Home > Uncategorized > The Absolute Human Right to Armed Self-Defense and Armed Personal Safety and Security

The Absolute Human Right to Armed Self-Defense and Armed Personal Safety and Security

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

{You landed in the ARCHIVES!}
{CLICK HERE TO GO THE THE CURRENT HOME PAGE

EMAIL NOTIFYING THE WORLD

FROM: DON HAMRICK, U.S. MERCHANT SEAMAN & UNREPRESENTED CIVIL PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
(American Common Defence Review, (blog))

TO: ALLEGED PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

CC: UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS (135 recipients from 107 nations)
CC: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (16 recipients)
CC: AMBASSADORS AND OFFICIALS OF NATIONS (69 recipients)
CC: CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES (36 recipients)

SUBJ: THE ABSOLUTE HUMAN RIGHT TO PERSONAL ARMED SECURITY AND ARMED SELF-DEFENSE UNDER THE “RIGHT TO LIFE” PROVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

DOWNLOAD FORTHCOMING ADMIRALTY/MARITIME LAWSUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

I am an individual citizen of the United States and recipients of this email will most likely ignore this email simply because I am a political nobody in the world of international affairs of States. But as a merchant seaman of the United States I am directly affected by international affairs of States such as the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization.

Please go to my blog [this blog you are reading now], American Common Defence Review, and download the 472 page Admiralty/Maritime lawsuit against the United States and use it as my “testimony” to any issues affecting the human rights and personal safety and security of seamen from all maritime nations — especially the human right to armed deterence and armed self-defense against piracy on the high seas.

If you will indulge me the privilege as a citizen and merchant seaman of the United States I would like to address the Government and the People of the United States and the Governments and the People of every Nation on Earth on the individual person’s human right to armed personal safety and security and to armed self-defense against the common criminal and against a belligerent and bullish government with the potential or propensity for attacking its own people advancing toward genocide.

It may be a well known fact that Governments are comprised of individual human beings with ambitions and schemes for advancement to greater political power. As a species in the animal kingdom human beings are no different in their primal behavior of predator versus prey. Human beings with their superior intellect have still not evolved beyond predator-prey primal behavior. This is clearly indicated in the continued threat to Mutually Assured Destruction with nuclear warfare as evidenced by Korea and Iran’s saber-rattling postering. It is perhaps an impossibility for human beings as a species to live in peace amongst themselves. From hostile divorces between husband and wife to wars and rumors of wars between nations mankind seems content to live in perpetual turmoil and misery. But I digress with impossible things.

The United States is a nation with a Constitution that places sovereignty with the People of the United States for safe keeping while the sovereignty of most other nations places sovereignty in the Government. Even though the United States was born from this new idea of sovereignty resting in the People with individual rights through a Government of the People, by the People, and for the People (Gettysburg Address) the history of the United States is characterized as one of relapse back into despotic tyranny and oppression.

The United States officially began operation on March 4, 1789. In just a short four years into the life of the United States the relapse into despotic tyranny and authoritarianism began with the Eleventh Amendment (ratified in 1798) overruling Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793). While every historical relapse of the United States is beyond the scope of this email the significant fraud side-stepping the Elventh Amendment occurred 110 years later with the Ex parte Young 209 U. S. 123 (1908) which evolved into the Ex parte Young Doctrine.

The Eleventh Amendment states: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

For 110 years the citizen’s of one State could not sue another State by name until Ex parte Young but only allowing a citizen of one State to sue a State Official by name in federal court. The State Governments and the United States Government continue to steal sovereignty from the People in various perfidious ways, principally through State and Federal gun control laws.

The latest theft of sovereignty from the People is alleged President Barack Hussein Obama of the United States ascending to the Office of the President through the election process without providing verifiable proof of being a natural born citizen of the United States under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. This is considered by some to be an act of Treason against the United States, 18 U.S.C. 2381.

Under our constitutional law a President who ascends to the Office of the President by fraudulent means, by refusing to prove eligibility, is not the de facto President of the United States. Any treaties made or ratified by the United States, any legislation signed into law by Obama, and any other actions done by the alleged President Barack Hussein Obama have no legal effect until he provides verifiable evidence of his citizenship status as a natural born citizen. If he cannot prove or continues to refuse to prove his citizenship status as a natural born citizen then this national fraud will extend internationally, as he has already done, to the United Nations and to the International Maritime Organization as victims of this grandiose fraud.

