Marti Oakley       © Copyright 2012  All Rights Reserved  Reposting and reblogging:  Retitling to redirect traffic will be treated as [theft of content].  No modifications of any kind are allowed.  Original URL must be embedded in the repost and all author credits clearly visible, including copyright.


Business liars and military hawks testify on the Law of the Sea Treaty

On June 28th, 2012, Senator John Kerry (D)MA, convened a hearing on behalf of the Council of Foreign Relations in support of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Senator Kerry, acting on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) obviously forgetting that he is a Senator of  a state and who, instead represented himself as the representative of a foreign interest, claims he will not bring the LOST Treaty up for a vote until after the election so as not to politicize it. I am wondering what the delay is?

The LOST treaty would in effect be full capitulation to maritime law (admiralty law) within the United States and would effectively obliterate what is left of the Constitution and the laws and protections associated with it. “Maritime law is the law that exclusively govern activities at sea or in any navigable waters.” (1)

The question now becomes: How to use definitions and terms to imply or dictate the application of LOST terms within and upon the land mass of the nation? Simple: you simply redefine the description “navigable waters“, to “waters of America”. This covers everything, allows for broad interpretations of the treaty and the law, (meaning it can mean anything they want it to mean at any time) and then include provisions that put any complaints outside the US court system.

The constant attempts by factions of congress and various federal corporate agencies in collusion with foreign interests and representatives, to redefine navigable waters to include all waters from any source whatsoever and to consign water, water rights, water ownership and control to the federal government has been initiated to facilitate the total conversion from constitutional law, to admiralty (maritime) law.

What those in our own government are attempting to do is to redefine “navigable waters” as “waters of America” thereby interpreting the coming LOST Treaty to mean anywhere in America where there is water, or wherever there might have been water even decades or centuries ago, this Treaty would have jurisdiction.

What is Maritime (admiralty)law?

“A field of law relating to, and arising from, the practice of the admiralty courts (tribunals that exercise jurisdiction over all contracts, torts, offenses, or injuries within maritime law) that regulates and settles special problems associated with sea navigation and commerce.”

It is also referred to the law of the flag. Currently, whatever flag a vessel is flying, would determine whose version of admiralty law would apply. The LOST Treaty would “harmonize” those laws so that one uniform version applied world wide.

Full control of and redefinition of water would be necessary so that maritime law could apply across the board as all land is surrounded by water, contains water from various sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds, puddles, aquifers and/or collects water either seasonally or from weather events.  In response to this attempted theft of water ownership and jurisdiction, this bill was submitted:

Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 – Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to redefine “navigable waters” to specify that included territorial seas are those that are:

(1) navigable-in-fact; or

(2) permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water that form geographical features commonly known as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes that are connected to waters that are navigable-in-fact.

Excludes from such term:

(1) waters that do not physically abut navigable waters and lack a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters;

(2) man-made or natural structures or channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or that periodically provide drainage for rainfall; or

(3) wetlands without a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are waters of the United States. Prohibits activities carried out by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Army Corps of Engineers from impinging upon states’ power over land and water use. (end)

Rip & Ship

Listening to the statements by the head of the Chamber of Commerce, aired on CSPAN, you might conclude that there were wars upon the seas all around the globe. According to Donohoe, this treaty is very necessary to protect commerce and the rights of shippers to freely navigate the seas without interference. Well of course it is! But this argument is the subterfuge. The problem with this argument is that they can freely navigate the seas as it is, but must adhere to certain standards and agreements and must respect territorial waters.

The witnesses argued in favor of the U.S. signing the agreement for reasons that included national security, job creation, oil exploration, and countering China’s influence in Asia.

(Note: Like all the promises made in conjunction with these corporate agreements, job creation is dangled in front of a weary public as bait. Jobs may be created but they will not be created for US workers. Instead, vulnerable foreign labor markets will be exploited.)

Senators who argued against the treaty cited loss of sovereignty, imposition of an international tax, and the allowance of foreign nations to regulate U.S. energy emissions as the basis for their disapproval.”

The energy emissions issue is of course a veiled reference to the Kyoto Treaty, which we never agreed to.

The amazing thing about CSPAN is that it gives us a real time view into the deceptions, manipulations, corruption and many times, treasonous acts occurring right before our eyes within our supposed government. The idea that we can watch first hand the criminal behavior of those in government and that they know we watch them and are not concerned, is a testament to just how ingrained the criminal element is in the District of Criminals. The sense of privilege within the protected permanent political class that continues to betray the country for personal gain, is rampant.

What are they really planning?

The real goal of the LOST treaty is to allow global corporations to access all seabed generated commerce. Underwater marine resources will be sold to the highest bidder and organizations like the anti-American, neo-conservative Chamber of Commerce would bend over backwards to ensure that all possible obstacles were removed, no matter how devastating the effects.

