Lawful Right To Legal, Decent, Honest And Truthful Environment Friendly Employment For All Of Us by Nick St Clare

UUEP&D:

"Un-necessary, Unreasonable Environmental Pollution & Damage"

Eco Tort Website
Lawful Right To Legal, Decent, Honest And Truthful Environment Friendly Employment For All Of Us by Nick St Clare
Lawful Right To Legal, Decent, Honest And Truthful Environment Friendly Employment For All Of Us by Nick St Clare

EcoTort Blog
EcoTort

This web site has been written with the aim in mind of firmly establishing the lawful right to legal, decent, honest and truthful environment friendly employment for all of us.

In order to achieve this end, it is proposed that the information outlined is made available to as many people as possible, thereby exerting the maximum pressure for change.

In view of the massive profits being made by those companies engaged in causing UUEP&D, it would seem unlikely that they will be agreeable to such a proposal without some firm persuasion.

To be both peaceful and effective, any such proposal, and any intended persuasion will need to be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people; including the media, the police force, and the armed services.

Bearing in mind that from an ecological point of view, it is in everyone's best interest to have a healthy environment in which to live, this should not be too difficult...

In the last few years several means have been utilised for this purpose; including four successful theatrical performances; using the internet; distributing leaflets; talking to people; performance poetry; attending demonstrations; and contacting MP's and other people in positions of 'authority'.

This year a film will be made and distributed, initially on dvd and video, with clips to be made available on this web site.

If you are interested in supporting this venture in any way, mailto: support @ reclaimthelaw.org

THE GREEN MOVEMENT:

"PROTECTING LIFE AND PROPERTY, AND UPHOLDING THE LAW!"

The Fight Against Terrorism

It must be obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense, that no matter how much electronic surveilance is used, how many emails are intercepted, how many 24hr security checks at airports, or how many spy satelites are employed to thwart the efforts of third world 'terrorists'; someone with a 'beard and a knife' (sic) will get through, and yet again, make a mockery of the best 'security' available to western 'civil' -isation.

If Bush continues to bomb Afghanistan it seems highly likely that retaliation will occur, which could well include the use of biological weapons far more deadly than 'Anthrax'.

The fight against Western Capitalism (not to say that capitalism in itself is evil, except for the many instances when it exploits poorer people unfairly or damages the earth), is to a certain degree synonymous with the non-violent struggle, amongst certain more enlightened folk in the West itself, against un-necessary environmental pollution and damage.
('evil' = 'live' spelled backwards).

If the Western 'Powers' can declare a state of emergency and send tens of thousands of people off to kill each other, it is quite certain that they could send the same number of people off to help the Afghan people plant a Forest Garden in their country.

This would set a good example for other world powers by actively taking care of the earth, and provide a long term 'self help' solution to the food problems in Afghanistan; instead of violently defending a defective way of life which, it has been conclusively shown, is actively destroying the earth and ALL it's people.

One of the first aims of anyone who cares about the future of humanity must be to ensure that every woman, man and child is adequately supplied with the basic necessities fof self-fulfilment.

This is possible.

Agroforestry, a system of intensive land use in which economically valuable trees are grown in association with other crops, is being developed in many countries, notably Asia, Africa and Australia.

It is applicable to almost every inhabitable part of the world. There are trees and hardy perrenial shrubs that will grow in the most unpromising terrains, such as deserts, rocky hilsides and marshes. These provide nurse conditions for more tender crops, such as fruit and vegetables.

By means of agroforestry, a world population far higher than the present could be supplied with balanced diets, fuel, energy, fibres, building materials, medicines and the vital soul-food of beautiful environments.

Full employment for all can be assured in the work of managing agroforestry plantations and processing their products.

The resources involved are renewable -therefore virtually infinite- and do not pollute the environment. Ugly cities and industrial wastelands can be made beautiful and healthy, and the world's climate improved. Trees, by attracting rainwater and controling the movement of ground water through their roots, help prevent both droughts and floods. their stabilising effects also help prevent erosion and landslides.

Millions of families and small communities can become largely self sufficient in the basic necessities of life.

With effective leadership, members of different ethnic groups could be enabled to transcend their rivalries in improving their environment and supplying their needs.

Great programs of planting and irrigation should replace wars in the Middle East and throughout the world, the concerted aim being to overcome poverty, humger, and disease.

see www.permaculture.org

Unifying forces are needed to overcome the egotism that divides people.

The common celebration of the great sacred rites, which gives expression simultaneously to the interrelation and social articulation of family and state is the means which needs to be employed by society to unite people.

