Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponPin on PinterestShare on TumblrDigg thisFlattr the authorEmail this to someone

Sustainable Development is the most extensive and broad ranging social engineering project ever undertaken. With respect to state, county and local political bodies, many have contracted their powers away. They applied for loans and grants that required “concessions.” Many times the concessions included authority over renewable natural resources and development. Those terms and concessions handed the scepter of power and ultimate authority over to the financier in perpetuity.

Sustainable Development is the most extensive and broad ranging social engineering project ever undertaken. To give effect to this vague phrase and to its empiric objectives, significant changes in human behavior had to be promoted, influenced or induced.

The United Nations (UN) program for Sustainable Development has three primary components.

(1)   The initiating “program”

(2)   An “agenda” with objectives and,

(3)   “Projects” to implement the program and agenda on the ground.

Sustainable development has a long developmental history. It was reasonably well explained in “The Green Web: A Union for World Conservation” by Martin Holdgate. Mr. Holgate was Director-General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) between 1988 and 1994.

The UNESCO Man & Biosphere program was an experimental forerunner in the innovative development of the social engineering scheme. The IUCN was specifically named in the World Heritage Treaty. They assumed planning and management authority of those experimental areas as a treaty organization. Those areas are sometimes referred to as Biosphere Reserves and are managed under the Seville Strategy, numerous treaties and Agenda 21.

We know that Agenda 21, Earth’s Action Plan, was the overall social engineering agenda for “sustainable development” with specified “objectives.” Agenda 21 was written by the IUCN. At the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, Nicholas A. Robinson railroaded Agenda 21 through as the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development”. He used sleep deprivation techniques to get it through as he knew that rested, wide awake delegates would never agree to such a scheme. You need a copy of the IUCN’s annotated version of Agenda 21 to find that information. It was edited out of all other editions.

Here is a link to a recent essay by Nicholas Robinson entitled: “IUCN as Catalyst for a Law of the Biosphere: Acting Globally & Locally”.…-a0133052169

The economic component of the Sustainable Development system was finalized under the Second Amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1976. Public Law 94-564. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the Bretton Woods sisters, were to officiate over that component. Numerous joint venture agreements and integrated programs would appear when the rest of the sustainable development program components came into view and achieved the status of general policy.

At about the same time as the Bretton Woods Agreement came into effect, the UNESCO Man & Biosphere Program was started in the U.S. With the economic component under international control, it took just over a decade of experiments and innovations to come up with “Sustainable Development.” The Rio conference’s primary focus was directed at environmental treaties and agreements. One principle objective was to internationalize, or at least regionalize, all bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements under an “umbrella.” That would and did provide “sustainable development” with the natural resource component.

With the economic and natural resource components internationalized, that left only the “development” component to be acquired. Development of trade and commerce were internationalized under provisions in the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement. This agreement has approximately 150 environmental treaties attached. When a signatory party signed into the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, they:

  • Relinquished parts of their domestic authority to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and,

  • Consented to all of the attached economic and environmental treaties and agreements.

This is called “implied consent” in international law.                   

Other regional agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had economic, natural resource and environmental provisions. The NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation is currently located in Canada.

Now consider the term “equity.” Equity is used in the “Sustainable Development” scheme because there are no recognized or protectable “legal rights.” In short, others who are not title owners or do not have some titled easement now claim a superior equitable interest in the property of others and in its use and enjoyment.

EQUITY. In early law history, the sense affixed to this word was exceedingly vague and uncertain. In part, this was owing to the fact that chancellors in those days were either statesmen or ecclesiastics. Neither was reliably scrupulous in the exercise of power. It was then asserted that equity was bounded by no certain limits or rules and that it was alone controlled by conscience and natural justice. 3 Bl. Com. 43-3, 440, 441. 2.

In a moral sense, that is called equity which is founded, ex aequo et bono, in natural justice, in honesty, and in right. In an enlarged legal view, “equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it. In this, equity is made synonymous with justice; in that, to the true and sound interpretation of the rule.” 3 Bl. Com. 429.

This equity is justly said to be a supplement to the laws; but it must be directed by science. The Roman law will furnish him with sure guides, and safe rules. In that code will be found, fully developed, the first principles and the most important consequences of natural right. “From the moment when principles of decision came to be acted upon in chancery,” says Mr. Justice Story, “the Roman law furnished abundant materials to erect a superstructure, at once solid, convenient and lofty, adapted to human wants, and enriched by the aid of human wisdom, experience and learning.” Com. on Eq. Jur. §23 Digest, 54.3.

But equity has a more restrained and qualified meaning. The remedies for the redress of wrongs, and for the enforcement of rights, are distinguished into two classes:

  • First, those which are administered in courts of common law;

  • Secondly, those which are administered in courts of equity.

Rights which are recognized and protected, and wrongs which are redressed by the former courts, are called legal rights and legal injuries. Rights which are recognized and protected, and wrongs which are redressed by the latter courts only, are called equitable rights and equitable injuries.

The former are said to be rights and wrongs at common law, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies at common law. The latter are said to be rights and wrongs in equity, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies in equity.

Equity jurisprudence may, therefore, properly be said to be that portion of remedial justice which is exclusively administered by a court of equity, as contradistinguished from that remedial justice, which is exclusively administered by a court of law. Story, Eq. §25. Vide Chancery, and the authorities there cited; and 3 Chit. Bl. Com. 425 n. 1. Dane’s Ab. h.t.; Ayl. Pand. 37; Fonbl. Eq. b. 1, c. 1; Wooddes. Lect. 114 Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t. EQUITY, COURT OF.

A court of equity is one which administers justice, where THERE ARE NO LEGAL RIGHTS. However, courts of law do not afford a complete remedy and where the complainant has also an equitable right. “Vide Chancery.” See: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1859.

As noted in the definition of equity, its origin is from Rome; it was exceedingly vague and uncertain and was administered by those who were not reliable or scrupulous. The transition from the common law to equity began in the late 1920s and 1930s and was spearheaded by the American Law Institute. In its modern day and innovative use, and as used for the purpose of “Sustainable Development”, it might be described as the “divine right of kings” exercised by aristocracies or oligarchies if you will. It was the arbitrary power of the Roman Emperors and their administrators who adopted that premise of absolute and centralized authority from the Babylonian Priest Kings. King John of England attempted to use those unfettered powers but his reign of despotism ended at Runnymead where he was forced to sign the Charter of Forest Principles and shortly thereafter the Magna Carta.

We are now seeing the resurrection of Roman concepts of privileges and limited interest in property and the demise of and refusal to recognize the “common law”, which Sir William Blackstone called the “fountain source” of rights and “the birthright” of the people.

Australia is more advanced in the systematic demise of the common law than the U.S. However, there are few who know or live by common law in the U.S. anymore either. “Collectivism” is now taking over people’s minds under Sustainable Development rhetoric and propaganda. This is particularly true in urban areas where people’s lives are subjugated and inundated with heavy regulations enforced by swarms of agencies and bureaucrats.

Few know that the titles to their real property are in equity. Banks, attorneys and real estate dealers many times put on the contracts or titles that the buyer paid “ten dollars and other considerations” for the property. Amendment VII to the U.S. Constitution has a minimum monetary requirement to get to a court of law, i.e., 20 dollars. As such, a common law remedy may not be available to those with only “ten dollars” in issue.

If a lender or bank was used in the transaction, the financial institution may be the real owner. The institution discharged the debt to the seller and the buyer is obligated to discharge that debt plus interest back to the lender. The buyer only has an “equitable interest” in the property.

So you see, like people in Australia, there are few left with the “birthright.” The protectable birthright had to be eliminated in order for “Sustainable Development” and the aristocratic social engineering scheme to be enforced.

With respect to state, county and local political bodies, many have contracted their powers away. They applied for loans and grants that required “concessions.” Many times the concessions included authority over renewable natural resources and development. Those terms and concessions handed the scepter of power and ultimate authority over to the financier in perpetuity.

In summary, treaties and international agreements are implemented under guise of centralized laws, regulations and policies by federal agencies who then pass them down to the States or Provinces, who in turn for a price, impose them upon local governments and ultimately upon the people. They impact local governments and the local people in an infinite number of ways by directing and controlling commerce, manipulating trade and the production of goods; they affect the cost of living and doing business, and impose costly conditions and unfunded mandates on how public and private lands and natural resources are managed and used. They appear to us in words and papers under numerous different names such as “global warming”, “endangered species”, “free trade”, “river basin management”, “precautionary principle”, “wetlands”, “protected areas”, “corridors”, “buffer zones”, “conservation easements”, etc. They are all thrown together under vague banners such as “sustainable development” that have no useful definition. It is the “top down approach” that dictates how most people live and act in their daily lives and how and where they will live and grow.

As stated, it is the most extensive centralized social engineering scheme ever devised. The common law being the “fountain source” of private rights and the “birthright” of the people stood in opposition to those global collective engineering plans and had to be removed by deception, contract, consent or coercion.