Tagged with "State"
The Acquisition of Sovereignty by Quasi-States: The case of the Order of Malta Tags: state sovereignty Order of Malta international law non-state entities

Noel Cox

Auckland University of Technology - Faculty of Business

Mountbatten Journal of Legal Studies, Forthcoming

The Sovereign Military Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta, also known as the Order of Malta, the Order of St John of Jerusalem, or simply the Hospitallers, is a unique international confraternity. It is the only organization currently recognized, albeit by a minority of states, as quasi-sovereign. In view of the claims which have been made from time to time by other orders of chivalry - or even pretended orders - to such status, it is worthwhile looking more closely at the claims made by or on behalf of the Order of Malta. In so doing we may help to locate the origin and nature of this so-called sovereignty, and answer the question of which orders of chivalry are likewise 'sovereign', or, indeed, whether the Order of Malta itself is truly sovereign.

The article begins with a brief look at the concepts of sovereignty and statehood as traditionally understood. A survey is then made of the origins of what might be called anomalous entities - bodies which have some status at international law, but which are not traditional states. The special position of the Holy See is covered. The case of the Order of Malta is then examined in its historical context, and the basis for its claimed sovereignty assessed. The position of branches of the Order, and of other ancient religious orders is looked at. The lessons from the example of the Order of Malta for the relationship of territory and statehood are evaluated.


Download document here




The Beamable Sustainable Princes Video Presentation

This DVD explores the issue of sustainable development and the fascinating history of England's Crown and its forfeiture to a religious power. You will learn how it came about that England and its vassals now belong to Rome and how an agenda of worldwide control is being foisted on Earth's inhabitants. History has startling answers to why we are seeing certain players on the world stage. Find out in this significant and eye-opening presentation.

Handbook on the Peaceful Settlements of Disputes Tags: Self Determination Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Rights and Duties of States

Matrix Solutions


Office of Legal Affairs Codification Division
Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States.

Exercising Self Determination is implementing protocols under "peaceful settlement of disputes" found in International law. Which, case in point, is the the Supreme Law of the Land. See Supremacy Clause i.e. U.S. Treaties [emphasis added.]

Article 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.

Self-determination is a process rather than an outcome. There is, in fact, no one prescribed outcome for the exercise of self-determination. The United Nations General Assembly, in its Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States stipulated that: [t]he 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 constitutes modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

Self-determination should not be viewed as a one time choice, but as an ongoing process which ensures the continuance of a people's participation in decision making and control over its own destiny.

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and
Co-operation among States says: the establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right to self-determination by that people ... (emphasis added).

THE LEGAL TRAP OF RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP - Beware the Pirates Code Tags: danger immunity Legal Rabbit Hole matrix renuciation stateless

Beware the Pirates Code.

Below is a letter "from the mailbag" addressing issues concerning Renun­ci­a­tion of U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship.


Are you famil­iar with this link, Mr. Williams?   http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html#

Did you par­tic­i­pate in these action as well? Yes and No   And if you did not, then why?


Am I famil­iar with Renun­ci­a­tion of U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship?    Yes

Do or did I “par­tic­i­pate”?    No.

Why not?

This is a “pro­gram” designed to trans­fer “a cow” from one ranch (slave plan­ta­tion) to another ranch.   If you will notice, it states that you “should” pos­sess other “nation­al­ity” (but you don’t have to).  That means that you become a “national”.  Nation­als have “granted civil rights”.   I didn’t become a “national”.…I became “Ambas­sador at Large” with diplo­matic rights.   I still pos­sess those rights.

I am attach­ing the SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES.   You will see that this “code” is bogus, accord­ing to the treaties signed by the United States.  But, if you don’t know Inter­na­tional law and treaties; and you then con­form to the “code” (by agreement).…as it says.…it does not get you out of “your debtor slave obligations”.

Allow me to list the prob­lems inher­ent with this THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT :

“(5) mak­ing a for­mal renun­ci­a­tion of nation­al­ity before a diplo­matic or con­sular offi­cer of the United States in a for­eign state , in such form as may be pre­scribed by the Sec­re­tary of State” (empha­sis added).

Do other coun­tries do this when thir “nation­als” become US cit­i­zens?   No.   A nat­u­ral­iza­tion process of a “for­eign state” can­not be dic­tated by the “state of orig­i­na­tion”.  That would be like the US dic­tat­ing the process for become a Pana­man­ian (or Boli­vian or any other nation-state other than US.   However, if you under­stand the verbiage.…it is not talk­ing about “becom­ing a nat­u­ral­ized cit­i­zen of another State/nation”.…it is talk about “mak­ing a for­mal renun­ci­a­tion of nation­al­ity”.   Why would some­one do that when it is not nec­es­sary?   Where in Inter­na­tional Law and Treaties is such “renun­ci­a­tion” required?