Sacred music and ceremony arouse a strong tide of emotion shared by all hearts in unison, awakening a consciousness of the common origins of all creatures.

In this way diversity is overcome and rigidity is dissolved.

A further means to the same end is co-operation in great general undertakings that set a high goal for the will of the people; in the common concentration on this goal, personal barriers are minimised,

just as when a ship is passing through a great storm, all hands must unite in a joint task.

THE DUTY OF CARE

There is a law of social behaviour which must always apply, to any group of creatures, at any time; in the past, and in the present, and in the future; in any place, in any possible universe.

This law is simply that any creatures living together in a group do not, as a general rule, injure each other.(If the members of any group were to injure each other as a general rule then that group would be reduced in size until there was only one creature left, which is not a group. It is quite natural in many groups for members to establish a pecking-order and during this process some injury may be done, but once the pecking-order has been established and each group member knows hir place, very little further conflict is seen.)

This law may be applied to any group of creatures, living at any time, in any place; anywhere, in any conceivable universe: therefore; it is a Divine Principle Of Law. (that is if we are to believe in a Divine Architect of any race, creed, colour or gender who created the cosmos,) Even if we do not believe in a Divinity of any kind, the principle still holds good according to both common-sense and simple logic, and therefore applies to any religion, even including atheists.

In British Law today there is the "Duty of Care" which says that:

"YOU MUST TAKE REASONABLE CARE TO AVOID ACTS OR OMISSIONS WHICH YOU CAN REASONABLY FORESEE WOULD BE LIKELY TO INJURE YOUR NEIGHBOUR ."

The Duty of Care is applied to all persons in this country, including Parliament (the only exception being the Queen in person).

ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS LEADING TO U.U.E.P.&D. (UN-NECESSARY OR UNREASONABLE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION & DAMAGE), ARE NOT ONLY LIKELY TO INJURE THE NEIGHBOURS OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE; THEY ARE ALREADY INJURING ALL OF US, ON A MASSIVE SCALE, PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY!

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

(1) NEGLIGENT

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

(2) RECKLESS

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

(3) INTENTIONAL

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

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

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

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

THE DUTY OF CARE - EXAMPLES

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

1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is therefore apparent that:-

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

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

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

(2). And from the second example that:

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

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

There have been many cases which are relevant on the eco front, the most dramatic of which was that of the Ploughshares women who recently broke into British Aerospace and damaged combat aircraft which were to be exported to the Indonesian Government in order to subjugate the natives who were (and still are!) trying to resist the encroachment of western hotel complexes (etc etc) on the forest which is their home. Normally, to break into British Aerospace and damage combat aircraft would, I believe, be a treasonable offence which is still punnishable by death. However, when it was found that prior to this action the women had taken all REASONABLE steps to make their point known (they wrote petitions and staged peaceful demonstrations etc), and it was realised that the matter was genuinely felt to be of sufficient urgence to justify such an action, the women (after serving seversl months remanded in custody) were found NOT GUILTY of any crime.

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

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

I hope this makes things clear, and yes please do let any decent lawyers know about the site. If you want an interesting book to look at, try getting "Blackstone's Criminal Law" from your library!

THE DUTY OF CARE APPLIED TO UUEP&D

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

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

THEREFORE ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS LEADING TO FURTHER U.U.E.P&D. COMMITTED BY PERSONS IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY ARE AT LEAST RECKLESS, IF NOT INTENTIONAL, AND ARE THEREFORE CRIMINAL.

THE DUTY OF CARE APPLIED TO GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALL REASONABLY AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR GREEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,

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

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

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

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

PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The 'Divine Right of Kings' was a doctrine which asserted that the King at any given time was naturally God's Representative on Earth.

As time went by the Kings started to abuse their powers and this gave rise to discontent in the country and eventually the King's ministers grouped together and over-ruled the King, forming the first Parliament and thereby ending the Divine Right of Kings.

The original purpose in creating a Parliament was thus to end the Divine Right of Kings.

Therefore, even though we do not have a written constitution in Britain, it would seem that it must be unconstitutional for Parliament to assume what would appear to be a “Divine Right of Parliament” by enacting: the Public 'Order' Act; the Criminal 'Justice' Act; and now the Anti 'Terrorist' Act, which effectively say that Parliament can now make up any further acts they choose, and we are only allowed to protest against the acts if the Government allows us to do so.

