Written By Abdun Nur
(If you wish to communicate about this article with the author email: firstname.lastname@example.org)
“Removing accountability is the purpose and foundation of hierarchy.
Demanding of yourself 100% accountability, is the truth of anarchy, and the pragmatic axiom of empathy.” – Abdun Nur
Arbitration of disputes is important to maintain harmony within the community, a wrong (the peace of the mind threatened) must be addressed and relief established, otherwise ill-will could be created, and the victimization of others could be prompted. In the modern age the community is all souls, and this then needs a universal method of application, free of hierarchy, this can be structured as a software platform, peer to peer and within a closed bond.
The inherent model is not dualistic, almost no dispute between souls is black and white,, dispute between psychopaths (soulless) and souls is often black and white, but almost always between souls it is the arbitration of the middle ground of dispute, and this is the reason arbitration is about resolving both the wrong and addressing the cause of the wrong.
Arbitration of disputes is about determining the juxtaposition of all sides involved, to show similarities or differences, etc. in order to apply reason to determine relief for all concerned, both the soul suffering mental distress (wronged), and the one that inflicted that distress (wrong doer). If you simply seek vengeance for a wrong nothing is resolved.
This is why within the arbitration of disputes the skill of reasoning is a prerequisite, so must first be proven, before you could claim to be able to arbitrate, just like learning to drive a car, before you could claim you can drive a car, or learning to read before you could claim to have read a book. No need of parasitical legal council, extorting and manipulating truth, lying, perverting and avoiding relief or accountability for those they re-present as straw men.
Proving the skill of reasoning is very easy to achieve on the arbitration platform, a test can be applied, and anyone seeking to aid the common good, through donating their time freely to arbitrate disputes, proves their ability to reason, and then can be randomly selected from the pool of reasoning souls, at a future point, to arbitrate a dispute. This is a choice, and at any point anyone proven to reason can remove themselves from the active arbitration selection list.
The test would ask questions, for example:
Do you believe in climate change?
If the answer is yes, then the test demands why by asking more questions. After all the questions have been posed and the test is completed, consensus of those proven to reason, interested in examining the test, examine the answers to determine if the answers are reasoned or unreasonable. The test accepts links to evidence to support a position.
If the answer is no, then more question are asked to examine why you do not believe in climate change.
Ten questions would need to be asked randomly generated from a large pool. For example:
Do you believe nuclear weapons are real, in the sense a nuclear explosion is possible?
If they answer yes or no then the test demands why, prove your position, and the test posses more questions, these questions are different depending on your initial answer of yes or no. The test also allows you to change your initial answer from yes to no, or no to yes at any point in the test for any posed question.
Examples of more questions:
Do you believe germ theory is the correct basis for the cause of disease? Yes / No
Do you believe viruses exist? Yes / No
Do you believe the Sun is a nuclear furnace? Yes / No
Do you believe the earths surface floats around sub-ducting below continents? Yes / No
Do you believe the moons gravitational effect pulls on the oceans of the Earth? Yes / No
Do you believe in the big bang theory? Yes / No
Do you believe in vaccination as a safe and effective method of preventing diseases? Yes / No
Do you believe gravity is an attraction of mass? Yes / No
Do you believe the Earth is a growing toroidal crystalline form? Yes / No
Do you believe 6 million Jews died in gas chambers during world war two? Yes / No
Do you believe the American corporation of Government put any men on the moon? Yes / No
And so on.
The many elements of an empathic model allow all social interactions free of hierarchy and usury, the very purpose of the slave law model of legislation is to allow the owners to impose monopoly and protect the five forms of usury.
Usury is a one sided extraction of the fruits of the labour of another, and this is expressed in five forms, ownership (meaning dual control – eminent domain, a slave is tenant and cannot own), rental, taxation, profit (the interest demand for the use of capital) and interest/fees on debt.
A model based on “the peace of the mind threatened”, is dichotomous (in opposition) to the legal system, based not on constructed legal fictions or granted slave rights and imposed duties, but inherent power, innate duties of reciprocation in agreement and action, and in common unity through trust building and forming bonds of affinity, founded on the methods that existed before the violent imposition of the feudal models. This software model can be established through a free downloadable peer to peer key pair encrypted app. being part of a series of app. platforms linked, and all working symbiotically, with the advancing cryptocurrency platform.