At this point.…open the file (pdf) and go to page 63 and read Arti­cles 1 and 2 of the Con­ven­tion on Nation­al­ity that the United States is sig­na­tory to.  Make sure that you keep in mind that some nations may not sign or may have reser­va­tions.  If they were one of the “High Con­tract­ing Par­ties” at the Con­ven­tion and they “do not sign at all”…they must make record of their refusal or reser­va­tion.   So, be sure to scroll to the end of that “ses­sion” on page 64 and read the reser­va­tions.  (note: you will not see the United States mak­ing a reser­va­tion, mean­ing that they adopted this con­ven­tion.  To ver­ify the accu­racy of what I just said, scroll to page 69 where you will see the United States mak­ing reser­va­tions on Extra­di­tion; and fur­ther to page 71 where you will find a dec­la­ra­tion of the United States about their “belief” in Polit­i­cal Asylum.)

Renun­ci­a­tions that do not meet the con­di­tions described above have no legal effect. So what?  Does this sound like you’re “in con­trol” of this process?   Does this sound a lit­tle “arbi­trary” in nature?  Mr. Cameron, the what that I refer to; for those that do this “renun­ci­a­tion process” and make them­selves a “tar­get” of the “Matrix system” is this.…you’re admit­ting that you’re incom­pe­tent and you’re saying.…“I don’t know Inter­na­tional Law.”    If you are going to “renounce cit­i­zen­ship”, you must be in another coun­try from the start of the process.   There­fore; Inter­na­tional laws and Inter­na­tional pro­to­cols gov­ern.  This is by Treaty and Agreement.

This is Catch 22.…because this is an Inter­na­tional process.  And the Catch 22 goes back to the doc­u­ment attached and the ques­tion pre­vi­ously posed; which is: Why would some­one do this “renun­ci­a­tion process” when it is not required?  This is an inten­tional snare.  As George Bush said, if you are not “with us, you are against us”.   The obvi­ous­ness of this inten­tional snare is the fact that it doesn’t con­form to Inter­na­tional Pro­to­cols, it makes you “appear” (pos­si­bly and unnec­es­sar­ily) bel­liger­ent, it can make you vul­ner­a­ble it ways that are destruc­tive (as you will see as I cover the high­lighted prob­lems), and it’s based on people’s vol­un­tary con­sent to do the process due to ignorance.

Using Inter­na­tional Pro­to­cols, as I did; there are much more Peace­ful means and ways.   The U.S. has acknowl­edged me now as Ambas­sador at Large for the State that I now rep­re­sent.  They did so specif­i­cally because I exe­cuted every­thing in accor­dance with the Inter­na­tional Pub­lic Order as defined within the Inter­na­tional Agreements/(treaties) and Pro­to­cols.  There­fore, the US knows that I am not incom­pe­tent and have no state­ments on any record that might be “ques­tion­able”.   In fact, the very oppo­site is true.…but that requires fur­ther infor­ma­tion that is not within the con­text of your question.…so continuing…

Because of the pro­vi­sions of sec­tion 349(a)(5), Amer­i­cans can­not effec­tively renounce their cit­i­zen­ship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. Courts have held cer­tain attempts to renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship to be inef­fec­tive on a vari­ety of grounds, as dis­cussed below. Inef­fec­tive?  It’s inef­fec­tive because a “lat­eral trans­fer” from one “slave plan­ta­tion” to another “slave plan­ta­tion” is not “exer­cis­ing the Right of Self Deter­mi­na­tion and Self Gov­er­nance”.   And, nat­u­ral­iza­tion is the process of transfer…not “renun­ci­a­tion”.   Renun­ci­a­tion is only a trap to “make you stateless”…if you don’t “repa­tri­ate” some­where else.  You are claim­ing that you are totally incom­pe­tent, in any event.…especially if you “make your­self stateless”.

