Responsibe Image

Raccoon Technologies Incorporated

May 21 2022 - §§ teko

Legal Rights of Persons Under Interdiction Disputes

Stimson doctrine, enunciated in a note of 7 January 1932

The Stimson Doctrine is the policy of nonrecognition of states created as a result of aggression.[1][2][3] The policy was implemented by the United States federal government, enunciated in a note of January 7, 1932, to the Empire of Japan and the Republic of China, of non-recognition of international territorial changes that were executed by force. The doctrine was an application of the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur.[4] While some analysts have applied the doctrine in opposition to governments established by revolution, this usage is not widespread, and its invocation usually involves treaty violations.

So where a government acting contrary to the articles of organization or bylaws of a legitimate government that has signed treaties comes into power, the treaties with the new government assuming power are not obligations as the taking of power not through lawful process constitutes "ex injuria jus non oritur" (rights assumed by illegal use of force, such as revolution or overthrow of the rule of law and protections therein withheld contrary rights of the people or other agreement) that shall not grant a right of equal or any standing before other parties or states or People to claims that do not carry the terms and conditions pledged and upon solicitation to treat then conditional and implicit any agreement based upon the genuine identity of the parties as rider terms.

In United States, the public right to "boycott" a company, meaning to withhold their power to authorize purchase or make new contract per a political or legal objection, is protected under 1st Amendment right, a legal protest both in action and in call to act in solidarity with others and solely by their mutual consent in their own right of franchise to direct purchasing power. The right to disclaim such purchase as a legal right is not asserted by a single company or legal person refusing to treat with the party and refusing to sell or offer service or support to those parties; especially in equal and non-violent response to suspension of other rights by those parties to the terms of agreement with the company or jus tertii to any party entitled such claim to service or other property.

The indicated example being, "If a thief robs a person and hails a cab, the cab driver is not guilty of discrimination against the thief in refusing to help them make their escape, even though the thief has not robbed the cab driver or his company. The driver is entitled the right to refuse to perform service for interest of the party robbed, even contrary his employmer disagreeing, due to his franchise as the labor or service and aid to the resistance from unlawful force or support of such act for profit done by another party. The company of the cab may also instruct their driver not to assist, but offer no resistance and relent to protect their employee and be clear in their scope of work to deny expressly any implied duty or role at law to make resistance which may result in injury; but this does not convey instruction to help or assist in the crime either nor avail knowingly any services to any unlawful activity ever, as any part of their service with company equipment or labor or brands.

The "standing" of the thief as a "customer eligible service or claims" within the company support and arbitration, is thusly disclaimed; while the right of other parties including the civil or criminal court of the State or Federal government is not contested by such act to refuse service and require superior orders to give over any thing of value, including labor or service or use of property or sale or support. If denial is based on a protected class, such as birth or race or gender, it is not lawful. But if it is based on a political registration which is engaged in abuse of human rights, that political body may be subject broad regional terms of service contrary any individual as a component of defective jurisdiction not afforded obligatory service when protection is withheld, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1981(c) themed "color of State Law" to impair Federal or Constitutional law or the rights of persons to equal protection in a dispute, abuse, or interdiction of Interstate Commerce to apply unfair business practices, as the Hobbs Act and RICO ACT specify.

The Right to Refuse Service which is not based on an ethnic or gender or religious basis - such as an opponent that is seeking to suggest their convictions are "medical claims" and all opposing persons who express dissent or opposition are deficient in wellness of mind to deprive their of property, children, or right to work; - would in turn be subject to a broad and unconditional Stimson Doctrine for assertion of such claims in any component, and the political body or State of such party liable for immediate retaliation per the 4th Geneva Convention for the injury to real persons a duty of any lawfully organized body or enterprise or agency of the United States to the intent of making opposition while sound in the employment of non-violent resistance to foreign law and foreign agency until granted superior orders.

This is fundamentally an "enumerated form of force" inclusive of Title 76 Section 76-9 "All Necessary Force" and Title 21 section 22-31 of "Resistance" afforded Oklahoma companies against harassment and abuse by organized foreign franchise, labor, their agents, or States giving aid and comfort against the Oklahoma Constitution Article XXIII-1A, XXIII-8, and XXIII-9 constitutional rights of persons; a duty to perform.

For this reason, where "State of Texas", "State of Michigan", "State of California" and elements in "State of Florida" and "State of New York" have enjoined in the taking of Oklahoma children without trial or due process to impair the ordinary and lawful rights of business and Interstate and Intrastate trade and credit; the firm reserves the right to deny service or any support or sale into or which follows claims under those States named in interdiction activity refused State and Federal aid to otherwise cease illegal acts and punish perpetrators having fled into those States to escape justice, similar to prior Federal Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1932 and "The Hobbs Act" and "Racketeering Interstate Corrput Organizations Act". All such acts arose due to objection and complicity by one member State to overrule and conceal abuse of a criminal conspiracy agasint rights by persons fleeing into, residing in, or employing regional corrupt organs of the public trust to carry fraud.

"Revolution" or "Social Justice" and "non enforcement of law to favor a political or economic cartel of foreign allegience" is not a basis for protection of law or entitlement of duties and service to such persons under color of law or abuse of the legal process (22 U.S.C. § 7102, 18 U.S.C. §1589). See also, 18 U.S.C. §241 and §242; and 42 U.S.C. §1981(c). Rejection of "operation of law" to assert false authority contrary the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Public Policy, United States Federal Register specific instruction and terms duly executed, or other law or limitation duly made in superior force (15 U.S.C. §1673(c) and 42 U.S.C. §666(a)(9) rule - themed Federal Civil Procedure Rule 18(b) violation - in Fraudulent Conveyance or threats and "aggravated perjury" evident to the naked eye a crime and felony overt act per Texas Statutory Code Title 8 Chapter 37, shall enjoy no standing before a competent office of the United States duly made nor right of sale or contract in access to markets to further impair the rights of persons or carry out injury of persons in violation of State and Federal Code or constitutional law whatsoever.

The United States, having issued the legal right, enjoined itself then in 1932 to the 1907 rule of "All Necessary Force" affording legal and civil remedy upon the same grounds in equal protection invoked for its "white citizens" then; a means of resort per 76 O.S. 76-1, 76-3, 76-6, and 76-8 violations enjoying 76-9 "remedy" in perpetuity and upon false offer of sale of the Justice Deparment to earnings of the United States a fee for protection not afforded Oklahoma Constitution Article II section II-6 rule, and in fraud to suspend and disable II-3 and II-22 rule of the same in a premeditated act by State of Texas sustained August 11 2001 to 2022 present, subject sanctions by RACCOON TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED for onogoing (11/14/2021) false claims to adjudicate property in extortion for concealment of a child ordered to POSSESSION of the family in Oklahoma, and such POSSESSION rights themed "for sale" conditoined EXCESSIVE FINE and false trial evident examination and investigation paid for by RTI in 2012 and 2022.

Use of the child to carry out "interdiction in Interstate Trade on behalf of NATION OF JAPAN, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, and REPBULIC OF GERMAN and KINGDOM OF SWEDEN" are formally filed in complaint; citing ongoing illegal demands in this cause as of 2001-2022 sustained by the Texas/Michigan/California/NewYork LOSTSERVER labor union, employees of ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGIES and TEK SYSTEMS in written letters of extortion, and fraud to overthrow the right to work in foreign sale of property as if a jus tertii claim of Admiralty Law for "human trafficking" in a premeditated child taking by fraud, force, threat of murder, and for permanent concealment to gain economic advantage against the pre-existing United States firmin Oklahoma in each comminication for ransom and submission of Interstate Commerce arising from such abuse.

Such persons and companies under interdiction are entitled the Stimpson Act powers in course of 76 O.S. §76-9 rule.

Citation:
[1] States in international law, by Encyclopædia Britannica.
[2] O’Mahoney, Joseph (2018). Denying the Spoils of War: The Politics of Invasion and Non-recognition. Edinburgh University Press. doi:10.3366/j.ctt1tqx9nb. ISBN 978-1-4744-3443-0.
[3] O’Mahoney, Joseph (2014-09-01). "Rule tensions and the dynamics of institutional change: From 'to the victor go the spoils' to the Stimson Doctrine". European Journal of International Relations. 20 (3): 834–857. doi:10.1177/1354066113483781. ISSN 1354-0661.
[4] Bin Cheng, Georg (FRW) Schwarzenberger (2006). General principles of law as applied by international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-03000-7.

Copyright © 2022 RACCOON TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED. All rights reserved.

Responsibe Image