Arbitration of wrongs is just one element denied people through the slave law system known as the legal system. A system not for freely living souls, but for the enslaved, only able to exist as a corps, a system of the dead; slavery in body and mind draining the living of a life, so leaving only existence for the perceptual dead, inflicted by the dead (soulless) specters of hierarchy as a psychopathic model.
It is possible to arbitrate all wrongs using the inherent model, no need of authority granted through fictions of hierarchy, or a monopoly of violence, no need of written laws, or of lawyers, or policy enforcers.
ITCCS.ORG and The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State
A powerless and sadly ridiculed Court of Justice created by Kevin D. Annett attempts to bring those of power to at least the attention of the sleeping masses, through an International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State. This could be transformed using EA.R.T.H coinage platforms, as it’s presently powerless to enforce any verdict passed, making the whole process impotent. Powerful soulless psychopaths of hierarchical authority are utterly above accountability at present and are running amuck across the earth.
As a child most are imprisoned into the institution of school, this is a 15,000 hour indoctrination program to prevent the skill of reasoning, and to establish the blind acceptance of authority. This inability to reason allows the owners of the mafia of governments to easily manipulate the masses, creating constructs of perception that would, if they could reason, fall apart in seconds.
A Duty of Care
A duty of care is a reciprocal obligation as an inherent burden on every individual, which requires they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others; this is an implicit responsibility held by individuals towards others. To seek relief of a harm inflicted by another, it must be a “reasonably foreseeable” result of the conduct of the one blamed.
The State (corporate mafia) courts act as courts of the ‘corpse’; this is done to remove the duty of care and hold individuals extorted, unable to seek or establish relief of tort or dispute, in dichotomy to that is arbitration for the living. All courts as their true reason for existence should have no other purpose than to arbitrate disputes between living inventive, premeditating soul (inventivum anima).
The Legal system functions to limit the exercise of the inherent power of the individual, and avoid or prohibit the duty of care that is a reciprocal obligation, and responsibility of every living soul (inventivum anima), this is the true nature of the function of the fictions applied in the court of the corpse.
The courts of the corpse claim it cannot ‘impose’ unlimited liability and hold everyone inflicting a wrong liable for everyone else suffering the problems those wrongs generate, so there must be some limit to the duty of care, of course this is non-sense as the duty of care only applies to torts; a tort is a wrongful act. If no wrong is committed, no dispute can establish, you cannot seek relief from another for a wrong you inflict upon yourself, nor for a wrong without a tangible injured party. The vast majority of court cases are for breaking corporate policy, and have no wronged soul, this is a control system, designed to extort and intimidate the masses.
So the innate duty of care is not holding others liable for anything but wrongs they inflict upon other living souls, if you have a problem that is not the result of a failure in another’s duty of care that is proven, or another form of wrongful act such as breaking a written or witnessed agreement, it is not a tort (wrong).
Officialism functions in partiality and in opposition to natural duty or affection. All public officers are held under an oath of that granted office to the granter, being either a corporate legal entity or the hierarchical head of a corporate legal entity, through who’s authority they collect offerings, which is the function of all offices. An officer is one charged by a superior power, a power not derived by consent, but devolved on him by an authority with ‘quoad hoc’ (meaning: in this regard; as far as this is concerned) in authoritative superiority, presumed if not rebutted.
Authority means to originate creation, the author, and ‘–ity’, meaning ‘the state or reality’, the circumstances, attributes; so the legal fiction of State creates, so ‘authors’, the legal fiction of citizenship that holds the living inventive, premeditating soul as its agent, as a human (serf/slave) on a fictional ship of commerce, and the creator of a thing has control over its use, controlling its circumstances and attributes, they have authority over all they author.
There is in fact no authority, it is a fiction imposed by those who act in office (seeking offerings), any authority imposed is either consented to freely, accepted to through ignorance or deception, or imposed against the consent of the victim. The authority of every office takes consent from the presumption that if you do not explicitly rebut their offer, claim, action, or demand you have consented by your silence. This reasoning is of course erroneous, but a reality at present due to the structure of the courts
We are born with inherent power, this is a natural equitable duty of care and is incumbent upon every living soul labelled in fictions man or woman, as an unalienable obligation, for example: if you witness a drowning individual and have it within your power to save them, but do not, you have failed in your natural reciprocal obligation and responsibility of a duty of care, so have committed an injury to the drowning soul, and relief can be sort of you directly if that negligence can be proven.
