Transformation of Judiciary Debate: Red Herring Coverup of Fraud of Patriarchal AnthroCorpoCentric Jurisprudence
Correspondence to Judicial Service Commission & Izak Smuts SC: Re: Transformation of Judiciary Debate
Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 12 April 2013
The Judicial Service Commission’s ‘transformation’ debate and Izak Smuts resignation is a red herring, obscuring the JSC’s ‘transformation’ agenda to (i) censor the Fraud and Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; while (ii) simply transforming South Africa’s Jurisprudence from a European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour to an African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour. (Ref: White Men Can't Judge; JSC in talks on transformation; JSC's Izak Smuts resigns after transformation row; Why I'm resigning from the JSC - Izak Smuts.)
This ‘transformation’ dispute has absolutely nothing to do with significantly ‘transforming’ South Africa’s system of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence benefiting the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric elite; to a Credible system of Jurisprudence, based upon the results of that system, benefiting the consumers of the system: South African citizens, and the parties providing the ecological resources which are the foundation of all constitutional rights.
Any debate about transformation, must first (a) accurately identify what the current status of the system is, (b) then identify its strong points and its weak points, that improve/reduce its credibility; and (c) finally identify how to transform its weak points to strengthen them to improve its credibility, with the consumers of the system.
When identifying the ‘credible’ strong points, those seeking to transform the system, should ask what is ‘credible’ in the experience of the consumer of that particular system, not in the eyes, of the controllers or, or the profiteers from, the system.
All of South Africa’s judges endorse Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: How many of them can count their monthly pay-check; while holding their breath? Not one! Yet each one of them ignore the ecological foundation (the quality of air, water, soil and biodiversity of nature) when legislating/adjudicating their AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; as if money gives them the opportunity to breathe!!!
Sincere Consumer Orientated Perspective to Juristic Transformation:
 SA’s current system of Jurisprudence is Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric. Patriarchy: A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.
 A Credible Judicial System for Citizens and Nature is one such as the Mosuo’s, who have no rape, no murder, no suicide, no prisons, no unemployed, no homeless. If illiterate peasant women are capable of regulating the relations between nature, humans and animals, so simply that they result in a society with no rape, no murder, no suicide, no unemployed, no homeless; why are Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric lawyers with Ph.D’s and seven years of university education incapable of the same results? Because South Africa’s legislators and jurists all endorse the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence recipe of breeding and consumption wars, for resource scarcity and conflict creation, and their profits!?
 Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: Primary Beneficiaries: Anthropocentric males and corporations; Primary Losers: Non-Anthropocentric humans and nature.
 Transforming a system of Jurisprudence from Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric to Æquilibriaex: equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law.
 Other Examples of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Transformations to Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: (i) Example of the Application of Aequilibriaex Principles, from a submission to the Military Judge of the US Army First Judicial Court, Ft. Meade in the matter of United States v. Bradley Manning; (ii) New Zealand, Ecuador, Bolivia and US Counties grant Nature Rights; (iii) Pennsylvania judge rules that corporations are not people.
If you want a transformed Judiciary, not for the benefit of the South African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric elite, but for the benefit of South African citizens and nature; for a sustainable future, for a sustainable constitution; then you should only appoint people to the JSC who are Leavers: who consciously breed and consume below carrying capacity; irrespective whether they have a law degree, or even went to school! After all, a person who consciously breeds and consumes below carrying capacity, has more commitment to respecting the rights of nature, and other humans, in terms of her everyday procreation and consumption practices; than any Lawyer or Advocate, who breeds or consumes way above carrying capacity, who appears to believe that the earth is flat and resources are infinite.
Transformation of Judiciary Debate: Red Herring Coverup of Fraud of Patriarchal AnthroCorpoCentric Jurisprudence
Correspondence to Judicial Service Commission & Izak Smuts SC: Re: Transformation of Judiciary Debate
Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 12 April 2013
The Judicial Service Commission’s ‘transformation’ debate and Izak Smuts resignation is a red herring, obscuring the JSC’s ‘transformation’ agenda to (i) censor the Fraud and Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; while (ii) simply transforming South Africa’s Jurisprudence from a European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour to an African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour. (Ref: White Men Can't Judge; JSC in talks on transformation; JSC's Izak Smuts resigns after transformation row; Why I'm resigning from the JSC - Izak Smuts.)
A Swahili saying predicts that “When two elephants fight, the grass suffers; and, when the same two elephants make love, the grass also suffers.”
When the patriarchal Capitalist and Communist Cold War elephants, and their ANC and Apartheid baby elephants, fought, or pretended to make TRC love; the ignorant South African citizens rights, nature, animals and the environment’s rights were trampled.
Similarly when the European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists fight the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists, the Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence is trampled, silenced and censored; and so the ignorant South African consumers of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence continue to endorse their own trampling, by being emotionally blackmailed to believe that one of these Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Elephants has their citizens interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In this alleged ‘transformation’ dispute (like all other ‘transformation’ disputes, between the Eurocentric and Africanist Jurists, or Politicians, or Corporatists, all of whom endorse Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence); there is no question whatsoever as to the credibility of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence whatsoever; only which Patriarchal elephant is to be the profiteer!
This ‘transformation’ dispute has absolutely nothing to do with significantly ‘transforming’ South Africa’s system of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence benefiting the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric elite; to a Credible system of Jurisprudence, based upon the results of that system, benefiting the consumers of the system: South African citizens, and the parties providing the ecological resources which are the foundation of all constitutional rights. Try reading the Constitution while holding your breath, and tell me which is more important, the Constitution, or the ecological resources that underpin it?
Any debate about transformation, must first (a) identify what the current status of the system is, (b) then identify its strong points and its weak points, that improve/reduce its credibility; and (c) finally identify how to transform its weak points to strengthen them to improve its credibility, with the consumers of the system.
When identifying the ‘credible’ strong points, those seeking to transform the system, should ask what is ‘credible’ in the experience of the consumer of that particular system, not in the eyes, of the controllers of the system.
Sincere Consumer Orientated Perspective to Juristic Transformation:
 SA’s current system of Jurisprudence: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric.
 Credible Strong Points for Consumers: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric ‘Breeding War’, ‘Consumption War’ and ‘Corporate Personhood’ Jurisprudence’s primary beneficiaries are Anthropocentric males and corporations.
 Failures/Weak Points for Consumers: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric ‘Breeding War’, ‘Consumption War’ and ‘Corporate Personhood’ Jurisprudence’s primary losers are non-Anthropocentric humans and nature.
 Transform Weak Points to strengthen them.
SA current system of Jurisprudence: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric.
“The basic idea is that all human societies face roughly the same problems, namely how do disputes get resolved and rights enforced. They have solved them in an interesting variety of ways and you can learn something from studying the different ways different societies have solved things. I like to claim that Iceland shows that the American legal system is a mere thousand years behind the cutting edge of legal technology, since their legal system had a simple feature, which I argue would improve ours.” - David Friedman, Legal Systems Very Different From Ours.
“As any cynic will confirm, money and law have a lot in common. But their ties run even deeper than most suspect. Money and law had similar origins: both arose spontaneously out of the undirected actions of individuals seeking common standards for mutual coordination. Money and law developed in parallel fashion, too: medieval Europeans enjoyed competition in currencies and legal systems until monarchies took over both fields. And state monopolies in money and law now present common hazards: they are imposed by fiat, inefficiently operated, and (as the cynics point out) jointly corrupting.” – Tom Bell, Policycentric Law
 SA’s Jurisprudence system is Patriarchal and AnthroCorpocentric to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the almost exclusively benefit of Anthropocentric males and corporations.
 Put differently: SA’s Jurisprudence system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.
 What is Patriarchy?: War Against Nature & Women: Overview:
“Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women” – Primitivist, John Zerzan in Patriarchy, Civilization, and the Origins of Gender
 Patriarchy (pa•tri•arch•y):
[4.1] A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
[4.2] A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
[4.3] A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.
