• The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (In Congress, July 4, 1776)

• Copy of Original Appointment to Ambassador

1. Digitized Transcript of Witness: Ambassador Parker (Williams), USA v Gould (currently omitted; to be recovered)

1. Weston, Sr., Clerk; Grand Rapids, Michigan with letters and evidence

1. Digital Image of Website Announcement

1. Charter of the Dominion of Melchizedek

1. Charter of the Organization of the United Nations

1. UN General Assembly; Twenty-fifth Session: Resolution 2625

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1. Twenty-Eighth Session; UN General Assembly Resolution 3166

1. Manila Declaration on Peaceful Settlements of International Disputes

1. LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, Sections 32 and 33

• Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

• Implementation of The Right to Self-Determination as a Contribution to Conflict Prevention

• State of Oregon; Bill of Rights (Article 1 specifically)

• ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND

• UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY; Twenty-fifth Session: Resolution 2625

• Implementation of The Right to Self-Determination as a Contribution to Conflict Prevention

26. 8 U.S. Code § 1481

• Travel.State.org

• The Seventh International Conference of American States; Convention on Nationality: Montevideo, Uruguay, December 3-26, 1933

• So. Cal. Law Review: Volume 25 (Case notes)

• Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes, December 13, 1972

• Highlighted Sections; LAW OF NATIONS, Book 4, Sections 113 and 117

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963.

33. 22 U.S. Code § 254a

34. 22 U.S. Code § 254b

• Maryland Journal of International Law, Vol .12; Richard C. Kay, United States v. Deaver: 12 Md. J. Int’l L. 259 (1988).

• Head of State Immunity Law & Legal Definition

• Travel.State.org

• Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (with annex). Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

• Twenty-Eighth Session; UN General Assembly Resolution 3166

• Highlighted Sections; LAW OF NATIONS, Book 1, Section 50

• Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes Dec 13, 1972

• INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, by Ellery C. Stowell @ 1921 by JOHN BYRNE & CO.; Page 1, Chapter 1, Section 1

• LAW OF WAR DESKBOOK; INTERNATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT – The United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Page 2

• Public Law; Page 2, Paragraph 11

• Public Law 1970, 1 Stat. At L 117, Ch 9 (Codified in 22 U.S.C § 252)

• The Law of Domicile Conflict of Law Group 2: DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY

• Law of Domicile Conflict of Law Group 2: DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY

• University of London External Programme

• The Law of Domicile Conflict of Law Group 2: DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY

• University of London External Programme

• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963

• LAW OF NATIONS, Book 4, Section 57 and 62

• Universal Declaration on Human rights

• Universal Declaration on Human rights

• AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN (Adopted in 1948)

• United States Declaration of Independence

• Blacks Law Sixth Addition (Selected Definitions)

• Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368, 372 (4th Circuit 1994)

59. Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982

• Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)

• Patrick Henry Speech; http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist- papers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-7-1788).php

• The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse; http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm

• George Mason to George Washington:

http://www.glencoe.com/va_timeline/modern_timeline/media/Mason_to_Washington.pdf

• George Washington to John Jay 1 August 1786

• Federalist #84; http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalize

• Highlighted Sections from the LAW OF NATIONS

About The Author