Why, you may ask?
Because if you were the drowning man, you would want help, and to deny the reciprocation of that demand wrongs the other, so they, or their kinfolk or any outraged souls, can seek relief upon their behalf.
Another example. If you dress up in a costume, and travel to a place with the intent of shooting, burning, exploding, poisoning, starving, torturing, etc. other souls, you must be held to account, it does not matter you act under the dictates of your owners, nor that you believe you are magically protected by your owners authority, you have committed murder, suffering, rape, theft, or whatever wrongs you inflict while dressed in the childish costume of the slave owners, and if true arbitration was put in place, must be held accountable for your evils.
Why, you may ask?
Because a costume does not alter inherent power, and inherent power cannot be removed, it can only be ignored, and it is ignored because people do not know it exists, and presently have no method in place to implement it. By establishing an arbitration system globally based on the inherent power of a reciprocal duty of care, accountability protects all from the psychopathocracy presently dominating the peoples of the Earth.
Through the duty of care a child in the womb is considered born whenever there is a question of safety or aid to the child, and has equal protection with any other living soul, regarded in relief as an adult within arbitration of tort, so the inherent power and the reciprocal obligation and responsibility each has for those around them protects the child from formed fetus; a formed fetus is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) “in man from seven to eight weeks after fertilization until birth”; inherent power treats the life as full and mature, to terminate a life within the womb once formed encroaches upon the child, additionally to intentionally poison, or damage the environment of the fetus encroaches on the child. If you wished to end the pregnancy through infanticide by proxy, it would therefore have to be done before the infant had developed beyond seven or eight weeks.
Laws, Rights and Duties Vs. Inherent Power
Laws are granted rights and duties, a superior grants rights to an inferior, the master and the slave, and all rights exist at the whim of the granter. This in reality means all positive laws are exclusively for slaves.
Inherent power is the reciprocal duty of care that is universal, immutable and unalienable.
This needs only two rules:
Do all you have agreed to do with witness or proof.
Treat others as you would expect to be treated. (Reciprocal duty of care)
The system in place before feudal slavery was imposed, was known as terrente, meaning the peace of the mind threatened. No laws are valid as no other is superior to grant upon you, a wrong is whatever disturbs the peace of your mind, for which you seek arbitration of your peers (reasonable souls), if your peers agree, then relief is established, free of punishment and revenue generation, for both the wronged and the wrong doer.
Licenses versus a Duty of Care
“Oi, mate – have you got a license for that “freedom”?”
If a danger to others is present in any activity that demands a skill and knowledge base to master, like driving a car on a common road, or flying a plane over a populated area, competence must be gained before that activity can be undertaken without danger to others, based upon your reciprocal obligation and responsibility of a duty of care to protect those around you from avoidable incompetence, however ‘Licensing’ of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of inherent power, an unalienable reciprocal obligation and responsibility, namely who is above me to grant me permission.
The license is a fiction required by another fiction of public, and the fiction of trustees who performs the fiction of a public service, and is not applicable to any living soul. The highway traffic act does not apply to any living soul, as a soul is not involved in commerce for the fictional corporation of government, a soul would need to be re-presented as a constructed legal fiction to perform that function, if they had a valid driver’s license, but even then any agent of a government that is granted the benefit of using the common roads, does not have a valid, defensible grant to do so, as government mafia has “NO” basis of any form of ownership, so is without any foundation to give license.
Therefore no soul is in anyway bound by any regulation of traffic acts to drive upon a common use road, but every soul is bound to the reciprocal duty of care for all souls, so any actions every soul holds full accountability and so liability. This means, every soul must first establish competence in all activities that are a potential danger to those around them, this is inherently binding upon them through a reciprocal obligation and responsibility.
Proof of competence could be tested as an attachment to a need bond, such as a need bond of car assurance (insurance) against accident, but it could not be licensed.
Removing Dispute Through Witnessed Unilateral Bonds of Behaviour
Instead of using fear and intimidation to force compliance, with mental and physical violence, kidnap, caging and torture, presently used to impose the dictates of the corporate mafia agents of govern mental institutions. Instead each individual seeks to declare and impose upon themselves the inherent duty of care, this is a self peace keeping model.
You may say, “People won’t behave, they are corrupt, greedy ass holes!”. Without doubt you cannot prevent all wrongs, but you can drastically reduce them, presently true wrongs are both ignored by the agents of institutional control, and imposed directly by the agents of the very same institutions.
The costumed clowns of extortionists labelled police, presently resolve less than 1% of true wrongs, their main function being revenue generation for the govern mental mafia, intimidation to maintain compliance of the enslaved population and protecting the property of the corporation of State mafia, they have no duty of care for the souls who are extorted to pay their parasitical wages. The very idea of policy enforces is a slave law concept, not valid in an anarchic application of society.
For example. To establish a duty of care of competency in driving, within the written “need” bond for an assurance car bond, being a cooperative based alternative to the corporate car insurance structure, would protect drivers from incompetence of other bondsmen.
If people fear drivers would attempt to escape accountability for accidents, an open display of your unique assurance bond number, would allow those around you to identify you for any action that causes injury or loss, while being protected from financial hardship through the bond. This could be written into the need car assurance bond, with failure to display that bond number removing the collective assurance protection from the other need bondsmen.
Although even this is not essential, once the foundation of true community is re-established, being trust and virtue, and the structure of the assurance is no longer penalizing, then people would no longer attempt to avoid their responsibilities, and the need to display a number would become redundant. The car assurance bond concept is a no blame model, the bondsman is the one assured not the vehicles they drive, no excess, full comprehensive. Link to Car Assurance Bond
When binding yourself to a unilateral agreement of behaviour, you’re giving your binding agreement, breaking that agreed bond has the relief accepted in advance.
The bond of behaviour is a witnessed and binding agreement, so you’re demonstrating practically your intention to act within a duty of care for those around you, and in the spirit of accountability you’re identifying any vehicle driven by you, as the bondsman of a need of car insurance bond, with the unique bond number of that cooperative assurance protection. As the assurance is always comprehensive, meaning not only no fault collision for damage to any vehicle you may be driving, it also protects you from loss due to events such as theft, vandalism or hail, which are not collision-related, this means if you are in a car assurance bond, you have no need to avoid accountability.
If a car is driven after the driver had been drinking alcohol heavily, but it was driven without incident or demonstrating dangerous road use that instilled fear in those around them, they have committed no actionable tort (wrongful act), as they have caused no injury to another tangible being, however they have failed in their inherent duty of care, by demonstrating dangerous conduct, showing contempt for the safety of those around them, however only if there is a victim can relief be sort. This however has broken their bond of behaviour attached to the car assurance need bond, a self imposed agreement, and the relief of that bond can be imposed for such actions.
If the need bond requires a unilateral bond of behaviour in order to become attached to that bond, they have imposed upon themselves redress, this could be progressive, starting with an increase in their proportionate share of the collective cost of assurance. If the breaking of the bond continues, then at some point they would be exclusion from the assurance bond.
Why would someone impose a bond of behaviour onto themselves freely?
Selfish advantage is the answer, the example of a need car assurance bond gives many advantages and costs far less than the corporate insurance model, so giving a bond of behaviour gives the other bondsmen sharing the risk of you driving, an assurance you’re no more a risk on the roads than they are.
The bonding platform allows any need to be satisfied through the creation of bonds, but any bond that requires interactions that could cause disputes, requires each bondsman to establish a unilateral bond of behaviour. The unilateral behaviour bond creates assurance to all involved, reducing the perception of risk, and giving confidence in the accountability of anyone breaking that agreed behaviour.
The act of being willfully incompetent while drive would break the behaviour bond agreement and be viewed as a premeditated and wilful tort when inflicted a wrong upon another; the victim would receive full substantive relief with maximum relief awarded, as this would be a double wrong, the physical act of the wrong and the premeditated act of disregarding the inherent duty of care.
We’re each fully accountable for our actions, so if the heavily drunk driver caused the death of another, the substantive relief would be viewed as premeditated murder, as they drank with the intention of driving while severely impairing their ability to drive safely, from their own self-inflicted drunkenness, this utter disregard for the duty of care makes the act premeditated, and leaves them fully accountable for their actions. The choice of the individual to drive while incompetent is an internal process, free, and spontaneous it separates one free choice from another, and that free choice is manifest without compulsion, so constituting both premeditated intention and wilful contempt for those around them.
If a house is constructed that is unsafe and then sold without making its unsafe condition known before purchase to another, that is a tort, all are entitled to full disclosure before any trade of any type is made, but more especially when such faults may be life threatening.
The duty of care in construction commensurate with diligent standards is demonstrated through a unilateral bond of behaviour. When selecting a builder a bond of behaviour detailing safe building practices and the relief if they’re broken detailed within the bond. No need of certificates or license from the hierarchical institutions, the bond of behaviour would detail all time served at the mastery of skills and attainment of knowledge, with witnesses and seal.
An assurance bond of behaviour, in this example for construction, can also give a guarantee that is binding, for example a builder cooperative makes a new roof, the assurance bond gives binding and witnessed guarantee of those builders as bondsmen, holding them responsible for that work as determined and detailed with relief in their bond, while simultaneously providing full relief independently of that original builder, giving assurance of a predetermined period that assurance would protect the guarantee of that work.
The guarantee must be upheld, within the set period of guarantee as agreed between the need bondsman and the builder cooperative bondsmen, the builders are bound to honour that agreement, and failure to do so, for example because they all died or were out-bonded or the cooperative was dissolved and all involved left the closed bond of the platforms, the the burden of rectifying the fault, falls to the assurance bond. It would be those with the need of building, that would demand of the builder cooperative they selected be bound to an assurance bond, so providing eternal guarantee.
It doesn’t matter if the original individual that had the roof renewed trades it, or even if many others have traded the roof over time, the guarantee is for the roof, not for the one having the roof renewed, no need of paperwork, the roof would be referenced on the assurance bond itself online.
No contracts exist in the inherent model. As contracts are a one sided agreement and not reciprocal. This model has no relation to the constructed legal fiction of a business, company or corporation.
Duty of care beyond reciprocation
“We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation and have treated our distant cousins in fur and features so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form.” William Ralph Inge
We have a duty of care towards life itself, as we exist symbiotically within an Eco-system, rights are a grant from a superior to an inferior, animals need only one right: “the right not to be property”. Animals are unable to enter into a written, witnessed agreement or make moral choices, and cannot seek relief in arbitration directly, for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights that can be defended or established by them independently.
What is meant by property, is interest through dual control, this concept means the master owns the possessions, soul, physicality of the slave (A slave cannot own. Animals suffer this same concept of property). Property is defined as things and rights that can be owned or that have a monetary value. It is plain, that, if one may be held as property, then every other may be so held. The mediating relationship between the individual, property and state is called a property regime (to author rule), as a legal relationship between persons (straw man) and the state enforces a dual possessory interest or legal title in that thing, the State fiction is owner the slave is possessor.
All is property in this constructed legal fiction model, and so the State mafia’s agents can dictate all property use, imposing license, registration, permissions, fees, taxes, restrictions, obligations and treatment of said property upon the possessor, this is the reason ownership is a form of usury. Effectively ownership is the cost of the interest by the state mafia for the possession of a thing, including your physical body.
Inherently there is no “property” construct.
All life is autonomous, therefore no animal can be owned, only the labour invested in the creatures of low intelligence and awareness has value in trade, and even then the creature reciprocally should not suffer. We, as creatures of higher intellect, are the custodian of life, not the owners or exploiters, inherently the animal shouldn’t have to endure the suffering of pain or distress from the hand of a soul that knows empathy, and if they don’t know empathy, they have not a soul.
Any excessive suffering inflicted would break the inherent duty of care owed to all life that can feel fear, pain and suffering, that is unalienable and immutable to all such life, we have an indisputable duty of care, as we exist in a higher conscious state. To be a man is not the definition of terrente (the peace of the mind threatened), any creature that can show empathy, reason, communication and suffer fear with anticipation should be viewed as equal and to wrong them equal to wronging another soul.
“If you have men that will exclude any of the Creators creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow man.” Francis of Assisi
“The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.” Leonardo Da Vinci
In the present model inflicted by the paedophile class of psychopathic owners, often called the wealth elite, who always seek to form monopolies, and through these monopolies dominate and extort, there is no redress through the slave law system monopoly. They prevent the slaves from redress from the consequences generated, this allows the paedophile class to use poisons in place of medicines, and to introduce poisons into the food chain to foster disease in the masses to generate profit and cause depopulation.
Inherently, and as a reciprocal duty, it is axiomatic, that to sell food to another that was proven or even suspected to be poisonous, polluted, toxic or detrimental to the health of the buyer, to be a tort, a wrongful act. Yet, you as a slave are forced to seek out “organic”, meaning food with less poisons in it, within the corporate slave model, in order to reduce the huge level of toxic shit intentional introduced into the food chain.
“If organic farming is the natural way, shouldn’t organic produce just be called ‘produce’ and make the pesticide-laden stuff take the burden of an adjective?” Ymber Delecto
Therefore to sell food containing excite-toxins like, monosodium glutamate, aspartame, saccharine, etc.; or genetically modified plants, for example almost all wheat, or G.M corn, etc.; or commercially farmed milk, containing antibiotics, faeces, unnatural levels of hormones, and having all remaining value destroyed through the toxification process of pasteurisation; or solvent extracted oils, or any food containing harmful chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, unnatural toxic colourants, flavouring, preservatives, irradiation, etc.; or cooked using microwaves, any one of these contaminants would prevent that being traded without breaking the duty of care incumbent upon all.
This protection could be achieved, if people understood the inherent duty of care they are bound to immutably and unalienably, making the safety of traded goods and trading conduct incumbent upon the individual, and all accountable for their actions.
Take care of yourself
A duty of care is not a part of any fictional construct of social protection in the sense of an obligation of any other to take care of you in a practical sense; it’s not the job of another to be your keeper, or the fiction of a governments job, or the fiction of Wall Street’s job, to ‘take care of you’, that’s your job. However in the ancient anarchic model the surety bilateral reciprocal bond model does provide protection from true hardship, for both the individual and the community at large, this is created between individuals and has nothing to do with the unalienable and universal reciprocal duties of care directly, to learn about the surety bond model here’s the link.
A duty of care is protection from wrongful actions suffered, not an obligation for any other to provide for you.
The Legal System seeks revenue and inflicts punishment but does not give relief to wrongs, instead the legal system predominantly perpetrates wrongs directly. In exchange for your slavery to the State corporation you’re given granted rights, duties and perceived social benefits, these benefits are the basis of the mafias extortion of taxation, and to better extract revenues regulation, license, and registration are imposed to fulfill the imposed duties demanded, these poor quality, and largely worthless benefits exist at a very heavy price.
The State corporation effectively steal more than 90% of the fruits of the labours of the average slaves labour, through direct and indirect taxation, licensing, registration, and rent seeking, this is imposed through very restrictive and expensive bureaucratic fictions, which regulate the slave to act as demanded and to pay the mafia to be allowed to act without encumbrance or prohibition, paying them and seeking permission simply to travel for example.
For every inherent wrong that would be a genuine case for arbitration, that’s addressed by the State courts (addressed only to generate revenue for the corporation), the courts perpetrate a 100 or more wrongs directly onto other victims.
How Could a Software Application Create Arbitration of Wrongs?
The foundation of E.A.R.T.H coin is a true medium of exchange based on a zero balance through pure advance, interest and fee free, users are not identified using any legal name, or document, instead they have a voice scan and face/ear scan; to log into the platform a random sentence is generated and the user reads it out loud, the system then recognizes the vice pattern and along with the password allow access, if they cannot speak an ear/face scan and password would allow access. It has no hierarchical structure instead is polycentric with localised hubs and nodes.
This means the platform is closed, it’s not a public platform, but a closed platform, only recorded bondsmen could access the platform and the applications attached to it. This means a utiliser could not have two accounts, and if banned could never rejoin.
Many platforms can be attached to the main advancing cryptocurrency platform which is the basis of the system, allowing access to resources. The Arbitration platform is based on the ancient model of terrente, meaning ‘the peace of the mind threatened’, anything that disturbs the peace of your mind would be open to arbitration, and if a jury of reasoning peers agreed with you, then relief could be determined for both the wronged and the wrong doer.
This model does not recognize any constructed legal fiction, only living souls, so if a corporation wrongs you, you would have to identify the individual/s responsible not the fiction.
When a wrong is presented for arbitration on the software application, a writ is generated, this would be filled out by the complainer, and handed, emailed or posted to the accused.
The system would give time for the accused to rebut the complaint by entering a rebuttal on line, detailing the rebuttal of the wrong to the complainers through affidavit and evidence, or to accept the wrong and to capitulate for terms of relief.
If arbitration was required the system would randomly request platform users, who have accepted the option of arbitrating wrongs, and proven the skill of reasoning on the app, to be part of the jury.
To be a part of the jury the bondsman would be reasoning, as you cannot reason to truth unless you have the skill of reasoning. Even online tutorials to develop the skill to reason could be made available.
Once the jurors had digested the evidence and claims, witness statements and circumstances presented, they would join an open debate with all other jurors, at a mutually determined set time and date, to discuss the complaint and determine a full consensus.
Once a full consensus was determined, then relief, if any were needed, would be discuss to resolve the wrong for the victim and determine what action was required to prevent the wrong doer inflicting the same wrong again, at a future point.
The ancient system used a Rex; Rex means meaning ‘to put right’. When a writ was rejected the complainer would seek a Rex, anyone could act as a Rex, it was anyone the complainer believed could bring the accused to arbitration, and the cost of the Rex was always paid by the accused, as it was their choice not to rebut (answer) the wrong, or capitulate relief.
On the software platform, as long as it was proven the accused, or their agents, had knowledge of the writ, if they failed to rebut the wrong, and the jury of peers agreed it was a wrong, then relief would be determined through no contest.
The concept of a Rex could be used to determine relief in some cases. For example if the accused is found through consensus to be a murderer, and the jurors determine the relief is to end that murderers life (Jurors determine relief not the software), the platform would generate a donations box for that relief, all bondsmen of the platform could openly examine the case after consensus was determined and donate E.A.R.T.H coins towards the relief, if they too found the determination and relief fair.
If someone believed they could establish relief, they could ask the platform for a unique code attached to their voice pattern, exclusively for that relief. the platform would generate as many codes as their were Rex’s interested in establishing relief, anyone could request a code, even if not part of the bonding system. Once relief was executed the code would be left at the scene, or evidence provided anonymously to the platform that the jurors could use to accept the Rex’s claim, and so prove the claim of the Rex, and all donations towards that relief would then go to the Rex with that code, providing no other was wronged in the execution of the relief.
This would effectively pit psychopath against psychopath, empathic souls are not designed to murder, abuse, torture others, but a psychopath is, this is the ideal function for a psychopath to earn a living, making the earth a safer place for all.
Not all wrongs require such extremes, and not all jurors would desire such an outcome, other methods can be applied, for wrong doers who are bondsmen of the platform relief would be easier to determine, as all bonds have reliefs built in, and also they have an investment in using the platform, once they understand all the advantages it creates. Those not using the platform would require more imaginative efforts.
For example, a demand may be issued for financial penalty for a wrong, the wrong doer may ignore the demand, this would generate a donation box towards a Rex/s. They would be warned of the result of failure to honour the demand.
The Rex would then cause financial loss to the wrong doer, upon a Rex proving their efforts they would get a percentage of the donation box proportionate to the loss suffered. For every 10 in loss suffered by the wrongdoer the Rex receives 1, as long as their actions did not wrong any other, many Rex’s may claim from one pot, this cost would be added to the financial demand on the wrongdoer, as long as they continued to refuse payment the Rex’s would be free to gain reward for causing financial loss to the wrongdoer, until the demand was paid, once paid those who donated to the cost of the Rex/s would be reimbursed.
If the wrongdoer is a violent, abusive creature, the relief of the jurors may be equally violent, and a Rex/s could be asked to inflict certain violent acts upon the wrong doer. It would be entirely up to the jurors to determine exactly what actions they felt would establish relief.
The relief may be to advertise the wrong locally that was committed by the wrongdoer, through media and businesses, showing pictures of the wrong and wrong doer, or explaining their wrong, may be to encourage traders to refuse to trade with the wrong doer, or to make them a pariah, or to warn people about such a creature and any danger they presented under certain circumstances.
The relief is only limited by the imagination of the jurors, and as more ideas of relief were generated it would become easier to determine appropriate actions.
Poverty is the driving force of corrupt and immoral activity, even petty acts of dishonesty. The less poverty and the more accountability for all actions, linked to the selfish advantages of a trust and bonding model, remove wrongs, this is further improved when all five forms of usury are removed, debt interest, profit, ownership, taxation and rental, then wrongs become a very rare event, as they were in the time before feudal slavery.
If you’d like to consider the arbitration concept in much greater detail I’ve written a series of articles, here is a link to the first: Part One – Establishing Universal Accountability – a Substantive Witena-Gemot of Axiom-logical Inherent Power