 Patriarchal societies/cultures occur where men suffer from fragile ego's and are incapable of resolving issues related to their masculinity, by means of logic and reason. Put differently, they do not want to take control of their penis, either physically, by breeding below carrying capacity, or psychologically, by consuming below carrying capacity (social status symbols which psychologically are equivalent to their belief in an extension of their penis/virility). A patriarchal culture’s status symbols are related to their phallic-identity breeding war and consumption wars, where women and nature are sexualized as objects for plunder, with the final status symbol of superiority being physical violence.
 Capitalism and Communism are simply two different battalions in Patriarchal Civilization’s War (a) against nature, (b) for nature’s resources, (c) against indigenous ‘Leaver’ people’s, (d) against Leaver Pagan and environmentally based religions, (e) against Ecological Leaver Consciousness, (f) against Gender Balanced environmentally sustainable cultures such as the Mosuo, etc.
 A gender balanced culture based on logic and reason concludes that we live on a finite resource earth, and hence if we wish to avoid conflict from resource scarcity, then we must consume and reproduce at a level below carrying capacity. Put differently we do not have the right to ‘fuck’ and ‘consume’ to our hearts content. No patriarchal culture on planet earth has ever been based on logic and reason and required their tribe to breed and consume below carrying capacity. In a gender balanced culture the ultimate status symbols are honesty, honour, integrity, as values which co-create problem solving. For example: the Gender Balanced Mosuo culture in South West China have no police, no courts, no prison guards, no psychiatrists, no homeless, no mentally ill, no millionaires, no prisons, no mental institutions, no murder, no rape, no suicide! Their gender balanced cultural ‘logic and reason’ foundation is built upon the premise of procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.
 To test whether a man or woman consciously or unconsciously endorse Patriarchal violent problem solving or rule of law/reason and logic (root cause) problem solving, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they ‘practice what they preach’ in terms of their support for rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreate above carrying capacity, they may verbally pretend to support ‘reason and logic’, but in terms of their actions and lifestyle, they physically support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s preference for problem solving: violence! Whether it is the violence of individuals, tribes, or the AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s police, courts, and prisons.
 Colonialism is a product and symptom of Patriarchy’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars. Colonialism, whether it is the colonialism of Europeans conquering African tribes, or the colonialism of African tribes who conquered other African tribes, or the colonialism of both Europeans and Africans who conquered the gender balanced Bushmen tribes.
 All Colonialism, whether it resulted from the conquering wars of Columbus, Van Riebeeck, Shaka Zulu, or Mohammed, etc; were and are, a product and symptom of Patriarchy.
 A patriarchal society, or a society which does not address the causes of masculine insecurity, cannot and will not ever be sustainable. Any ideology, whether political or religious, founded upon masculine insecurity (patriarchy) will result in breeding and consumption war concepts of power and domination (to provide insecure males with social/psychological penis extension status symbols, their fragile ego's lack).
 Consumption wars require exponential expropriation of land, natural resources and knowledge. Breeding wars require a war against sustainable consciousness (ecological and political balance between all cultures, religions and races) to enable the production of surplus populations whose energies can be manipulated for the benefit of those managing the factory farming war economy racket. Colonialism is a symptom of Patriarchy’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars; i.e. consuming above carrying capacity, and then using the surplus population as cannon fodder to conquer another culture’s resources.
Credible Judicial System for Citizens and Nature
 What is a ‘Credible’ Judicial System:
[13.1] A ‘credible’ judicial system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; – is one which accurately applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance; i.e.
A. the laws of nature/ecology, recognizing that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating human procreation and resource utilization behaviour in accordance with the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and
B. the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature , are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.
[13.2] For example:
A. Anders Breivik and Carlos the Jackal were ‘credible’ bomb making terrorists, in the sense of accurately following the recipe’ for the laws of bomb-making and detonation.
B. A chef who wants to make a Crème brûlée, is not going to have a ‘credible’ Crème brûlée, if he used the ingredients and recipe – i.e. cooking laws -- for road kill stew.
[13.3] South Africa’s System of Jurisprudence is AnthroCorpocentric – the Patriarchal Corporatocracy’s Anthropocentric Flat Earth jurisprudence – which is not credible, because among others – it:
A. Ignores the laws of nature/ecology reality that the Earth is NOT FLAT, and that resources are not infinite. Although a majority of the West’s problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion are a consequence of overpopulation and overconsumption inducing scarcity, American jurisprudence fails to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.
B. Ignores the laws of human nature; by discriminating against culture’s and sub-cultures whose members practice brutal honesty, self sufficiency, personal responsibility, transparency and commitment to root cause problem solving, whose lifestyle’s do not contribute to overpopulation and overconsumption; whereas it legally rewards cultures and subcultures whose members practice political correctness, sycophancy, hypocrisy, parasitism, denial of responsibility, self deception masquerading as ‘privacy’ and ‘dignity’, and a focus on Public Relations Image Management parasitism.
[13.4] The socio-political problem solving system of the Matriarchal Mosuo culture in South West China is plausibly the most credible on planet earth. The people of Mosuo have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; as a result of abiding by (a) the laws of nature and tribal control of population and consumption, and (b) the laws of human nature, in terms of public problem solving, and a socio-political focus on root cause problem solving.
[13.5] Metaphorically South Africa’s political, legal and academic Emperor chefs’ are following the cooking laws for road kill stew; while attempting to convince South African citizens entering their court rooms, that the Justice being served is ‘credible’ Crème brûlée justice; when in fact its just maggot filled road kill stew.
[13.6] The only people who consider South African Jurisprudence ‘credible’ are those who psychologically, emotionally and intellectually consider the cartoon bombs made by Wile E Coyote the Road Runner as ‘credible’ applications of the laws of physics related to bomb making. South African Jurists Jurisprudence should be taken as ‘seriously’ as Laurel and Hardy; in terms of its ability to accurately apply the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance. If the consequences of American Naked Emperor Syndrome Jurists were not so tragic, it would in fact be beyond Laurel & Hardy hilarious.
[13.7] South African citizens do not know that there is, and have been, cultures who have and do regulate (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, and ideological conflicts; with a focus of balance between all human and natural entities; to create a culture where there is no murder, no rape, no suicide, no jails, no unemployed, no significant income disparity, no homeless.
[13.8] Comparatively South Africa’s jurisprudence has resulted in a society where the (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, ethnic, cultural and ideological conflicts; has resulted in a country where murder, rape, imprisonment, unemployment, and income disparity is amongst the highest in the world.
[13.9] It is not possible to create a society with no murder, no rape, no suicide, no imprisonment, low income disparity, no homeless, by continuing to following Patriarchy’s AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Recipe!
 Mosuo: Ecocentric Gender-Balanced Sustainable Culture with no murder, rape, war, jealousy, jails or unemployment:
[14.1] The Mosuo language is rendered not in writing, but in Dongba, the only pictographic language used in the world today. The Mosuo language has no words for murder, war, rape, or jealousy, and the Mosuo have no jails and no unemployment.
[14.2] Although the Mosuo culture is most frequently described as a matriarchal culture; in fact, its more accurate to refer to it as “matrilineal”, but still doesn't reflect the full truth. Accurately speaking have aspects of matriarchal culture, in that women are the head of the house, property is passed through the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society.
[14.3] Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee.
[14.4] As an agrarian culture, much of the Mosuo daily life centers around tending to crops and livestock, with villages and households bartering between them for basic needs.
[14.5] A typical Mosuo house is divided in to four separate structures around an open courtyard. Traditionally, families share the building with livestock, and the living and sleeping areas are communal.
[14.6] Mosuo families have an incredible internal cohesiveness and stability; and Mosuo women do not (within their culture) face many of the struggles and barriers that women in many other cultures do.
[14.7] Probably the most famous – and most misunderstood – aspect of Mosuo culture is their practice of “walking marriages” (or “zou hun” in Chinese), so called because the men will walk to the house of their ‘partner' at night, but return to their own home, within their own tribal family, in the morning.
[14.8] The Mosuo generally live in large extended families, with many generations (great grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc.) all living together within the same house. For the most part, everyone lives within communal quarters, without private bedrooms or living areas. However, women between certain ages, after “coming of age”, can have their own private bedrooms.
[14.9] Traditionally, a Mosuo woman who is interested in a particular man will invite him to come and spend the night with her in her room. The man will walk to her house after dark (thus the description of “walking marriage”), spend the night with her, and return home early the next morning.
[14.10] Although it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – and in fact, having only one sexual partner would be neither expected nor common – the majority of such couplings are actually more long term. In fact, few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time, described by some anthropologists as “serial monogamy”.
[14.11] Even when a pairing may be long term, however, the man will never go to live with the woman's family, or vice versa. He will continue to live with and be responsible to his family, and the children of his sisters and nieces; she will continue to live with and be responsible to her family. There will be no sharing of property.
[14.12] Significantly, when children are born, the father may have little or no responsibility for his offspring (in fact, some children may not even know who their father is). If a father does want to be involved with the upbringing of his children, he will bring gifts to the mother's family, and state his intention to do so. This gives him a kind of official status within that family, but does not actually make him part of the family. Regardless of whether the father is involved or not, the child will be raised in the mother's family, and take on her family name.
[14.13] This does not mean, however, that the men get of scot-free, with no responsibilities for children. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every man will share responsibilities in caring for all children born to women within their own family, be they a sister, niece, aunt, etc. In fact, children will grow up with many “aunts” and “uncles”, as all members of the extended family share in the duties of supporting and raising the children.
[14.14] The result – as different as it may be from other systems – is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Divorce does not exist …there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care.
[14.15] One particularly important result is the lack of preference for a particular gender. For example, in most Chinese and patriarchal cultures, the female will join the male's family when she gets married. The result is that if a couple has a lot of female children, they will lose them after marriage, and have no one to care for them in old age; but if they have male children, their sons (and their sons' wives) will care for them. So, in poorer populations in particular, there will be a strong preference for male children.
[14.16] However, among the Mosuo, since neither male nor female children will ever leave home, there is no particular preference for one gender over the other. The focus instead tends to be on maintaining some degree of gender balance, having roughly the same proportion of male to female within a household. In situations where this becomes unbalanced, it is not uncommon for Mosuo to adopt children of the appropriate gender (or even for two households to ‘swap' male/female children).
[14.17] Additionally the other focus is population control, avoiding overpopulation of the family, since the family is unable to kick the children out of the home, and wash their hands, as to the sustainable future of those children. The family matriarch has the responsibility to make sure that the family does not procreate beyond its capacity to support the entire family through difficult times.
[14.18] Children are also raised with a gender neutral focus, where all the children dress the same and are treated in a gender neutral manner. At around the age of 12-14 years, the important event known as their coming of age ceremony occurs, where girls are given skirts, and men are given their pants; thus called the “skirt ceremony” for girls, and the “pants ceremony” for boys.
[14.19] After coming of age, Mosuo females are entitled to their own private bedroom; and, once past puberty, can begin to invite partners for “walking marriages”.
[14.20] According to patriarchal macho Argentinean writer Ricardo Coler , who decided to find out what it was like to live in a non-patriarchal culture, and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China: “Men live better where women are in charge” and “Women have a different way of dominating.”
[14.21] Coler asserts that while he expected an inverse patriarchy, he experienced something totally different, because women have a different way of dominating: “When women rule, it's part of their work. They like it when everything functions and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn't cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing. It's not for nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.”
[14.22] What astonished Coler the most, was that there was no violence in the Mosuo culture: “I know that quickly slips into idealization -- every human society has its problems. But it simply doesn't make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don't know feelings of guilt or vengeance -- it is simply shameful to fight. They are ashamed if they do and it even can threaten their social standing. [If there is an altercation] The women decide what happens. Some of them do it more strictly and others in a friendlier way. They are strong women who give clear orders. When a man hasn't finished a task he's been given, he is expected to admit it. He is not scolded or punished, but instead he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.”
[14.23] The Mosuo economy is largely agrarian, and they are capable of producing most of what they need for daily living; and consequently are by and large self-sufficient. In the past, Mosuo men would take trading caravans to other parts of China, to buy/trade products they could not produce locally.
[14.24] The traditional Mosuo religion worships nature, is called Daba, with Lugu Lake regarded as the Mother Goddess and the mountain overlooking it venerated as the Goddess of Love. The Mosuo also practice Lamaism, a Tibetan variation of Buddhism. Most Mosuo homes dedicate a room specifically for Buddhist worship and for sheltering traveling lamas, or monks. Their focus is their close relationship to the land that supports them and with their neighbors, who also support them.
Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: Primary Beneficiaries: Anthropocentric males and corporations; Primary Losers: Non-Anthropocentric humans and nature.
 The draft TYGAE Report: Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, provides extensive examples of how and why Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s primary beneficiaries are Anthropocentric humans and corporations; and its primary losers are non-anthropocentric humans and nature.
[I] AnthroCorpocentric Legislator’s/Jurists Despotic Failure to Recognize their Legislative / Juristic Freedoms are limited by Laws of Nature/Ecology and Human Nature:
[A] Conflict with Laws of Ecology: Finite Resource Reality: Inaccurate Assumption: NNR Abundance:
[B] Conflict with Sustainable Security Military Doctrine advocating Overpopulation & Consumption induced Scarcity as a cause of Conflict:
[C] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to apply laws of Nature/Ecology to legally differentiate between Sustainable and Unsustainable Procreation and Consumption behaviour.
[D] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to legislate credible International Peace Treaties which confront Scarcity induced Conflict to legally differentiate between Sustainable (Peaceful) and Unsustainable (Scarcity Combatant) Procreation and Consumption behaviour.
[II] AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudences Endorsement of the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming Poverty Pimping War Economy Racket.
[A] Masculine Insecurity: Foundation of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s Human Farming ‘Control of Reproduction’ War Economy Racket.
[B] Legislation of Occupational Licences for hundreds of occupations, sometimes even from children for lemonade stands, required to allegedly protect those occupations consumers from incompetent service and products.
[C] Total Legislative Failure to legislate Breeding / Parenting licences, to (a) protect the rights of unborn and unwanted children, from unloving and incompetent parenting; and (b) prevent overpopulation.
[D] Failure to Legislate Breeding/Parenting Licence, an endorsement of Masculine Insecurity’s use of the Control of Reproduction as a Weapon of War.
[E] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Cannon Fodder Population.
[F] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Vote and Poverty Pimp Fodder Population.
[III] Corporate Influence and Control of Anthropocentric Jurisprudence
[A] The Hidden History of Corporations and Corporate Personhood.
[B] AnthroCorpocentric Influence on Judicial Decision Making.
[C] Corporate Cultural Imperialism, Cultural Identity and the Eurocentric ideology of Ecological Destruction and Compulsive Development.
[D] Melting Pot Multiculturalism: the ideal Egotist Consumptionism Ideology of Multinational Capitalism.
Transforming a system of Jurisprudence from Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric to Æquilibriaex: equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law.
“The law locks up the man or woman who steals the goose from the common. But the greater villain the law lets loose, who steals the common from the goose.” -- 17th century protest against English enclosure
“To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it.” - Lloyd George
“Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.” - Winston Churchill
“If you think the environment has nothing to do with the law; try counting your money, writing a brief, making a legal argument in a court, while holding your breath. In the absence of the environment, and the resources provided by nature, anthropocentric law is totally and utterly irrelevant.” – Lara Johnstone
 Æquilibriæx is derived from æquus (equal), libra/æ (balance), libri (books), lex (law). Æquilibriæx – i.e. Equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law/jurisprudence occurs as Equilibriæx Jurisprudence which adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, and Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature.