The United States is, under our constitutional law, operating without a legitimate President until Obama can prove his citizenship status. The federal courts have thrown our Constitution of the United States out the window by dismissing every legal challenge to the alleged President Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office of the President. This is a disgrace for our federal judicial system designed to protect the rights of the People from the Government of the United States. But the federal courts have joined the Government of the United States to trample the rights of the People.

RUDs and HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

The use of Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations in human rights treaties to restrict or deny human rights to the People of a nation ought to be outlawed as violating human rights itself. In my forthcoming lawsuit I present evidence that the United States has systemically and methodically been rolling back and restricting civil rights, clamping down on the constitutional right (our Seventh Amendment) and human right to a civil jury trial to redress violations of constitutional rights and even human rights committed by the United States Government. The United States Congress has even denied the legislative remedy throught the private bill as a means of redress to those seeking damages for violations of constitutional rights (and/or human rights) when the federal courts have denied redress.

The United States issues their annual human rights record of nearly every nation on Earth while China issues its Human Rights Record of the United States. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The pot calling the kettle black. What comes around goes around. Kharma. Whatever you want to call it the United States has been playing global human rights police while denying human rights to its own People. This is the ultimate in governmental hypocrisy.

U.S. SEAMEN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

I have been suing the United States Government for the past seven years for my own rights as a citizen of the United States and as a merchant seaman of the United States for the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel. This particular subject matter jurisdiction is apparently taboo because it means returning sovereignty back to the People.

The human right to armed personal security and armed self-defense for merchant seamen of all maritime nations require that the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (i.e. Sharia Law and Al-Hijra as threats to non-Muslim/Islamic countries), to respect the human rights of seamen of all maritime nations to defend themselves with firearms against pirates on the high seas. It is a simple matter of the member states of the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to agree that the individual right to armed self-defense, and armed personal security and safety is a fundamental human right under the “right to life” provision of human rights treaties and amend those human rights treaties  and domestic laws of other nations accordingly.

DISPUTING THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION, PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS: GUIDANCE TO SHIPOWNERS AND SHIP OPERATORS, SHIPMASTERS AND CREWS ON PREVENTING AND SUPPRESSING ACTS OF PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS, MSC.1/CIRC.1334, 23 JUNE 2009

Paragraphs 59—63 violate the human right to life of seamen aboard container ships by denying seamen their human right to armed personal security and armed self-defense against pirates on the high seas. Paragraph 61 (In some jurisdictions, killing a national [MEANING: A PIRATE] may have unforeseen consequences even for a person who believes he or she has acted in self defence) is interpreted to mean that a pirate has more rights to life that the victim merchant seaman. The pirate can continue attacking and boarding ships, taking the crew hostage for ransom under threat of outright murder if ransom is not paid. But the crew have no right to shoot back (i.e., with a .50 calibre machinegun implacement from the bridge wing, the stern, or the port or starboard quarter, for deterence and self-defense before the pirates can even get a chance to close in. Isn’t a few rounds from a .50 calibre machinegun shot across the bow of a pirate bow a right of a merchant vessel under the Law of the Sea? If it isn’t then it most certainly ought to be!

The IMO policy is political suicide for seamen of maritime nations. It ought to be international law that pirates forfeit their right to life when they attack a merchant vessel. Piracy is a crime against humanity. The IMO policy above ought to be construed as a crime against humanity for denying seamen their human right to armed personal security and armed self-defense asgainst murderous pirates. Rules of Engagement and a Code of Conduct can easily be developed on that basis.

Paragraph 59 (With respect to the carriage of firearms on board, masters, shipowners and companies should be aware that ships entering the territorial sea and/or ports of a State are subject to that State’s legislation. It should be borne in mind that importation of firearms is subject to port and coastal State regulations) is a policy statement based on fear and distrust and nothing more.

Paragraph 60 (Seafarers are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great) is extremely insulting to the intelligence and capabilities of seamen from all maritime nations. Seamen operate deck machinery and equipment far more complicated and far more dangerous than firearms.

Paragraph 60 (Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation) is a fraudulent argument based on fear of liability and lawsuits as having priority over seamen’s human right to life from human rights treaties. The reality for pirates seeing a .50 calibre machinegun on a bring wing or the stern or quarter of a ship is a visible deterent, a good reason for the pirates to simply turn away and go someplace else. Common sense.

Paragraph 60 (Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker) is a statement of shear stupidity.

The United Nations and the International Maritime Organization must put aside their political agendas and rethink their opposition to armed seamen and preserve the right to life provisions by adding the human right to individual armed personal security and safety and armed self-defense to human rights treaties. Member States can easily amend their domestic and international laws to accomodate the rights of seamen.

Signed: Don Hamrick

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: