Thanks RIU! we filed yesterday...

i got up to this part "consent of the governed"
by consent do you mean the majority of people who decided to vote for the elected government
which often accounts for less than half of the population

consent of the individual is not required only consent of a voting majority
group consent ?
it would seem all people will be governed weather they give individual consent or not
 
i got up to this part "consent of the governed"
by consent do you mean the majority of people who decided to vote for the elected government
which often accounts for less than half of the population

consent of the individual is not required only consent of a voting majority
group consent ?
it would seem all people will be governed weather they give individual consent or not

"The People" are responsible for declaring their "certain rights held by the People", an individual does not equal "The People" in that context...an individual can only reach for rights already declared and established by "The People" according to Federal court interpretation in a case I was personally litigating. The recent Supreme Court ruling pretty much reinforces that notion, all of which is based on the Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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,"...

and of course also based on the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution/Bill of Rights:
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
If what you're saying is accurate, then maybe NORML needs to pack it in. I've never been a great fan of them...

I couldn't agree more...from my view norml is simply working to hand the cannabis plant over to corporate control on a silver platter while at the same time insisting this issue has nothing to do with naturally endowed human rights...
 
"The People" are responsible for declaring their "certain rights held by the People", an individual does not equal "The People" in that context...an individual can only reach for rights already declared and established by "The People" according to Federal court interpretation in a case I was personally litigating."

yeh sounds pretty much the same thing "the people" are the group/mob/collectivie/society/government
the person is the individual , the rights of the group/mob/collective/society are greater than the rights of each individual member (person)

the individuals rights are "licensed" back to the individual by the group who claims authority over the individual using
the "power of enforcement" to secure these rights

should an individual have the option to opt out of group control ?
an individual could still employ other individuals to enforce rights
 
yeh sounds pretty much the same thing "the people" are the group/mob/collectivie/society/government
the person is the individual , the rights of the group/mob/collective/society are greater than the rights of each individual member (person)

the individuals rights are "licensed" back to the individual by the group who claims authority over the individual using
the "power of enforcement" to secure these rights

should an individual have the option to opt out of group control ?
an individual could still employ other individuals to enforce rights

of course...imo the choice of ultimate individual sovereignty is always an option for any of us, but until one serves notice and declares such, we are still living under the Constitutional contract which is instructed by the Declaration of Independence of "The People" collectively by way of majority rules etc...
My son filled all his notice and withdraw papers for establishing his individual sovereignty and it's quite a chore but we should all have the choice imo even if only done verbally in court. Such a maneuver still would not exempt a human from 'justice' in terms of hurting other folks or the commons in whatever way etc...
 
of course...imo the choice of ultimate individual sovereignty is always an option for any of us, but until one serves notice and declares such, we are still living under the Constitutional contract which is instructed by the Declaration of Independence of "The People" collectively by way of majority rules etc...
My son filled all his notice and withdraw papers for establishing his individual sovereignty and it's quite a chore but we should all have the choice imo even if only done verbally in court. Such a maneuver still would not exempt a human from 'justice' in terms of hurting other folks or the commons in whatever way etc...

if no harm or loss
many laws from what i can see were put in place to stop this from happening at least in Europe anyway
statelessness is not allowed
all individuals must belong to a country if they give up citizenship of one country they must join another
if they do not join another country they remain a citizen of the original country

new countries can't be formed because all land has been claimed
the only free space on earth (international waters) no structures can be built that people can inhabit in these waters

so the jurisdiction of the land and the jurisdiction over the individual seems inescapable ?
where ever you are on earth some group will claim jurisdiction over the space your physical body occupies
they will also claim these rights over you directly

the world is full of natural wealth and resources that groups (countries) have already claimed
allowing others the freedom to recreate a new group (country) would be giving up these resources that have already been secured
 
if no harm or loss
many laws from what i can see were put in place to stop this from happening at least in Europe anyway
statelessness is not allowed
all individuals must belong to a country if they give up citizenship of one country they must join another
if they do not join another country they remain a citizen of the original country

new countries can't be formed because all land has been claimed
the only free space on earth (international waters) no structures can be built that people can inhabit in these waters