 Æquilibriæx jurisprudence occurs when Legislators and Jurists recognize that their Lockean “social contract” duties - that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by (a) the laws of nature/ecology, which dictate that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating procreation and consumption in accordance to the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature , are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.
 Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence recognizes all Leaver beings, species, individuals, corporations, families, tribes, etc., rights to legal personhood; but based upon the principles of CommonSism, distinguishes between Sustainable Leavers who are recognized and legally rewarded for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and intra-species harmony, and Unsustainable Takers who are recognized and legally penalized for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and/or intra-species disharmony and discord.
 CommonSism, or Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons, is inspired by -- among others -- the Taker vs. Leaver and Leaver Law of Limited Competition ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin, and the Order of Melchizedek ideas of Yakov Rabinovich, as expressed in Stairway to Nowhere: Chapter 8: Melchizedek — Ecological War.
 CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the absence of Ecocentric Jurisprudence combined with the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.
 Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their AnthroCorpocentric adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal, including voting rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties, including denial of rights, including voting rights, to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.
 Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status. An organisation or corporation who only employs Leavers is a Leaver organisation, and one which has one or more Takers, is considered a Taker organisation.
 The Tragedy of the Commons is an ecological concept that refers to the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in “The Tragedy of the Commons”.
 Social Trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group.
 Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles: Finite Limited Resources: Limited Rights:
“We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.” - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent, Humans: An Endangered Species
“Every right must be evaluated in the network of all rights claimed and the environment in which these rights are exercised. If we hold that every right, ―natural" or not, must be evaluated in the total system of rights operating in a world that is limited, we must inevitably conclude that no right can be presumed to be absolute, that the effect of each right on the suppliers as well as on the demanders must be determined before we can ascertain the quantity of right that is admissible. From here on out, ours is a limited world. Rights must also be limited. The greater the population, the more limited the per capita supply of all goods; hence the greater must be the limitation on individual rights, including the right to breed. At its heart, this is the political meaning of the population problem.” – Garrett Hardin, Limited World, Limited Rights, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA
 Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, 1968 essay focussed on clarifying how the population problem was a moral problem, and required a moral solution. Hardin showed why Adam Smith's laissez-faire doctrine and belief that the invisible hand enables a system of individuals to pursue their private interests which will automatically serve the collective interest; is flawed.
 Hardin’s key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) showed why Smith was wrong. Hardin argued that when a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. When many people think this way, the tragic result is the overexploitation and ruin of the commons. Similar to the herdsman, couples expect to experience a large benefit from having a second child, or consuming above carrying capacity, without having to bear the full social and ecological cost of their choices.
 Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons Assumptions & Solutions:
[28.1] The world is biophysically finite.
A. The more people there are, and the more they consume, the less each person's share must be.
B. Technology (ie, agricultural) cannot fundamentally alter this.
C. We can't both maximize the number of people and satisfy every desire or "good" of everyone.
D. Practically, biophysical limits dictate we must both stabilize population, and consumption.
E. Both steps will generate opposition, since many people will have to relinquish their procreation and/or consumption behaviour.
[28.2] Over-population and overconsumption are example’s of the tragedy of the commons (ToC).
A. Commons are un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.[28.3] The "commons" system for breeding and consuming must be abandoned (as it has been for other resources).
B. Hardin's ToC model assumes that individuals are short-term, self-interested "rational" actors, seeking to maximize their own gains.
C. Such actors will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, overconsume) as long as they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits.
D. The system of individual welfare insulates individuals from bearing the full costs of over-reproducing, and corporate welfare insulates corporations from bearing the costs of overproduction.
E. When every individual believes and behaves in this manner, commons are quickly filled, degraded, and ruined along with their erst-while exploiters.
F. A laissez-faire system (letting individuals choose as they like) will not "as if by an invisible hand" solve over-population and/or overconsumption.
A. In other words, something must restrain individual reproduction and consumption.
B. but it must not be individual conscience; appealing to conscience will only result in fewer people with conscience in the population (assuming here that it is genetic, or perfectly transmitted by learning).
C. It should be accomplished by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."
D. Sacrificing freedom to breed and consume will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost.
E. "Coercive" restrictions on breeding and consuming could take a number of forms.
F. The "right" to determine the size of one's family and socio-economic consumption status, must be rescinded.
G. This will protect the conscientious traits in the population.
[28.4] The problem is then to gain peoples' consent to a system of coercion.
A. People will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate and consumption growth rate, be set only by individuals' choices.
B. Educating all people about the ToC, its consequences, and the alternatives to it, is necessary.
C. Then various restraints and incentives for low reproduction and consumption, below the commons carrying capacity limits, can and must be instituted.
 Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Tragedy of the Commons Rights and Penalties:
 Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Taker and Leaver Rights and Penalties are designed to remove the AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence breeding and consumption war incentives to violate the Commons carrying capacity. If or when an individual chooses to procreate or consume above the Commons carrying capacity (be a Taker), they thereby make their own voluntary decision to deny themselves access to the Commons social contract’s protection of rights to liberty, life and property, etc. They choose – by their decision to overbreed and overconsume -- to no longer be entitled to the social contract protections to life, liberty and property, etc.
 Right to Life: Leavers are entitled to state social contract protection of their right to life, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract right to life (within the law of limited competition). Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‘right’ to life, since their procreation and/or consumption lifestyle deliberately violates the ‘right to life’ of nature and animals and plant species. For example: If or where a Taker is murdered, either by another Taker or a leaver, it is for the Takers’ family to prosecute the matter as a civil matter, and attempt to convince the Jury how or why the Taker should be given an exemption access to the Leaver’s right to life. If the accused (Taker or Leaver) can prove to the court, that the person who was murdered, was – in terms of their Taker procreation and consumption behaviours – committing murder of Leavers, and nature, by denying and stealing their land and access to their habitats, then the murder of such a Taker, would have been beneficial to Æquilibriæx harmony, since the murdered Taker was creating disharmony by his procreation and/or consumption greedy practices.
 Property Ownership: Leavers are entitled to social contract protection of their property rights, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract property rights. Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‘right’ to protection of their property, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the property rights of nature and animals and plant species. If Takers allege their property has been damaged or stolen, they can prosecute the matter as a civil matter. For example: If a robber robs a bank, and is again robbed by another robber outside the bank, who steals his ‘stolen property’, he has no ‘right’ to claim that it was his ‘lawful property’. Similarly any individual who is living above Commons carrying capacity, cannot claim that his ‘property’ is his own ‘lawful property’, because in violating the Commons Carrying capacity, he is stealing property, liberty, and life from other species and nature; hence his property is ‘stolen property’.
 Right to Vote & be Employed as Civil Servant: Leavers are entitled to social contract right to vote, and to be employed as a civil servant, including the right to legislate social contract laws, since they are living a lifestyle which demonstrates their competency to respect all other species life, voting and property rights, in accordance to carrying capacity principles. Takers are not entitled to the ‘right’ to vote, or to be employed as a civil servant, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their incompetence or moral delinquency.
 Right to Freedom of Speech, Liberty etc: Similarly, leavers are entitled to these social contract rights; whereas Takers are not entitled to these rights. If or where a Taker considers any such ‘right’ to have been violated, they are however entitled to prosecute the matter as a civil matter.
 Penalties for Civil Prosecutors acting for Takers: If or where an Attorney chooses to proceed to prosecute a civil matter on behalf of a Taker’s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client’s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‘Tragedy of the Courts Commons’ death penalty.
 Equilibriaex (Ecocentric) Principles:
[36.1] Equilibriæx Jurisprudence groups Human’s into Unsustainable Takers (Scarcity Combatants) and Sustainable Leavers (Eco-Innocents) cultures and societies.
 Sustainable Leavers follow Ecological Law of Limited Competition:
[37.1] Daniel Quinn defines the Ecological Law of Limited Competition as such: you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food, i.e wage war.
[37.2] Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food. You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you.
[37.3] A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law.
[37.4] How The Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space.
[37.5] Elimination doesn't occur instantly. It takes place when there is nowhere left to expand, no competitors left to destroy. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory.
[37.6] And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly. Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy.
[37.7] When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated.
[37.8] Quinn argues that humans are the only species to have broken this law, beginning with Agriculture, 10 000 years ago.
 Law of Limited Competition Principles: “You may compete but you may not wage war.”:
[38.1] Takers exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors' territories and pre-empt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat." When animals go hunting—even extremely aggressive animals like baboons—it's to obtain food, not to exterminate competitors or even animals that prey on them."
[38.2] Takers systematically destroy their competitors' food to make room for their own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone".
[38.3] Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you're eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, `This gazelle is mine,' but you can't say, `All the gazelles are mine.' The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn't defend the herd as its own." "Bees will deny you access to what's inside their hive in the apple tree, but they won't deny you access to the apples."
 Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Leavers and Unsustainable Takers:
[39.1] World Food and Human Population Growth, describes how food supply drives human population growth, and how human population growth adversely affects our environment and our ability to sustain our culture. This began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing food production. The consequences of Agricultural expansion are: * decreased carbon sequestration (80%), decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).
[39.2] In Genetic feedback and human population regulation, Russell Hopfenberg clarifies the different consequences between the practices of these two Agri-Cultures:
“Lack of cultural variability is precisely the situation in which the human species finds itself. Except for a tiny minority of tribal peoples on the planet, the human species can be seen as participating in a monoculture. This monoculture, called civilization (Quinn 1992; Cohen 1995), has as its foundation, the basic feature of continually increasing food production. As Cohen (1995) stated, “The ability to produce food allowed human numbers to increase greatly and made it possible, eventually, for civilizations to arise.” Farb (1978) pointed out that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.” He also asserted “the population explosion, the shortage of resources, the pollution of the environment, exploitation of one human group by another, famine and war—all have their roots in that great adaptive change from foraging to production.” Farb’s statement makes clear that the “adaptive change from foraging to production” is coming into focus as one that has provided some relatively short-term benefits and many long-term difficulties. These difficulties may ultimately lead to an environment that is no longer capable of sustaining human life (Pimm et al. 1995).”
 Current Arable land is a category of agricultural land, which, according to Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) definition, additionally includes land under permanent or perennial crops, such as fruit plantations, as well as permanent pastures, for grazing of livestock. In 2008, the world's total arable land amounted to 13,805,153 km², and 48,836,976 km² was classified as "agricultural land."
 Reducing Human Impact on Nature/Environment, requires population and consumption reduction.
 The impact of humans on the environment and the demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology.
 The two most important conclusions deriving from this relationship are that:
[43.1] the Earth can support only a limited number of people, at a certain level of affluence, in a sustainable manner; and
[43.2] Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.
 Ecological Footprint: Consumption x Procreation Factor:
[44.1] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha) (60 % of 1.8 gha) in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan ; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20 )]
[44.2] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha. [44.3] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha.
[44.4] For example: My Consumption Footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. Amici has no children, consequently her procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. My Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed like me, we would need 0.81 earths. Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths.
Aquilibriaex (Anthropocentric) Principles:
 Cultural Variances in ‘Human Nature’:
[45.1] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence believes that there are great cultural variances in the ‘laws of human nature’. Such cultural diversity should be recognized and honestly confronted and honest transparent solutions found to resolve disputes between diverse culture’s with totally different ‘laws of human nature’. People from different cultures, see the world in the socially and cultural constructed ways of their particular culture. Under our skins and particularly in our minds, in terms of how we view the world, and subsequently how we act in terms of our worldview, we are culturally very different.
[45.2] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence recognizes that culture shapes human cognition, including but not limited to “visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ”.
[45.3] Our culture’s socially constructed worldview and practices shape our minds, actions, beliefs and ideas. Our minds mould themselves to our cultural and environmental practices. Our culture’s mould our most fundamental conscious and unconscious thinking and perception. We see and relate to the world, through the prism of our cultural values and social and environmental practices.
[45.4] As argued in The Weirdest People in the World:
Behavioural scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology, cognition, and behaviour in the world’s top journals based on samples drawn entirely from highly educated segments of Western societies. Researchers—often implicitly—assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these “standard subjects” are as representative of the species as any other. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioural sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that standard subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species—frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The comparative findings suggest that members of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, or behaviour — hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioural phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioural sciences to best tackle these challenges.
 Resolving Conflict between Cultural Variances in ‘Human Nature’:
[46.1] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence argues that the most effective ways to resolve inter-cultural conflict, is:
 Transparent Simple Clarity: A cultures honesty and transparency is considered directly proportional to how explicitly clear and succinct they define and explain their values in simple language, and how consistently they live in accordance to such cultural values.
 Reconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are reconcilable, i.e. the differences are not mutually exclusive, but capable of culturally intimate coexistence.
 Irreconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are irreconcilable, i.e. the differences are mutually exclusive, a cause of friction when members of the culture’s interact, and hence incapable of intimate cultural coexistence.
 Melting Pot Multiculturalism: Culture’s with reconcilable cultural differences are capable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their various reconcilable cultural differences.
[50.1] Melting Pot Multiculturalism only works when both cultures voluntarily coexist with their mutually reconcilable differences. When Melting Pot multiculturalists force or coerce one or more cultures who have irreconcilable differences, to coexist in a Melting Pot, then the culture which is coerced into suppressing and denying the practice of their cultural values, shall build up anger and resentment towards both their perceived ‘enemy’ culture, and the coercing authority; which shall eventually – like a pressure cooker build up and finally explode into extremely violent conflict (For example: Anders Breivik).
 Separatist Multiculturalism: Cultures with irreconcilable cultural differences are incapable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their cultural values. Such cultures can only coexist by implementing separatist multiculturalism between their cultures, thereby respecting and honouring both cultures rights to exist separately with the least amount of contact between the cultures possible, thereby also denying both cultures the opportunity to resolve their irreconcilable differences by means of physical, economic or other forms of cultural colonization.
Example of the Application of Aequilibriaex Principles, from a submission to the Military Judge of the US Army First Judicial Court, Ft. Meade in the matter of United States v. Bradley Manning:
 On 02 April, an application was made to the Military Judge of the US Army First Judicial Court, Ft. Meade, to file an Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Amicus Curiae on the Credibility Failure’s of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, in the matter of US vs. Pfc Bradley Manning.
******Application of Equilibriaex (Ecocentric) Principles:
 The Equilibriæx/Ecocentric analysis of alleged crime with regard to the laws of nature / ecology. Did criminal act contribute to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony, or dischord, between between humans, nature and other animals species?
 An Equilibriæx analysis would include (a) evidence as to whether the party is an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) or a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent), (b) how the act contributed to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony or dischord between humans, nature and other animal species: how did it affect soil, forests, water, minerals, animals, fish, insects, plants, and air quality; (c) if the defendant is a leaver, Equilibriæx reasons why the charges should be dismissed, and if the defendant is a Taker, Equilibriæx reasons why the penalty should include the death penalty.
 Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties:
[55.1] If the non-insect human mammal entity, known as the Defendant: Pfc Bradley Manning’s consumption footprint was that of an average American, i.e. in 2007 (8 gha), then it would be below 20 gha, then he would be a Leaver, considering that he has no children.
[55.2] If the non-insect human fictional legal concept state/corporate entity, known as the United States Government, employed only Leavers, and consumed below carrying capacity, in terms of its number of employees, it would be considered a Leaver entity, but since it employs thousands of Takers, and – except for small pockets of Leaver Conscious Sustainable Security (Scarcity induces Conflict ) Military Doctrine Believers – is one of the most Taker focussed Governments on planet earth, it is a Taker.
[55.3] Defendant Pfc Manning consequently has Leaver Right to Life, Liberty and Property; whereas Plaintiff’ United States Government has Taker Penalties denial of rights to Life, Property, Voting or employment as a Civil Servant Employee.
 Æquilibriæx: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties:
[56.1] All charges against Leaver Defendant Manning should be dismissed, as the Plaintiff United States Government has no ‘Leaver’ right to access to a State Prosecution to charge Leaver Manning
[56.2] All members of the Prosecution who are Takers, have no right to be employed as a Civil Servant, and should be discharged, for failing to procreate and/or consume below carrying capacity and are deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their Commons incompetence or moral delinquency.
[56.3] If the Taker United States Government wishes to proceed with their charges against Leaver Pfc Manning, they should hire – from their own individual finances – a Private Attorney to launch a Civil Prosecution against Pfc Manning.
[56.4] If or where an Attorney chooses to proceed to prosecute these charges as a civil matter on behalf of the Taker’s Plaintiff’s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client’s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‘Tragedy of the Courts Commons’ death penalty; to be executed by his Taker clients.
 Private Prosecution: Leaver Defendants Rights vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties:
[57.1] The Taker Plaintiffs can hire an attorney at their own individual cost, and choose to proceed to prosecute these charges as a civil matter, where such Taker Plaintiff’s charge Leaver Manning with UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy) , UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation); and UCMJ 134 (General article) .
 UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation) and UCMJ 134 (General article) :
[58.1] These charges are problematic for the Plaintiff Takers to the extent that Defendant Manning is a Leaver, and is entitled to rights to liberty, property, life, free speech, etc. The Taker Plaintiff’s argument is that the Leaver Defendant stole their ‘proprietary information’, their property. However the Taker’s have no ‘right’ to ‘their’ stolen property; since it is common knowledge that Takers are Takers, precisely because they have violated the Common’s Carrying Capacity rules regarding to other species rights to life, liberty and property.
[58.2] Taker Plaintiff would need to present evidence that (a) although they are Takers, their specific actions related to this dispute were in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles, and hence they should be granted temporary Exemption status access to any particular Leaver Right to ‘Property Ownership’, etc.; and/or (b) that although the Defendant is a ‘Leaver’, his specific actions related to this dispute were in support of Taker Equilibriæx principles, and hence his automatic access to Leaver Rights should be diminished or voided in this particular dispute circumstance.
 UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy) : Spec. 1: Knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy through indirect means:
[59.1] These charges are also problematic for the Plaintiff to the extent that Defendant Manning is a Leaver, and the alleged ‘intelligence’ is considered to be the Taker Plaintiff’s ‘stolen property’.
[59.2] Leaver Enemy: It is not possible for a ‘Leaver’ to be an automatic enemy of nature or any animal species, while procreating and consuming in accordance to the Commons Carrying Capacity social contract; since they do not engage in the scarcity combatant’s – procreation or consumption war – behaviour. A Leaver can only be temporarily considered a ‘Taker’ if they participate in an act or event, in support of Taker Equilibriæx principles; i.e. advocacy or actions on behalf of population growth, or economic growth, i.e. any action which contributes to the Taker war against Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species.
[59.3] Taker Enemy: Conversely all Takers, choose to violate the Commons Carrying Capacity social contract; by engaging in scarcity combatant’s – procreation or consumption war – behaviour against all other species and nature’s Commons social contract rights. A Taker can only be temporarily considered a ‘Leaver’ if they participate in an act or event, in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles; i.e. advocacy or actions on behalf of the defence of Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species, from the Taker War against them.
[59.4] If it is determined that the alleged enemy is a ‘Leaver’, then his Leaver rights to access to information, access to justice, in terms of his ‘Leaver Enemy’ actions on behalf of restoration of the Commons Social Contract, against a Taker Scarcity Combatant; shall heavily trump the Taker’s Penalty claims to ‘rights’ to his stolen property.
[59.5] If it is determined that the alleged enemy is a ‘Taker’, the Plaintiff’s dispute relates to two Taker robbers arguing about who has lawful ownership of stolen property, which originally and lawfully belongs to Leavers.
[59.6] The Leaver Defendant can enhance his argument by providing evidence that his alleged criminal act, was in defence of Leavers, nature, animal and/or plant species, from the Taker War against them.
[59.7] Conversely the Plaintiff Taker can enhance his argument by providing – for example – a ‘Genghis Khan the Leaver Warrior’ argument: evidence their Taker ‘war’ actions, were only killing Scarcity combatants, on such a scale as to make a significant return of former agricultural or cultivated land, to forest or uncultivated land, for significant long term benefit of nature and other animal species diversity. Put differently, their Taker war was ultimately in defence of Leavers, and a return of stolen land to Leavers, nature, plant and animal species.
 Private Prosecution: Taker Defendants Penalties vs. Taker Plaintiffs Penalties:
[60.1] If the non-insect human mammal entity, known as the Defendant: Pfc Bradley Manning’s consumption footprint was above 20 gha, then he would be a Taker.
[60.2] Since both parties are Takers, both would need to present the court with evidence, that although they are Takers, their specific actions related to this dispute, were in defence of Leavers, or in support of Leaver Equilibriæx principles, and hence should be granted temporary Exemption status access to any particular Leaver Right to ‘Property Ownership’, ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom of access to information’, etc.
[60.3] If no Taker party is able to attain temporary access to Leaver Rights, they are the equivalent of two robbers fighting over stolen property, which was stolen from nature, animals and plants species. If either of the parties made any effort to steal the already stolen property to return it to its lawful owners: nature, animals or plants, such a Taker party’s actions may not be enough to entitle them to ‘Leaver rights’, but should be deemed as actions on behalf of, or motivated by Leaver Equilibriæx principles.
[60.4] If the Taker Plaintiff’s Civil Prosecutor fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client’s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‘Tragedy of the Courts Commons’ death penalty, to be delivered by his Taker Client.
Application of Aquilibriaex (Anthropocentric) Principles:
 The Aquilibriæx/Anthropocentric analysis of alleged ‘crime’ with regard to the laws of human nature. Did criminal act contribute to greater intra-species equity harmony, or discord, between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts?
 An Aquilibriæx analysis would include (a) the parties cultural hierarchy identity, i.e. leaver/taker, Nation/religion/culture/employment culture, etc; (b) each cultural hierarchy’s relevant cultural legal principles, related to the specific principles in dispute; (c) whether the alleged criminal acts, are legally considered ‘crimes’ in both parties cultures, (d) if not: whether different cultural values in dispute are mutually reconcilable or irreconcilable, (e) how or why the alleged criminal act, acting in accordance to the parties cultural legal principles, contributed to greater intra-species equity harmony, or discord , between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts.
 Parties Cultural Hierarchy Identity:
[63.1] It is quite possible the Leaver Defendant, even though he qualifies for Leaver Rights, does not personally identify, in terms of his lifestyle aspirations, with Leaver culture. Given the opportunity, he could welcome, the opportunity to violate the Commons Social Contract, and overconsume and overbreed.
[63.2] Leaver Defendant’s cultural hierarchy identity could, for example, be: (1) Aquilibriæx Lifestyle aspirations: Taker, (2) Nation: American, (3) Ethnicity: Irish, (4) Religion: Catholic, (5) Gender: Bisexual, (6) Employee: US Army, (7) Social: Platoon. Each sub-culture is embedded in a hierarchy of individual identity cultural values.
 Cultural Hierarchy’s Relevant Cultural Legal Principles:
[64.1] Leaver Defendant’s Cultural values towards the alleged criminal issues: ‘theft of property’ ‘aiding the enemy’ ‘insubordination’.