Spirit Versus Form

Spirit and form are in relationship with one another: they cannot be separated. When one emerges, the other recedes, and if this dance is continuous and balanced, we experience beauty in both, and accept the changes each brings to our lives. Spirit unbalanced by form brings chaos. It unleashes energy without direction or the power to move with an intelligence that is harmoniously purposeful for the unity of the relationship. Form unbalanced by spirit stifles life. It controls unmercifully in an attempt to prevent change, and ultimately extinguishes the breath of life that once gave birth and meaning to it’s existence.

Issues of imbalance arise when people start to question and examine the social and religious codes of behaviour which are used as rules and sanctions for relating to other human beings. When social and religious laws reflect the wisdom of universal laws mixed up with human fallibility, it’s up to human beings to distinguish between the two. Sometimes truth and error are little more than that which is continuous and permanent versus that born of human limitation which is temporary. These distinctions need to be made in any examination of established forms of behaviour and rituals when people wish to replace or change them.

When forms of behaviour persist beyond the spiritual message they were intended to convey, the life of a person or a nation will dim, and the evil side of form will take it’s place as people lie, steal and kill in order to preserve their status, authority, and cherished institutions.

Likewise when existing forms are too rapidly destroyed without purposeful direction and wisdom to replace them, chaos may come to prevail over co-operation. When spirit is manifest without form, it’s evil side comes forth as madness.

Unifying Forces are needed to overcome the egotism that divides people.

Sacred music and ceremony arouse a strong tide of emotion shared by all hearts in unison, awakening a consciousness of the common origins of all creatures. In this way diversity is overcome and rigidity is dissolved.

just as when a ship is passing through a great storm, all hands must unite in a joint task.

THE GOLD-SMITHS' CON-TRICK

Many years ago, the only way to transport wealth was to place it in a strong-box and guard it while moving it from one castle to another. As time went on the risk of it being robbed grew to such an extent that one day, somebody, somewhere in a castle, who owed a debt to somebody else in another castle, had the bright idea of writing a letter to the person who was to receive the gold. The letter would have been roughly as follows:-

Dear Friend,

In view of the continued and increasing activities of the thieves & pirates who are stealing our cash, I am writing to you to suggest that I keep the gold here for safety, and that I write you a note promising that the gold is now yours; after all, the risk of a single person with such a note being stopped by these reprobates is much less than if we were to have a large and heavily guarded convoy carrying a big box full of gold bullion. I will have to charge you a small amount to pay my guards to keep the thieves out. If you are in agreement with me on this matter then please write back and let me know.
Yours etc.
H.M.Blackguard. Esq.

In due course the friend wrote back saying that (s)he was in agreement and that (s)he was looking forward to receiving the note.

Well, the person who had written the note had now paid the debt (on paper) but they still had the gold! This person also owed a similar amount of gold to another friend in another castle so (s)he wrote another letter promising the same gold to the second friend who also agreed that it was a good idea, not knowing that the gold was already promised to someone else.

The person writing the notes had now doubled their material wealth by doing absolutely no work whatsoever! This is how the first bank was formed.

Since then, the banks have increased their wealth in this way more than thirty times, and they are also charging interest on any loans which they are gracious enough to grant to the working person (subject, of course to status)

THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT

Ten or twenty years ago most of us were very much less aware of the damage we were then doing to the Earth. Many of us were quite willing under those circumstances to agree to a mortgage contract binding us to work for many years in order to own a home for our family.

Now that it has come to our attention that our employment is causing so much harm to the Earth we find ourselves returning from work to be confronted by our children saying things like: "Daddy I hate you, you're destroying the Earth and I'm the one who's got to live here for the rest of my life!"

In an ideal world we would have taken more care to find a more environmentally friendly job in the first place (if indeed there was one available), yet it is hardly reasonable in the face of our parents, our teachers, and the many other pressures upon us at the time that we could see how we were being so misled into the situation we presently find ourselves in.

If we do not continue in this reckless employment, there being little or no employment available which does no UUEP&D, we cannot pay the mortgage, and our family and ourselves will be made homeless.

The situation is that having agreed to work for thirty years or so in a job which would improve our standard of living and that of our family, we now find ourselves being unduly influenced or coerced by the mortgage contract (or the rent agreement) knowingly (i.e. CRIMINALLY) to cause Un-necessary and Unreasonable Environmental Pollution and Damage to the planet earth upon which our neighbours, our families, and we ourselves have to live.

In Contract Law it states quite plainly that “Any contract which unduly influences or coerces a person to commit a CRIME is a void contract and as such is unenforceable!!”

You Can't Have A Legally Binding Contract Which Forces A Person To Commit A Crime!

This is to say that when enough of us get together and make enough reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned noise about this issue then the money-lenders will not be able to repossess our houses when we refuse to destroy the Earth in order to 'pay' for them.

Enough of us must get together and lobby our MP's, our solicitors, our mortgage companies and bank managers; buttonhole our friends, our acquaintances and our relatives. -If we are to become effective against those who would force us to destroy our precious planet we must form groups and protest.

VIOLENCE IN THE HOME.

Extremely high levels of stress are being induced in many people due to the ripping tension we feel when we realise that in our efforts to pay the mortgage we are literally having to destroy the Earth we live on. In order to counteract the symptoms of this stress doctors are prescribing anti-depressants and sleeping pills on an unprecedented scale. The facts are that: (1) many of these drugs are highly addictive, (2) they have some very unpleasant side effects, and (3) prescribing such drugs does not solve the problem!

THE JOB-SEEKERS' ALLOWANCE

Any person who is conscious of the serious threat due to UUEP&D cannot lawfully be available for any work which causes UUEP&D on the grounds that to take such work is to act knowingly in a way which will likely injure their neighbour, which is reckless and therefore criminal. Furthermore, in the face of the most serious threat due to UUEP&D, one can only make one's self available for work which is of benefit to our common environment on the grounds that to fail to take action on this most urgent matter is an omission which will beyond reasonable doubt very likely cause further injury to one's neighbour.

Any attempt by the authorities or others knowingly to unduly influence a person or persons to take work which either causes UUEP&D , or which fails (i.e. omits) to be part of a remedy for the present untenable situation, would surely be unduly influencing or coercing such persons recklessly to breach the Duty Of Care.

Such an attempt by the authorities would therefore be an undue influence or coercive, and therefore criminal in itself.

THE LAW IS ON OUR SIDE.

Every police officer in this country takes a vow of office, arguably the most important part of which is:

“I PROMISE TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY AND TO UPHOLD THE LAW.”

The most serious threat to life and property and the most serious breach of the law are both arguably due to acts and omissions leading to UUEP&D.

Therefore, in the face of the threat due to UUEP&D every police officer in this country promises to be an eco-activist.

Conversely, anyone who is, or who becomes an environmentalist, is protecting life and property from the most serious threat due to UUEP&D, and is upholding the law which says that “you must take reasonable care to a void acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”.

Our present government claims to be in favour of law and order. When there are jobs which benefit our environment instead of destroying it we will all feel much better and there will be much less crime as a result.

HOMELESSNESS.

Permaculture is the most environment-friendly way to use the Earth, it is highly labour-intensive and therefore by it's implementation in a ‘national emergency’ (as outlined above) there will of necessity be housing made available for large numbers of people on the land.

GENETIC ENGINEERING.

Genetic engineering is surely a case where it must be seen that mutations due to the NEAR-CERTAINTY of inter-species cross fertilisation taking place, will more than very likely cause what may reasonably be termed as horrific injury; in the same way that injury was seen to be done years ago by the Welcome Foundation in the infamous THALIDOMIDE cases. Only a WORLD WIDE BAN on the practice of genetic engineering can possibly avert this hideous threat to the well-being of the eco-system on Planet Earth.

GENERAL STRIKE.

Millions of us are working to support families in jobs which we know are damaging and destroying the environment our families have to live in.

This is clearly insane! It is also illegal.

Animals living in groups do not as a general rule injure each other - if they did, the group would not survive.

Animals were living on the earth according to this law of social behaviour for millions of years before humans ever existed.

In British law today the duty of care says you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. To knowingly fail to uphold this reasonable, prudent, well-intentioned standard of behaviour is called recklessness.

The duty of care is used in law today to make new law. If you can show that your behaviour is reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned then you are not guilty (there are times when it is reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned to break the written law).

Acts or omission leading to Unnecessary or Unreasonable Environmental Pollution & Damage (U.U.E.P.&D.) are not only likely to injure the neighbours of those responsible for the damage, they're already injuring all of us on a massive scale, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

Acts and omissions leading UUEP&D are therefore reckless in law.

Most working people have mortgages which force them to do jobs which cause U.U.E.P.&D. These mortgage contracts were entered in good faith, however the consequences of UUEP&D are now becoming more obvious. Parents are returning from work only to told by their children that the work they are doing is destroying the environment they will have to live in for the rest of their lives.

Anyone who refuses to work under these conditions would seem to be in danger of having their family’s house repossessed by the mortgage company; however it would seem that the mortgage contract is a contract unduly influencing or coercing millions of people to commit recklessness in their daily work.