Please re-read sub­sec­tion C, again.  It’s about (alleged) priv­i­leges and ben­e­fits ver­sus liabilities…if you under­stand what I mean.  (if not, we can dis­cuss it later)

Per­sons intend­ing to renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship should be aware that, unless they already pos­sess a for­eign nation­al­ity, they may be ren­dered state­less and, thus, lack the pro­tec­tion of any gov­ern­ment.  This is bla­tant iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the Legal Catch 22.  This would be a “holy crap, Bat­man” moment.   No pro­tec­tion of any gov­ern­ment?!  Whad­dya think they’re doing this “home­grown ter­ror­ism bill” for?   This “act” has already passed and it’s intent is to “iden­tify pos­si­ble domes­tic bel­liger­ents”; and then once “identified”, to make “Americans/USCitizens” state­less, so that “no other State” will inter­fere with “the domes­tic ter­ror­ists’ intern­ment” into a Camp, such as have been already built for such purposes.  And, they are build­ing “a list”; that is Home­land Security’s func­tion.  That’s it.  That is their func­tion; and igno­rantly doing such a process as this can (pos­si­bly) “iden­tify you”.

Here’s what hap­pens when you under­stand Inter­na­tional Law and Peace­ful Pro­to­cols, the LAW OF NATIONS, and the Right of Self Deter­mi­na­tion.  Note: Please read the Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion of Human Rights (I sug­gest “entirety”, but specif­i­cally Art. 15) and the Inter­na­tional Covenant of Polit­i­cal and Civil Rights (Arti­cle 1 Sen­tence 1 spec.) for con­fir­ma­tion of some of the following…

Build­ing a State/nation and Self Gov­ern­ing.…sov­er­eign immu­nity and polit­i­cal rights.….good.

Inte­gra­tion into an Inde­pen­dent State as diplo­matic mem­ber or representative…diplomatic immu­nity and polit­i­cal rights.…good.

National status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.

Cit­i­zen status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.

Res­i­dent status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.

Alien.….granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.


(fouled up beyond all recognition…never make assumptions)

Do you under­stand?  NO RIGHTS, NO PROTECTIONS.…NOTHING. They (mean­ing any State or Nation) can put you in a C-130 like a piece of luggage…and open the door at 20,000 feet and throw you out…and no one (and I mean no one) can or is going to say a word on your behalf you are deemed “state­less”.  This is about under­stand­ing the world you live in today; and the Ram­i­fi­ca­tions of Legal Ignorance.

As they say.…there is no excuse.   Result: You can get fried for stupidity.

[Note Mr. C: this is for your edi­fi­ca­tion about “the move­ment”.  “The Move­ment” is a name used by Judges in the Fed­eral Courts.  Been there…know it. This term refers to those that call them­selves by names, titles, and posi­tions that don’t exist and never existed…but which the Fed and State courts have ruled as Domes­tic Terrorist.

1. Sov­er­eign Cit­i­zen.…no such thing.…oxymoronic.. Cit­i­zens are sub­jects.  Sov­er­eigns are Mon­archs or nations.  There­fore: STUPID/bad

2. State National.…what?  The State ain’t ‘national’.   Stu­pid and oxy­moronic.  Means noth­ing.  Although many claim that these terms are inter­change­able.  In a sense that is true, since nei­ther exist “in law” and they are both a “fraud”.…as they don’t exist.  [And it ain’t your state, any­way. You didn’t cre­ate it. These guys are going to prison in droves at the moment.  They are igno­rant and arro­gant; a dan­ger­ous com­bi­na­tion; and accord­ing to cer­tain sources I have…it is going to get worse.…a lot worse.  It is why they are pass­ing these new “domes­tic ter­ror­ist” bills.  But, be warned…no mat­ter how many times you show them; and even if they can­not rebut you with any facts/information; they can­not be con­vinced in any man­ner.  None of them will debate the issue of their lunacy with “outsiders”.  Although…they debate it among one another as to which posi­tion is actu­ally accu­rate.  They beat them­selves silly at sem­i­nars.  The sto­ries are very com­i­cal.   They are so arro­gant about the “right­ness” of their posi­tion; that they will fight and argue vehe­mently with each other.  Bad.  Avoid like plague.]

They may also have dif­fi­culty trav­el­ing…That sucks.  But it is the result of “renun­ci­a­tion”.   It does not say that “dif­fi­cult travel” is the result of “a nat­u­ral­iza­tion process” before the com­pe­tent author­i­ties of another State.  Nor does it say that “dif­fi­cult travel“is result of the exer­cise of the “Right of Self Determination.”    It is this (bogus) “renunciation process”.


Under the Doc­trine of Reciprocity.…if THEY are free to travel anywhere…then so are THOSE that exer­cise the latter.…due to the Doc­trine of Equal­ity.   Equal Sta­tion means “EQUAL STATUS/station/state”.    At this level.…you must learn to read “what it does not say”.