[64.2] Leaver Defendant could argue – for example – that in fact the Taker’s commitment to criminalizing theft of property is not consistent, in terms of the Taker US Governments failure to prosecute the theft of property of (a) land from the Indians upon colonization, (b) legalizing of theft from taxpayers by Banks and Politicians handing out ‘bailouts’, (c) invading Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretence of thieving their natural resources; and so on.
 Defendant’s Cultural Values Include Alleged Crimes as Criminal Acts:
[65.1] It would appear both the parties recognize the legal concepts of property and theft of property, although they may have different interpretations as to whether their cultural values of theft of property are consistent, i.e. whether they hold their own elite cultural members accountable for such practices, or whether the alleged ‘theft of property’ is simply a law which is used to deny the proles access to the property which has already been stolen by the elite, of the particular culture.
 Cultural Values are mutually Irreconcilable:
[66.1] If – for example – the alleged criminal act is ‘hate speech’, which is only recognized by one culture, who adhere to cultural values of sycophancy and political correct arsekissing; other cultures who are committed to encouraging freedom of speech, no matter how insulting, would not have cultural laws, or cultural values, recognizing criminal acts, such as ‘hate speech’.
[66.2] In such a case, it would be more respectful to both culture’s to encourage Separatist Multiculturalism, where both parties are capable of practicing their distinct ‘Sycophancy’ and ‘Brutal Honesty’ cultural values, as opposed to coercing these cultures into a Melting Pot Multicultural venue, where one culture’s values are coerced and forced down the other cultural members throats. Both cultures can consequently be encouraged to come to agreements how their separatist Multiculturalism shall be practiced and implemented.
[66.3] So far, it appears that both parties are firmly committed to Bullshit the Public Relations Image management, equally intent on shoving their Bullshit the Public Relations Image management practices particularly down the throats of cultures who prefer brutal honesty. So their actions breed more and more Breiviks, as the scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg drifts ever closer and closer.
 How & Why Criminal Act Contributed to Intra-Cultural Equity:
[67.1] Examples and evidence how or why the alleged criminal act, acting in accordance to the parties cultural legal principles, contributed to greater intra-species equity harmony, or discord , between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts.
[67.2] The Defendant could for example argue that exposing the hypocrisy of the elite of his own employment/nation/religion’s culture, contributes to Transparent Simple Clarity, between all cultures. Or that he was motivated to expose the deception of his National Cultural Political elite’s cultural ‘Duhmockery’ colonization of new markets, on behalf of the profits of multinational corporations.
[67.3] The Plaintiff could argue that the Defendant’s alleged ‘Peacenik’ motives are not, and were not, sincere, and most certainly not actions on behalf of Transparent Simple Clarity, between all cultures. The Defendant is not sincerely committed to addressing resource scarcity, due to overpopulation and overconsumption. The Defendants motives were purely AnthroCorpocentric, demonstrated by his total failure to distance himself from the worlds most prized AnthroCorpocentric pseudo-peacenik prize: the Nobel ‘War is Peace’ Whore Prize.
[68.1] The Amici respectfully urges the Court to:
A. Defend the Constitution as a Sustainable Social Contract, to stand with the small pockets of Leaver Conscious Sustainable Security (Overpopulation and Overconsumption induced Scarcity causes resource war Conflict) Military Doctrine Believers; against America’s domestic Consumption and Breeding War Taker enemies: AnthroCorpocentric Juristic Despots and pseudo-Peaceniks / War is Peace Whores .
B. Take a stand against the political, academic and legal captains of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic, refusal to recognize that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by the laws of nature/ecology and human nature; are driving SV AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic full speed to their ‘suicide pact’ collision with the Laws of Ecology and Human Nature, their scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg.
********Other Examples of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Transformations to Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence:
 Rights of nature in legal history:
[69.1] In his famous work, 'Should Trees Have Standing?' Justice Stone presented the case for conferring legal personality and rights on the environment. As Stone explained, as a rights-holder the natural object would “have a legally recognised worth and dignity in its own right, and not merely to serve as a means to benefit ‘us’....”. To achieve rights-holder status, the natural object must satisfy three criteria: [First], that the thing can institute legal actions at its behest; second, that in determining the granting of legal relief, the court must take injury to it into account; and third, that relief must run to the benefit of it.
[69.2] In his dissenting opinion in the landmark environmental law case, Sierra Club v. Morton , 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice William O. Douglas argued that "inanimate objects" should have standing to sue in court:
The critical question of "standing" [Footnote 2/1] would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers, and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. See Stone, Should Trees Have Standing? -- Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, 45 S.Cal.L.Rev. 450 (1972). This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. [Footnote 2/2] The corporation sole -- a creature of ecclesiastical law -- is an acceptable adversary, and large fortunes ride on its cases. [Footnote 2/3] The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes. [Footnote 2/4]
So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes -- fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water -- whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger -- must be able to speak for the values which the river represents, and which are threatened with destruction.
Mineral King is doubtless like other wonders of the Sierra Nevada such as Tuolumne Meadows and the John Muir Trail. Those who hike it, fish it, hunt it, camp in it, frequent it, or visit it merely to sit in solitude and wonderment are legitimate spokesmen for it, whether they may be few or many. Those who have that intimate relation with the inanimate object about to be injured, polluted, or otherwise despoiled are its legitimate spokesmen.
[..] The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled. That does not mean that the judiciary takes over the managerial functions from the federal agency. It merely means that, before these priceless bits of Americana (such as a valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so transformed a to be reduced to the eventual rubble of our urban environment, the voice of the existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard. [Footnote 2/8]
Perhaps they will not win. Perhaps the bulldozers of "progress" will plow under all the aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land. That is not the present question. The sole question is, who has standing to be heard?
Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe and portage the Quetico Superior in Minnesota, certainly should have standing to defend those natural wonders before courts or agencies, though they live 3,000 miles away. Those who merely are caught up in environmental news or propaganda and flock to defend these waters or areas may be treated differently. That is why these environmental issues should be tendered by the inanimate object itself. Then there will be assurances that all of the forms of life [Footnote 2/9] which it represents will stand before the court -- the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well a the trout in the streams.
Those inarticulate members of the ecological group cannot speak. But those people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire ecological community.
 New Zealand Grants a River the Rights of Personhood: Agreement entitles Whanganui River to legal identity:
The Whanganui River will become an legal entity and have a legal voice under a preliminary agreement signed between Whanganui River iwi and the Crown tonight.
This is the first time a river has been given a legal identity.
A spokesman for the Minister of Treaty Negotiations said Whanganui River will be recognised as a person when it comes to the law - "in the same way a company is, which will give it rights and interests".
The agreement was signed on behalf of Whanganui iwi by Brendan Puketapu of the Whanganui River Maori Trust, which represents a group of iwi along the river, and the Crown in Parliament this evening.
Under the agreement the river is given legal status under the name Te Awa Tupua - two guardians, one from the Crown and one from a Whanganui River iwi, will be given the role of protecting the river.
 Legalizing Sustainability? Santa Monica Recognizes Rights of Nature:
On April 9 (2013), the City Council of Santa Monica voted 7-0 to adopt the state’s first ever Bill of Rights for Sustainability, directing the city to “recognize the rights of people, natural communities and ecosystems to exist, regenerate and flourish.” Santa Monica joins dozens of U.S. communities, the nations of Ecuador, Bolivia, and New Zealand in the fast-growing movement for Nature’s Rights.
With the passage of this ordinance, Santa Monica challenges the legal status of nature as merely property, and empowers the City or residents to bring suit on behalf of local ecosystems. While not eliminating property ownership, these new laws seek to eliminate the authority of a property owner to destroy entire ecosystems that exist and depend upon that property. The ordinance also mandates the City to follow the Sustainable City Plan as a guide for decision-making to maximize environmental benefits and reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts.
 Other American Cities/Counties Drafting Rights of Nature Statutes:
[72.1] “Nature rights” has been legally adopted in more than 20 American municipalities — including Pittsburgh, which included the rights of nature in an ordinance preventing natural gas fracking within the city’s boundaries.
[72.2] Boulder, Colorado : “Boulder Rights of Nature is working to get rights of nature established as law in one or more jurisdictions in Boulder County and elsewhere. (For details of our draft ordinance, click here.) In this work we are aligned with hundreds of community organizations across the country. We believe that living in balance and harmony with nature is essential for life, liberty, and well being for all species, and for the integral functioning of the ecological systems that give life to all species. We want a positive future, not an impoverished one.”
 Bolivia and Ecuador: Rights of Nature Constitutional Amendments:
[73.1] The inclusion of "Buen Vivir" and Rights of Nature in the Ecuadorian constitution was helped along in largely due to the increased influence of indigenous activist groups in the political realm. After several years of worsening economic and environmental conditions, uprisings from various indigenous communities in, who found themselves receiving less support from the state, while simultaneously their land was being increasingly encroached upon by oil companies, put more attention on the concerns of the indigenous community. After historically being excluded from the political process, indigenous groups, especially concerned about the worsening environmental devastation of the extraction business and global climate change, started social movements aimed at creating a new approach to development that would protect the environment and harmonize its relationship with people. CONAIE (National Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador), the largest federation of indigenous movements, encompassing 14 of the nation's indigenous groups, and other groups focused on social justice began lobbying for a new constitution that incorporated recognition of the nation's indigenous groups, their language, culture, history, and land rights, and inherently their concepts of sumak kawsay and Pachamama, essentially meaning "Mother Nature."
[73.2] On April 15, 2007, over 80% of Ecuadorians voted in favor of calling a new assembly, thanks in large part to the support of indigenous communities. Indigenous groups had been pressuring for a new, more inclusive constitution for years, and were therefore actively involved in the drafting process. Alberto Acosta, the elected Assembly President, pledged to make the assembly more inclusive and incorporate the concerns of the indigenous into the constitution. In the end, a few indigenous representatives were elected to the assembly. To create a constitution based on the principles of "Buen Vivir," the Constitutional Assembly, with the advice of the Pachamama Alliance, enlisted the help of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) to draft language for the new provisions of the constitution detailing the Rights of Nature.
[73.3] On April 10, 2008, with 91 votes out of 130, the Constitutional Assembly approved Article 10 for inclusion in the new constitution. On June 7, Articles 71 through 74, compiling the Rights of Nature, were presented and debated on.
[73.4] On September 28, 2008, a mandatory referendum was held to vote on the new constitution, where the adoption of the constitution was approved by 65% of voters.
 Wild Law Movement: Rights of Nature:
 Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature & Wild Law UK :
Rights of Nature is the recognition and honoring that Nature has rights. It is the recognition that our ecosystems – including trees, oceans, animals, mountains – have rights just as human beings have rights. Rights of Nature is about balancing what is good for human beings against what is good for other species, what is good for the planet as a world. It is the holistic recognition that all life, all ecosystems on our planet are deeply intertwined.
Rather than treating nature as property under the law, rights of nature acknowledges that nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles.
And we – the people – have the legal authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of ecosystems. The ecosystem itself can be named as the defendant.
For indigenous cultures around the world recognizing rights of nature is simply what is so. All life, including human life, are deeply connected. Decisions and values are based on what is good for the whole.
Nonetheless, for millennia legal systems around the world have treated land and nature as “property”. Laws and contracts are written to protect the property rights of individuals, corporations and other legal entities. As such environmental protection laws actually legalize environmental harm by regulating how much polution or destruction of nature can occur within the law. Under such law, nature and all of its non-human elements have no standing.
 Pennsylvania Judge: Corporations Are not People:
 A Pennsylvania Judge took a step in the direction of Equlibriaex jurisprudence, in terms of confronting the excesses of Corporate Personhood: by ruling (PDF) that “In the absence of state law, business entities are nothing.” Put differently Corporations are not the same as persons, and not entitled to Person’s Privacy Rights.
[77.1] In the landmark ruling, President Judge Debbie O’Dell-Seneca of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas denied the corporation’s request on the basis that the Pennsylvania Constitution only protects the rights of people, not business entities.
[77.2] The ruling was delivered in a case brought by several Western Pennsylvania newspapers which sought the release of a sealed settlement agreement between a family claiming to be affected by water contamination from gas fracking, and Range Resources – one of the largest gas extraction corporations in the state.
[77.3] Range Resources argued that unsealing the settlement agreement would violate the corporation’s constitutional right to privacy under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
[77.4] In the ruling, Judge O’Dell-Seneca declared that “in the absence of state law, business entities are nothing.” If corporations could claim rights independent from people, she asserted, then “the chattel would become the co-equal to its owners, the servant on par with its masters, the agent the peer of its principals, and the legal fabrication superior to the law that created and sustains it.”
[77.5] She further found that “the constitution vests in business entities no special rights that the laws of this Commonwealth cannot extinguish. In sum, [corporations] cannot assert [constitutional privacy] protections because they are not mentioned in its text.”
[77.6] Judge O’Dell-Seneca cited sections of the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution in support of her contention that corporations were never intended to be constitutionally protected “persons.” She declared that “an even more dubious proposition is that the framers of the Constitution of 1776, given their egalitarian sympathies, would have concerned themselves with vesting, for the first time in history, indefeasible rights in such entities. . . that language extends only to natural persons.”
[77.7] Finally, she tackled the very nature of corporations by declaring that “it is axiomatic that corporations, companies, and partnerships have no ‘spiritual nature,’ ‘feelings,’ ‘intellect,’ ‘beliefs,’ ‘thoughts,’ ‘emotions,’ or ‘sensations,’ because they do not exist in the manner that humankind exists. . . They cannot be ‘let alone’ by government, because businesses are but grapes, ripe upon the vine of the law, that the people of this Commonwealth raise, tend, and prune at their pleasure and need.”
[77.8] The court records unsealed by the ruling reveal that Range Resources, and the other corporations which were the subject of the complaint, paid out $750,000 to settle claims of water contamination caused by fracking.
[77.9] Pennsylvania Court Deals Blow to Secrecy-Obsessed Fracking Industry: Corporations Not The Same As Persons With Privacy Rights :
“The ruling represents the first crack in the judicial armor that has been so meticulously welded together by major corporations,” said Thomas Linzey, executive director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which has helped 150 communities in eight states adopt Community Bill of Rights to limit corporate powers. “It affirms what many communities already know, that change only occurs when people begin to openly question and challenge legal doctrines that have been treated as sacred by most lawyers and judges.”
But where the ruling is likely to make the biggest waves is in the so-called corporate personhood debate. The Judge spent more than a third of her 32-page decision saying why corporations and business entities were not the same as people under Pennsylvania’s constitution, and why, for the purposes of doing business in the state, that federal court rulings that blur the rights of people and businesses do not apply.
“This court ruling is a significant development for the growing movement to restore democracy to the people,” said John Bonifaz, the co-founder and executive director of Free Speech For People, a national campaign launched on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. “The ruling is the newest example of dissent within the judiciary to the fabricated doctrine of corporate constitutional rights. It will be held up for years to come as a powerful defense of the promise of American self-government: of, by, and for the people.”
Judge O’Dell Seneca cited the text of the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution, the history of its various provisions, related recent case law from other states and policy considerations, and rejected the various claims by corporate lawyers that “made no attempt to parse those texts and construe them in light of the full document.” The Court wrote, “Nothing in that jurisprudence indicates that that right [of privacy] is available to business entities.”
Dated at George, South Africa: 12 April 2013
» » » » [TYGAE]