Therefore, the mortgage contract is void, and unenforceable: The mortgage companies have no right to repossess in these circumstances.

Your countryside needs you!

We lawfully assert the right to work together to make the environment better for ourselves and our children, - instead of being forced to destroy it by people who never laid one brick on top of another, yet claim to own the houses our forebears built for us.
STRIKE NOW FOR OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE!
The green movement - protecting life and property and upholding the law!

Re-Tort!

Friends, humans, countryfolk,
Lend us your ears;
We come to change our Government,
Not to praise it;
To disempower the shirking element
Who on their backsides sit,
While gathering our taxes
Who say they're doing their bit.

Our Environment was heaven-sent,
Did you see where it went?
It must be bent, It must be negligent
On the part of the Government
To authorise so much harm
To this world which has such charm!

So while the Government continues
To fail to provide the resources we need
To prevent this suicide,
We'll pay no more tax-revenue
To continue down this avenue
Of destruction and disaster
They're our servants,
We're their masters!

It's illegal to pay a servant
To commit a negligent act.
The Government are civil servants;
We, their masters pay them
That's where it's at!
So it's illegal to pay a tax
To this Government that's lax
In it's duty of care
For the Environment we all must share!

Because the common-law says
You must be careful in your ways
Not to injure your neighbour:
A clean Environment we need
To sow our daily seed,
And a World without health
Is a World without wealth!

You Law Lords in our House of Lords
Must force negligent companies
To cease their pollution immediately
And to use the confiscated property
For the benefit of our Ecology!

Yes, the collectors of tax
Have been getting very lax
Upon the peoples' backs,
Can you see the cracks
In the makeup?

If this country went to war
Of resources we'd want no more,
Yet the sickness from pollution
Needs a grand solution,
Resources at least as great
To save us from this fate!

So we will pay no more tax
Until the Government acts
To facilitate the Nation's
Environment salvation
Only true respect for Creation
Will save us from damnation!

So now that we may use
The resources we need to choose
To redress the balance between
The order and the Chaos that we've seen.

Before Earth's Spirit's all burned,
Her gifts gratuitously spurned
We'll take the lessons we have learned
And create the World for which we've yearned.

If you can call yourself a blade,
Then live for Mother Nature's glade;
Trees infused with Sunlight-
Useless fears from peers take flight!

AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE

- is damaging or destroying any property with intent to endanger life or being reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered. (MAXIMUM LIFE SENTENCE)

CITIZEN'S ARREST

FOR BEING AN ACCESSORY

BEFORE, AND/OR DURING, AND/OR AFTER THE FACT

TO THE OFFENCE OF

AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO THE EARTH OR A PART OF IT.

Dear _____________________ , on this day, the ___ of ________ 1999, we, the undersigned, have made a Citizen’s Arrest on ____________________ being [an] accessory[y] [ies] [before] and/ [during] and/or [after] the fact to the offence[s] listed below:- AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO THE EARTH, -that is damaging or destroying any property with intent to endanger life, or being reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered. The list of offences includes:- 1._____________________________________________________ 2._____________________________________________________ 3._____________________________________________________ 4._____________________________________________________ 5._____________________________________________________ 6._____________________________________________________

We have asked the accused (Name)_______________________________ to accompany us to:
(a) [ the Police Station at ______________________________________ -this being the nearest available Police Station ] or
(b) [ you ( -Name ) ____________________________ ( & No. ) -being the nearest available police officer ] with a view to having the accused person(s) arrested and charged for the offence(s) outlined above.

Building new roads is damaging and destroying thousands upon thousands of acres of what is often prime agricultural land, people’s homes, areas of outstanding natural beauty, of special scientific interest or all of these combined; this (predominantly unnecessary and unreasonable) damage and destruction is being done in the course of building roads which (according to a Royal Commission Report) are demonstrably endangering lives on an unprecedented scale through (for instance) much increased pollution and road traffic accidents.

If recent history is any guide at all then it may clearly be seen that as road travel has been made more convenient, there has been a consistent and corresponding rise in the number of cars on the roads.

It would seem obvious that the more cars there are on the roads then the more road accidents there are likely to be, and this has indeed proven to be the case. Another selling point for the Roads Lobby is the reduction in noise and pollution levels when (for instance) a bypass is built around a town.

Now it may be true that the noise and pollution levels may, for a while, be reduced in that particular town; what is not so well advertised though is that a “better” road here will also serve to take yet more traffic to another town or community elsewhere, maybe yours!

It has been said time and again that what we need is NOT more roads but better Public Transport to relieve commuter traffic in particular and all traffic in general.