Nonethe­less, renun­ci­a­tion of U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship may not pre­vent a for­eign coun­try from deport­ing that indi­vid­ual back to the United States in some non-citizen status.

Well.…I guess ya bet­ter be sure that the other Rancher/Farmer run­ning the other ranch/slave-plantation likes you before you start fil­ing any “pos­si­bly iden­ti­fy­ing bel­liger­ent” papers, huh?   This would be known as the “Yehsa, Massa” clause.   “Non-citizen” means “state­less” if you have done the renun­ci­a­tion process prop­erly accord­ing to the United States Code.   They are telling you plainly that…

State­less means.…FUBAR.

Also, per­sons who wish to renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship should also be aware that the fact that a per­son has renounced U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship may have no effect what­so­ever on his or her U.S. Tax or mil­i­tary ser­vice oblig­a­tions (con­tact the Inter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice or U.S. Selec­tive Ser­vice for more information).

Wow.…does not effect your tax sta­tus what­so­ever, eh?   And, they can still toss your butt back into the Military…if you ever served…under the guide­lines of STOPLOSS.   Of course, my con­tention is that you might want to pay real close atten­tion to a movie called: EAGLE EYE.…in which “any US Cit­i­zen can be ACTIVATED for the pur­pose of National Defense…according to the CON-STITUTION.  This would be because Arti­cle 2 Sec­tion 3 (accord­ing to me and Patrick Henry…among oth­ers) grants the Pres­i­dent (i.e. Supreme Commander-in-Chief) the “pow­ers of a King”.

If you are unfa­mil­iar with the “pow­ers of a King” then another great movie wherein THEY told every­one that lit­tle secret about “the Pow­ers of a King” was PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END…in the scene where a par­lay is called between Lord Becket and Eliz­a­beth Swan: KING OF THE BREATHREN COURT.   She turns him (Jack Spar­row) over to Lord Becket as .…“Keeng”.

In addi­tion, the act of renounc­ing U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship will not allow per­sons to avoid pos­si­ble pros­e­cu­tion for crimes which they may have com­mit­ted in the United States, or escape the repay­ment of finan­cial oblig­a­tions pre­vi­ously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States cit­i­zens abroad.

No abscond­ing DEBTORS allowed.   Can’t flee the mortgages…or the taxes.   S.O.L.  (sorry, out of luck)

Par­ents can­not renounce U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship on behalf of their minor chil­dren.


Who’s your “daddy” now?


I sug­gest you Google or find a Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary and look for the term: parens patraie and learn more about it.  For instance:  from wikipedica; Parens patriae relates to a notion ini­tially invoked by the King’s Bench in the six­teenth cen­tury in cases of non com­pos men­tis adults”.  http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae

And, this is an entirely dif­fer­ent con­ver­sa­tion about the effects of this act of Congress.…

Please con­sider the effects of renounc­ing U.S. Cit­i­zen­ship, described above, before tak­ing this seri­ous and irrev­o­ca­ble action.

This is why I don’t par­tic­i­pate in “their pri­vate code”…I use Inter­na­tional Law because Inter­na­tional Law is the “Supreme Law of the Land”.



Farm­ers #4; Anti-Federalist Papers

US Con­sti­tu­tion; Arti­cle 2 sec­tion 3 and Arti­cle 6 sen­tence 2   (read what Patrick Henry; the his­to­rian of the time and Attor­ney, had to say about the future”)

Make no mis­take about it, Inter­na­tional Law is Supreme Law of the Land called Amer­ica; and it trumps that “code” (i.e.secret lan­guage) every time.

And that, as they say.…“is all, folks”.

THE LEGAL MATRIX: A WEB OF CATCH 22s.….coming soon to a web­site “near” you.

Thanks for the query, Mr. Cameron.   These are fun.


David-Parker: Williams

P.S.  Some other mate­r­ial for your “edi­fi­ca­tion pleasure”.….


P.S.S.  O.…please go back and click the link in the web­site link that you sent…referencing (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) and pay par­tic­u­lar atten­tion that this only applies to sub­sec­tion (5) of part (a) of § 1481 of “THEIR CODE”.  There are other sec­tions that cor­re­spond and con­form more cor­rectly with the Treaties and Con­ven­tions on Nat­u­ral­iza­tion signed by the United States.



Blog Categories

Recent Comments
No one has commented recently

This website is powered by Spruz