This would also implement what is referred to as “rip & ship”, meaning the unfettered capture of marine resources, extracting them as quickly as possible using the lowest possible standards, and regardless of the damage done.

There wouldn’t be anything at this point that we could do about it as these tribunals, subject only to the LOST treaty would trump any and all laws we thought we had to protect ourselves. This would become a reality within the states with the re-designation of navigable waters as, waters of America (all inclusive) now interpreted to mean navigable would be used to prohibit federal jurisdiction.

What is really at stake is just exactly who would have control and access to the massive underwater resources and who would be allowed to profit from those resources regardless of the damage done or lives ruined.

This treaty just like all treaty’s passed in recent decades, would put the rights of corporations and investors above those of the individual or state. Once agreed to, these same corporations and investors would be given a pass on responsible environmental practices and would leave massive devastation in their wake. This treaty is the final act of the multi-faceted NAFTA, CAFTA, The South Korean trade giveaway, the Trans-Atlantic Partnership corporate free-for-all and any other of the illegal and unconstitutional trade agreements entered into by the Corporation known as Corp USA, a.k.a. The United States of America, a.k.a. The USA. None of these represent the Constitutional Republic of the United States.

This CAFTA provision is mirrored in all these illegal trade agreements and even treaty’s under consideration:

These UN and World Bank tribunals would be empowered to order the payment of U.S. tax dollars to foreign investors who claim the United States is not meeting the new protections CAFTA would grant to foreign investors. (CAFTA Art. 10.17) This aspect of CAFTA shifts decisions over the payment of U.S. tax dollars away from Congress and outside of the Constitutionally-established Art. III federal court system (or even U.S. state system) and into the authority of international tribunals.

From: USA
In its 1995 study, National Taxpayers, International Organizations: Sharing the Burden of Financing the United Nations, the pro-U.N. lobby group, the U.N. Association of the United States of America, admitted that the seabed authority was unique among U.N. bodies:

Only the Seabed authority created by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which entered into force in late 1994, has authority today to directly collect international revenue to finance its activities.”


This has nothing to do with national security

Donohoe went on to claim that national security was at stake and, that this treaty would help prevent the US Navy from having to patrol the seas. No it won’t. There is no way our government is going to forego our military presence anywhere in any event, regardless of this treaty. Instead, our Navy will be used to secure the rights of corporations to plunder the seas as long as they can pay the International Seabed Authority a big fee and forfeit part of their earnings to the UN Enterprise, an established and private mining corporation within the UN whose primary business is the extraction of extortive fees for the privilege of ripping and shipping seabed resources.

There is no evidence that not passing this treaty will effect national security in any sense. National security is the catch all phrase used to threaten and terrorize the public into compliance and submission. The threat of course is, either you let us do what we want or “we can’t keep you safe”. They can’t anyway even without forfeiting our nation.

From John Wallace in his article “Creatures from the Oceans Floor”:

“Proposed regulations in the new Law of the Sea Treaty will require private companies that want to conduct exploration and mining operations in international waters to submit substantial application fees to the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA), which in turn would allow the ISA to use these application fees to partially pay for its own mining efforts through its own mining subsidy, called the Enterprise. Corporations from member nations operating in international waters would have to pay annual fees and even be taxed to pay a percentage of their profits to the ISA. “

In my opinion, the LOST treaty is being delayed until the Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement is finalized, and LOST will be used as the enforcement arm of all the illegal trade agreements struck against the public good and endangering the welfare and well being of the public at large.

The LOST treaty is as an act of aggression against the people of the fifty states and should be treated as a passive act of war against the states. LOST is the final declaration of economic war against the states perpetrated in part by the corporate federal government in collusion with foreign partners and interests in the United Nation.

As individual and sovereign states, we need to not only end any further compliance with United Nations mandates and agreements, but also sever any relationship we may think we have with the corporation that has overthrown the constitutional republic, operating as the “ federal government” under various public corporate names.



Maritime law is the law that exclusively govern activities at sea or in any navigable waters. In the United States, federal courts have jurisdiction over maritime law. Under admiralty, the ship’s flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a French flag in American waters will be subject to French admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship’s crew. But the ship flying the flag must have substantive contacts with the nation of its flag in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law.


A field of law relating to, and arising from, the practice of the admiralty courts (tribunals that exercise jurisdiction over all contracts, torts, offenses, or injuries within maritime law) that regulates and settles special problems associated with sea navigation and commerce.


Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 – Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to redefine “navigable waters” to specify that included territorial seas are those that are:

Additionally, under CAFTA’s Chapter 10 foreign investor protection rules, a seperate investor-to-state enforcement mechanism allows foreign investors from CAFTA nations directly to challenge U.S. federal, state and local laws that they claim violate the international property rights that CAFTA would grant them. These cases are heard by international tribunals established under the auspices of the United Nations or World Bank. (CAFTA Art. 10.16.3)