We quote the British Medical Journal 1990 in which it says that "The most effective way of ensuring clean air in our lungs is to lower our dependence upon cars and lorries".

Widespread international surveys have shown repeatedly that the instance of asthma is by far the highest near to major roads.

Asthma is a very debilitating disease, and our children are the nearest to the car exhaust-pipe by simple virtue of their height.

Unifying forces are needed to overcome the egotism that divides people.

Sacred music and ceremony arouse a strong tide of emotion shared by all hearts in unison, awakening a consciousness of the common origins of all creatures.

In this way diversity is overcome and rigidity is dissolved.

,just as when a ship is passing through a great storm,

all hands must unite in a joint task.

UNION RING

This Union Ring site is owned by nick.

'THE SLEEPING OF BEAUTY'

- mission statement: "To Awaken and Empower the Inner Child, Asserting the Lawful Right to Eco-Friendly Employment For All Peoples".

- a story of communication, understanding, forgiveness, and love ...

- a 35 minute production which has already been performed four times as a successful piece of theatre.

- in this mythical, ECO-ACTIVE, documentary, faeirey-tale adventure for children of all ages, potential of humanity's soul is released in a magical realisation of its true and sacred nature; challenging and empowering us NOW to use all our resources and technology appropriately; thereby putting an end to poverty, and turning our world into a beautiful permaculture garden (www.permaculture.org) for present and future generations.

SYNOPSIS:

The story begins:

It is 15000 years ago, there are no people living in Albion, the nearest thing to people in those days being fairies.

Fairies live in the astral or spirit world, and do not have material bodies, so they don't eat food; they don't need clothes, houses, or fire.

Consequently, the fairies have never cut down any trees, and the forest is in it's original pristine condition.

Some bronze-age people arrive from europe, the fairies meet the people, the King and the Queen of the fairies fall in love with the human children, and they want one more than anything, but they don't know how to get one because they are fairies...!

The K and Q of the fairies ask Pan and Pandora to open their box, which they do, and they find out how to have children from the magic knowledge contained in the box.

Next the K & Q want to celebrate the birth of their child, so they find out from the box how to build a palace.

To build the palace, they have to cut down lots of trees.

P & P rebel against the K &Q for cutting down the trees; so P&P are cast out into the forest, branded as evildoers.

By cutting down so many trees, the K&Q damage and destroy the astral energy field which the trees generate, and upon which the fairies depend for their lives in the astral world.

All the beings from the astral world (fairies, elves, pixies, etc....) fall into the material world, and get material bodies. ( - and so, here we all are...! * :+)

With their material bodies, they get material appetites, including hunger.

Because the K&Q and (all their crew) are working so hard with the humans to build the palace, they get enormous appetites and take all the food from the forest, which means there is no food left in the forest for Pan and Pandora (and all their crew), who, through no fault of their own (except that they opened the box in the first place!), have now also fallen into the material realm.

As there is no food left in the forest for P&P and their crew, they get very hungry, and they start to steal food from the palace; so the K&Q build a wall around it, turning it into a castle.

The story continues to the present day, with a simple philosophy, attempting to explain how we have arrived in a situation where there is serious environmental degradation and gross social injustice, trying at the same time to reduce blame as much as possible, - because while we are all blaming each other for the mess we are in, we will never be able to get together and sort it out!

We then venture into a possible future where there is a re-evolution, using law to assert the right to eco-friendly employment for all people....

where the hypothesis/idea is presented that:

IT IS ILLEGAL TO PAY TAX UNTIL WE DECLARE A "STATE OF EMERGENCY" FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

The basis for this argument is:

The "Duty of Care" states that "You must take reasonable care to avoid ACTS or OMISSIONS which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."

1. Since 1947, the Crown Proceedings Act, the Government has been subject to the Duty of Care.

2. Many acts and omissions causing "un-necessary or un-reasonable environmental pollution or damage", are injuring all of us now.

They are injuring us on such a scale, that the threat of un-necessary and un-reasonable pollution and damage, to our environment, is arguably of a similar magnitude to the threat that war poses, although it is of a very different quality.

3.To KNOWINGLY injure your neighbour is RECKLESS and CRIMINAL.

4. Therefore, it would seem that successive governments have KNOWINGLY passed ILLEGAL acts of parliament (ie. ACTED KNOWINGLY) to allow "un-necessary and un-reasonable environmental pollution and damage", and also have KNOWINGLY failed (ie. OMITTED) to control the "un-necessary and un-reasonable environmental pollution and damage", therefore (it would seem that..?) the GOVERNMENT IS RECKLESS BY ACT AND OMISSION IN IT'S DUTY OF CARE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. (see 1a. above)

5. It is illegal for one person to pay another to commit a reckless act or omission. (The vicarious responsibility of a master for the act of a servant).

Therefore, (it would seem that..!) as the government is composed of civil servants, IT IS ILLEGAL TO PAY TAX UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT STOPS BEING RECKLESS.

6. It would follow that if the threat of "un-necessary and un-reasonable environmental pollution and damage" is of a magnitude similar to the threat that a war would pose, then: "IT IS ILLEGAL TO PAY TAX UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES THE SAME AMOUNT OF RESOURCES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AS WOULD BE USED TO FIGHT A WAR".

7. Ie. "IT IS ILLEGAL TO PAY TAX UNTIL WE DECLARE A "STATE OF EMERGENCY" FOR THE ENVIRONMENT"

8. Could it conceivably be that if this argument were publicised in a context of MINIMUM BLAME, and then put into practice we would see (1) an end to un-necessary and un-reasonable environmental pollution and damage AND (2) an end to war?

BLAME REDUCTION:Do you consider that a state of emergency for the environment could realistically be declared, which would help

(a) to save the earth and

(b) to stop war?

It seems unlikely that the unity of effort required to induce such a state of emergency could be achieved unless or until people can stop blaming each other for the situation we are in.
A new philosophical argument is being developed, the intention being radically to reduce this blame, to the extent where such a unified effort will become possible.

How do you think this can be done?

If we start with the assumption that everyone wants to be happy (?), and that everyone’s happiness is ulitimately dependant upon eveyone else’s happiness (how can anyone be TRULY HAPPY while there is even one starving child in the world?), then we can say that anything which anyone does which creates unhappiness is a mistake.

We cannot be BLAMED for a mistake!

Does this mean that whatever we do, there is no blame? This means that we can do anything we want to without fear of punishment???

It is VITAL,for the sake of this argument, to make a clear distinction between (a)persuading a person to take responsibility for their actions, and (b)blaming them for their actions. This is because while we are BLAMING oneanother for the situation we are in, we will NEVER be able to work together to sort it out....

The original justification for blaming is to prevent 'wrong-doing', yet on reflection it becomes apparent that in many cases blaming actually prevents us being able to take responsibility for the problems we face.

What do you mean by this?

If I am blaming someone else for a situation, then it is their fault, so why should I do anything about it?

If, on the other hand, I am blaming myself for a situation, I become crippled with remorse, I come to hate myself and I become unable do anything about it..

Under either (and/or both...) of these conditions it is extremely difficult for anyone to do anything constructive.

And what is the nature of this argument which can remove blame?

The basis of the argument is the assertion (made by the Dali Llama in his book "Ancient Wisdom, Modern World; Ethics for a New Millenium)", that: "the conscious intention of all life in the universe is to seek happiness", (the same as a flower will grow towards the light…)

If this is true, then we may assert that anything which anyone does which creates unhappiness is an unconscious act..

An unconscious act is a re-action…

And a reaction is something we are not in control of; therefore, how can anyone be blamed for anything which causes unhappiness??

But what about a planned act of violence, or revenge, isn't that a conscious act?

We must realise that pre-meditated and planned acts of violence stem from reactive beliefs we form about the world, which are due to abuse we have suffered, and are misguided attempts to seek happiness (how can anyone be TRULY HAPPY while there is even one starving child in the world?).
When we know this, for our own actions, and for the actions of others, we can begin to see the possibility for forgiveness.

Martha Nussbaum, in her philosophical book "The Therapy of Desire" Theory and Practice in Hellenistic

Ethics, says that:

"the only real and legitimate aim of philosophy is the curing of souls".

It is very true that much philosophical debate (due to it's re-active nature) has more to do with point scoring between opposing sides, than with the curing of souls... So, what is a cured soul?"

Ms Nussbaum answers this question with words to the effect that: "a cured soul is happy and healthy; inhabiting a body which will tend to walk with a spring in her/his step and perhaps even a smile on his/her face…"

How many such people do we see in our streets these days? -

Not very many!

Ms Nussbaum then asks: What is it that takes us from this state of happiness?

- and she answers by saying that: it is the emotions!

Then she states:

(1) ALL of the emotions have their basis in rationally held beliefs,

and

(2) there four types of rationally held beliefs: (a)true (ie. ‘good’, ‘healthy’), (b)false (ie. ‘evil’, ‘unhealthy’), (c)conscious, and (d)unconscious.

An UNCONSCIOUS belief which is FALSE (ie. ‘evil’, or unhealthy) will make us react (because the belief is unconscious) in an inappropriate (‘evil’, ‘unhealthy’) way (because the belief itself is 'false', ‘evil’, or ‘unhealthy’).

An UNCONSCIOUS belief which is TRUE (‘good’, ‘healthy’) will still make us react (because the belief is unconscious), but in an appropriate way (because the belief itself is true; ie. ‘good’, or ‘healthy’).

A CONSCIOUS belief which is FALSE will lead us to respond (because it is a conscious belief), yet still in an inappropriate, unhealthy way (because the belief is false or unhealthy).

Finally, a CONSCIOUS belief which is TRUE should lead us to respond (because it is a conscious belief) in an appropriate way, (because it is a true belief).

Thus, the aim of philosophy is:

1. To bring unconscious beliefs into consciousness. Ie. to turn re-actions, (which control us); into responses, (which we can control),

and

2. To render false (‘evil’,‘unhealthy’) beliefs true (‘good’, ‘healthy’). Ie. to turn inappropriate behaviour into appropriate behaviour

Or, putting it another way: to turn inappropriate emotional re-actions into appropriate emotional responses.

Response-Ability VS Re-Activity:-

The act of blaming ourselves (or others) for an issue seems to be an emotional Re-Action, which actively prevents us (or them) taking Response-Ability for that issue.

If we have the (false) belief that someone else is to blame for an issue, then we may be apt to say that it is THEIR FAULT and why should WE do anything about it, so we become UNWILLING to do anything about it....

If, on the other hand, we have the (false) belief that we are to blame for an issue, we may become so overburdened with guilt, self- loathing, and remorse that we become UNABLE to do anything constructive about it.

If we can manage to reduce blame to an acceptable minimum, we just might be able to unite under the "Duty of Care" in a combined effort to create a permaculture garden on the Earth (see [www.permaculture.org] and [www.reclaimthelaw.org] for details).

Love is the Answer!
Without Forgiveness there can be no Love.
Without Understanding there can be no Forgiveness.
Without Communication there can be no Understanding...

1) COMMUNICATE,

2) UNDERSTAND,

3) FORGIVE,

4) LOVE!I am planning to improvise a lot of the dialogue in rehearsals so as to reduce production time (the cast will have scope to make up a lot of their own lines which means less memorising, so less time rehearsing), also it means that the performance is coming more from each actor's heart.

I envisage evolving a final script through directed, improvised rehearsals; although any comments / suggestions / criticisms prior to that would be most welcome.

As another way of reducing time and costs, we will be making use of a narrator who will play the part of Merlin; he is not written into the script yet, because until we have had some production meetings with the cast and crew, we will not know which scenes we can realistically film, and which will have to be narrated.

I have two marquees which will be the main accommodation for the production, with the possible use of a large dutch barn.

If all goes well we will be doing the rehearsals and the filming in and around the Ashdown Forest, about a mile away from where Pooh Bear lives! (he is going to have a part too....).
Food will be cooked communally, vegetarian, mostly organic.

Sleeping accommodation is bring a tent and sleeping bag. Anyone who wants to, will be able to put their tent up inside one of the marquees, as it will probably still be quite cold at Easter.

If you would like to collaborate in this project, probably the best way to look at it is as a camping holiday with twenty or thirty other like-minded people, making the film of y-our dreams come true....
Here is a short synopsis of the story, together with a precis of the legal thesis which it presents, and a rough philosophy of how to reduce blame, (after all, how can we work together to build a beautiful world when everyone is blaming themselves and/or eachother for the issues we face??)
I am also planning a documentary and two short films on the issues raised....

Well, I hope this makes some kind of sense to you, it's really difficult to write it all down, much easier (for me) to talk about it!

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.....?

Yours sincerely,
Nick St Clare

mobile: 07 7877 32739
web: www.reclaimthelaw.org
email: nick @ reclaimthelaw.org

profiles:

1) http://shootingpeople.org/cards/nick_st_clare

2) www.thevipnetwork.comHIGH TIDES AND GREEN GRASS FOREVER!

Links to websites:

Eco Tort Website
http://www.ecotort.gn.apc.org

EcoTort Blog
http://www.ecotort.blogspot.com

Love for Life

Search Love for Life

Main Menu

Navigation

Mailing List

Active forum topics

New forum topics

Recent comments

Lawful Right To Legal, Decent, Honest And Truthful Environment Friendly Employment For All Of Us by Nick St Clare

You can now support the Love for Life Campaign

Name:
E-mail: