Stuart Stone
Damn, I hate it when I walk in late...
From reading the thread...my take so far:
Scott doesn't charge for his information/knowledge, which consequently doesn't involve commerce and/or legal tender, keeping his activities outside of commercial jurisdictions, therefore personal liability is removed (same as the IKEA example above).
Naming & providing commercial information (underwriters etc) of various entities that have caused harm to others also remains outside of/ is not bound by commercial/legal jurisdictions, so long as he does not receive personal benefit.
Liening/freezing the assets of these entities and their chattel property (children) into a private trust, will cause civil death and afford these 'persons' no protection from the legal jurisdiction, as well as adding value to the respective trusts that lien these persons.
To now take it one step further: Kurnell in Sydney is where Captain Cook landed in 1770. On that site today, there are numerous brass plaques explaining what the invaders did to the locals, without recourse...
They shot at the natives, harming some, and in the following years, many massacres and atrocities occurred...
My question for many years was this: How could so many atrocities be committed without someone being held to account for their actions?
The answer that appears to be coming clearer is this: The natives were not recognised as a person before the law, therefore any harm that befell them could not be legally adjudicated/punished.
Therefore, by the same principle, if these dirtbags have the(ir) person liened into a private trust, they no longer have the protection of the 'law' and any harm that they are subjected to cannot be legally enforced against the perpetrator...because they are now subject to a different jurisdiction.
Wow, kudos to you Admiral Scott Duncan...you promised that everything would be perfectly legal...
I'm sure there are many more implications here, but this is as far as my brain can grasp at this moment.