EoP v SA High Schools

EoP submission to SA High School Students is one of the EoP Legal Submission cases involving EoP scientific and cultural law recommendations to shut down the WiP Ponzi profiteering of resource conflict and misery economy, by ‘turning off the tap’ — i.e. the breeding / consumption above ecological carrying capacity limitscauses of resource conflict and war; by implementing an Ecology of Peace New World Order Social Contract that (a) requires all citizens of all races, religions, nations, to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool; (b) nationalizes all property and provides all responsible freedom oath citizens a property ration to enable their shelter and survival self-sufficiency to enable the rebuilding of a relocalized low-tech organic agrarian sustainable future.

.

Summary / Overview

This is a multitasking correspondence: transparency notice to inform (a) all recipients who may not be aware of Ecology of Peace v Masonic War is Peace negotiations; of such negotiations; (b) invite George High School students, their parents and teachers to be ‘responsible freedom’ legal plaintiffs.

Invitation to George High School students, their parents and teachers to be ‘Responsible Freedom’ legal plaintiffs.

“To be honest when I first got invited to be a plaintiff on the case, I was going into freshman year of high school; I had a lot of things on my mind and when I got the call to ask me whether I wanted to be a plaintiff on the lawsuit, I didn’t know what a plaintiff meant, I didn’t know the terms. The thing that caught me is: You are doing this to protect natural resources and the environment for your generation, for your friends and for your future generation. You know its also an honour. Its an honour to be a plaintiff on a lawsuit; because its a movement that I am part of. Its not my lawsuit, I am just one of the representatives of the people of Oregon.”  — Kelsey Juliana: Interview with Bill Moyers about being plaintiff in Chernaik v Oregon.

“The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others.” – United States President Theodore Roosevelt: Address to the Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis; 4 Oct 1907.

The ‘responsible freedom’ plaintiffs shall request the High Court to issue a declaratory order, the draft of which currently reads as follows:

The Applicants requests the Court to issue a declaratory order confirming the ‘responsible freedom’ plaintiffs scientific ecological legal reality validity that:

  1. Earth is not flat.
  2. Resources are finite.
  3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in ecological overshoot, resource depletion and resource conflict.
  4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to (a) sustainably protect natural resources for future generations; and/or (b) reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; and/or (c) enable honourable, transparent and humane international cooperative de-industrialization and depopulation of the planet to return to living in accordance to ecological carrying capacity limits; they should (d) cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.
  5. The root cause of humans breeding and consuming above ecological carrying capacity limits and consequently Nation States failure to (a) avoid resource depletion and sustainable protection of national renewable and non-renewable resources for other species and future generations; and/or (b) reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; and/or (c) enable honourable, transparent and humane international cooperative de-industrialization and depopulation of the planet to return to living in accordance to ecological carrying capacity limits; are the ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits clauses of the Masonic War is Peace international law social contract’.
  6. The plaintiffs hereby request the court to grant official legal declaratory support to the President and all supporting Political Party leaders; to officially and publicly begin legal International negotiations – by adopting any of the Ecology of Peace New World Order Negotiations social contract options used individually or in select combination or collectively; or other more suitable options – to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract; that shall (i) abolish the root ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits clauses of the Masonic War is Peace international law social contract’; and (ii) replace them with Ecology of Peace clauses that require all of the worlds citizens from all races, classes and religions to procreate and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; and anyone convicted of breeding and/or consumption violations shall be eliminated from the planetary genepool.
  7. Responsible Freedom in this document implies an individual who cognitively and legally recognizes the ecological and legal reality of points one to six.

Any students, teachers and/or parents with questions or constructive criticism feedback may contact the Acting EoP MILED Clerk by email at eop.miled.clerk@gmail.com.

“If you look truly, you can see the connections. But you can also totally turn a blind eye if you want to. I’ve been raised with these morals and values of putting the earth on an equal platform as myself … so when I was approached to be a plaintiff, it wasn’t really new for me. I think that we have a lot of corruption and corporate greed that influences allot of government decisions; that’s why we are going to the courts. The public trust states that the government is a trustee to protect these natural resources that every living species including humans rely upon for our survival and well-being. The public trust says ‘Government we trust you to put these resources, air, water and land and to protect them for this generation and for many generations down the line. … How can you not see the importance? How can you not feel compelled to do something? It is the most important relevant social justice and environmental justice issue of this time; and because we’re kids. I mean that’s what I really don’t understand. I think there is so much power in youth standing in court and saying ‘Will you please protect these most vital resources. I think that is so powerful. To have someone decline that, I don’t understand it. .. The Appeal Court said ‘This is in the courts power.’ The whole theory of having lawsuits is that we hope it will have a domino effect; one win will hopefully influence all the other cases, cause really all it takes is one brave judge; to say ‘Yes this is important’. … People ask me why am I on the climate change march, instead of going to school. And the thing is it would be really easy to just go to school and look at the climate march and say ‘that’s an awesome movement I totally support it’. And then I took a step back and said to myself ‘wait a second’. Kelsey if you are someone who knows all the issues, has cared deeply and passionately about these issues; and you are not going to take the initiative to really walk the talk; to get uncomfortable, and take a stand. How can I expect other people to?” — Kelsey Juliana: Interview with Bill Moyers about being plaintiff in Chernaik v Oregon.

Summary: Ecology of Peace v Masonic War is Peace Negotiations:

Ecology of Peace recommend that the Masonic War is Peace ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ clauses of the Masonic War is Peace international law social contract be abolished and replaced with Ecology of Peace clauses that require all the worlds citizens of all races, classes and religions to procreate and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; and any breeding or consumption cheaters be eliminated from the planetary genepool.

A detailed overview of EoP v WiP Negotiations evidentiary argument can be found in EoP Acting Clerk’s EoP PoW’s –v– Nobel Committee & Peace Laureates et al: draft complaint. A summary can be found in EoP Acting Clerk correspondence to International Criminal Court Judges [PDF: 29 Dec 2015]; which includes details of EoP procreation and consumption below ecological carrying capacity suggested clauses.

A less formal Ecology of Peace culture submission was also made to US Army Reserve Command: Ft Bragg which clarifies EoP culture answers with regard to EoP v WiP culture issues in dispute: Revolution in Military and Legal Ethics: Defining just and unjust actions in war and military conflict: the operative question: Whom should the military kill? Put differently: In terms of ecological overshoot resource depletion tipping points and resource conflict – all nations on Earth’s national resource lifeboats are not only full; but shrinking. So now the decision is not ‘which immigrants to let in’ but ‘which citizens should be removed from the lifeboat aka national genepool. How should they be removed; how many should be removed; by whom and when should they be removed’?
– EoP v SAHS: 20 Sep: Notice of EoP v WiP Negotiations & Invitation to George High School students, their parents and teachers to be ‘Responsible Freedom’ legal plaintiffs.

.

Correspondence

EoP Leg Sub EoP v SA High Schools correspondence.

.