so the jurisdiction of the land and the jurisdiction over the individual seems inescapable ?
where ever you are on earth some group will claim jurisdiction over the space your physical body occupies
they will also claim these rights over you directly

the world is full of natural wealth and resources that groups (countries) have already claimed
allowing others the freedom to recreate a new group (country) would be giving up these resources that have already been secured

exactly lol so be sure to vote...oh but first write up something for us all to vote on ;)
 
of course...imo the choice of ultimate individual sovereignty is always an option for any of us, but until one serves notice and declares such, we are still living under the Constitutional contract which is instructed by the Declaration of Independence of "The People" collectively by way of majority rules etc...
My son filled all his notice and withdraw papers for establishing his individual sovereignty and it's quite a chore but we should all have the choice imo even if only done verbally in court. Such a maneuver still would not exempt a human from 'justice' in terms of hurting other folks or the commons in whatever way etc...

the native Americans are not allowed to grow hemp because rights they have
are superseded by the anti hemp laws of north america

not sure how an individual with very little power of enforcement within the current system
will manage true separation from the state on the harm or loss principle
if a whole group of people (native americans) were unable to acquire this true separation
 
the native Americans are not allowed to grow hemp because rights they have
are superseded by the anti hemp laws of north america

not sure how an individual with very little power of enforcement within the current system
will manage true separation from the state on the harm or loss principle
if a whole group of people (native americans) were unable to acquire this true separation

Federally recognized tribes only means they are wards of the State, it doesn't mean sovereign I assure you as I have been directly involved with different tribes across the country trying to grow hemp (I was one of the two people who created the Pine Ridge hemp project in 1994), as for the rest of us, I see no valid or practical point to "separation" at this time when we haven't even begun to fulfill our obligations to our Constitutional contract with regards to declaring our as yet un'enumerated "certain rights" and until we do we are just lazy imo and haven't exhausted all possible remedies etc....(just as any judge will tell you if you skipped a step on your way to to the court house)
 
Hey folks, just popped in to update on our sig count so far...we are a little over 2,000 and its going great in spite of norml sending their local goons around to our petitioners telling them to take the petition and get the F out of town :) I guess they are not only offended by freedom but also by democracy...but I already knew that going in, as it's not at all my first rodeo with such folks...
Anywho we need 2,115 valid sigs to qualify for the November ballot so we are aiming to get at least 4,000...currently getting between 200 and 300 a day...
I'll be back to update when we are done petitioning...

lake county freedom to garden human rights restoration act update:

as of last night we are at about 4,500 signatures :)
now we have increased our goal to 6,000:peace:
 
victorygardeninitiiative.jpg

http://freedomtogardenact.org/node/6

Freedom to garden act update:

Yesterday we filed 4,879 signatures with our county elections department.
We needed 2,115 valid sigs to qualify for the November ballot, so its looking like we are qualified.
'The People' never had a chance to vote on govs assumed jurisdiction to outlaw/schedule plants and finally in Lake County they will have that chance.
 
We filed yesterday...Now we have 15 days before we get back a title and summary, then we publish and gather signatures.
In part, the birth of this effort was inspired by the folks here at RIU, and of course ya'll were the first witnesses to see or know of the proposed measure, so thanks :)
Below is the final wording that was filed.




The People of the County of Lake, in the State of California, do hereby decree:

'The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014'


An Ordinance to restore the natural Human Right to grow and use plants for the basic necessities of life.

Whereas in the State of California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to reaffirm and reestablish the fundamental human rights with which they are naturally endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's origins entitle them, and to recognize a decent respect for the opinions of humankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to come forward toward the reestablishment of those rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all humans beings are created equal. That human beings are naturally endowed with certain rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to re-declare and reestablish the inherent human rights that would intrinsically correct such governmental negligence, and to reconstitute such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",
and also in accordance with the California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21.: ..."This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.",
and, also as consistent with County of Lake Ordinance No. 2267 in relation to private property rights, and,
whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, and, whereas in a world which human beings endeavor to enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and where freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of peoples everywhere, be it here proclaimed that it has become necessary to reaffirm and specifically re-constitute the self evident inherent freedom to grow and use plants as described herein:

Section 1., Findings:

That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self evident right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth, and the naturally occurring seeds thereof, to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights have been recognized and acknowledged to exist, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of a government to protect an individual's right to engage in commerce.

Section 1.(a)

That all County of Lake residents residing within the unincorporated areas of the County who exercise the rights described in Section 1. of this Act at their residence within said area, and are compliant with Section 2.(a), and are gardening outside (outdoors) or in a greenhouse (and not withstanding any generally applicable urgency ordinance(s) specifically relating to water conservation), are, as accorded in the paragraphs above, necessarily exempt from any County permitting or other County ordinances that would limit an individual's home gardening efforts or abilities in conjunction with Section 1.

Section 1.(b)

That any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the human rights as described in Section 1. of this Act is unconstitutional by both the Federal Constitutions 9th Amendment, and also by the State Constitutions Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21, and by the fact that such self evident human rights are held in perpetuity by the People.

Section 2., Responsibilities:

Should neighbor complaints that are not related to Section 2.(a) herein, or that are not related to a specific medically verifiable toxic health risk to the public arise as an official complaint to the County as a result of an individual(s) exercising the rights as described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a), (and not withstanding any effected party choosing to seek remedy and or reparations by way of litigation through civil proceedings), all the effected parties shall be directed to mediation provided for by the County of Lake, and if resolution between the effected parties cannot be achieved in a reasonable effort to mediate (to be determined by the appointed mediator), the effected parties shall then continue mediation at their own expense (to be equally divided between the effected parties) until a resolution between the parties can be agreed upon, or until one of the effected parties withdraws from the mediation.

Section 2.(a)

All who exercise the rights described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction, and are responsible to mitigate any possible foreseen negative impacts on the natural environments, and all persons who neglect such practices shall be subject to the authority designated under Section 2.(b) herein, but such remedies are to be used to help individuals come into compliance with this section and not to unreasonably burden individuals who exercise the rights described in Section 1.

Section 2.(b)

The County of Lake Environmental Health Department shall administer over individual circumstances that may arise related to Section 2. and Section 2.(a) herein, but all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a verifiable neighbor (or resident of the county) complaint in writing and signed by the complainant has been officially registered with the county.

Section 3., Special Circumstances:

Any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the Human Rights as described in Section 1. of this Act, (and not withstanding an individual in violation of using illegal gardening chemicals, including but not limited to, certain pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers), is to be set aside unless it can be determined that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of "commerce" related activities as defined herein, or if an individual's violation(s) of Section 2.(a) of this Act are to the extent of violating a criminal statute.

Section 3.(a)

This Act shall not apply in circumstances where (a) private rental or lease agreement(s) (contract) exist(s) pertaining to the occupancy and or use of any private land unless such is otherwise specifically enumerated within said agreement(s) (contract), or unless the agreement(s) (contract) does not specify any conditions or agreement pertaining to outside (or greenhouse) home gardening.

Section 4., Definitions:

(a) For the express purposes of this Act, the word "commerce" shall be taken to mean:
The buying and selling of goods or services in any form, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency (or other such legally recognized tender) for such goods or services.

(b) For the express purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:

A written and delivered inquiry, and an in person inquiry as to responding to (a) specific complaint(s), and to which access to inspect private property shall only be in circumstances where the respondent has voluntarily agreed to and granted such access, or where on an individual basis, a court order has provided for such access.

(c) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the words phrased as "to be used for their own needs" shall be taken to mean:
For use as food, medicine, fiber, fuel, building materials, environmental damage mitigation or other environmental concerns, privacy, aesthetics or ambiance, spiritual/religious requirement, (or other) basic necessities of life.

(d) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the word "natural" and the words phrased as "naturally occurring" shall be taken to mean:
Plant species and varieties of such that have evolved in nature through the traditional pollination and cross pollination processes, be that by wind/weather, or animal (including human) assistance.

(e) For the express purposes of Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:
Any structure where the sun's light can penetrate at least 80% of the roof (ceiling or top) surface and that is intended for and used for growing plants in.

Section 5., Severability:

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The People of the County of Lake hereby declare that we would have adopted this Act irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
outstanding!
 
Back
Top