From: Jesse (jesse@fsck.com)
Date: Sun Jul 16 2000 - 17:49:41 PDT
There's been a lot of buzz about havenco's legal status of late.
Thought folks might be interested in this...
jesse
----- Forwarded message from Sean Hastings <sean@havenco.com> -----
From: "Sean Hastings" <sean@havenco.com>
To: <declan@well.com>
Cc: "HavenCo Discuss List", "HavenCo Friends List"
Subject: havenco-friends Re: UK immigration authorities take first action against HavenCo
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:15:00 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Declan,
(Feel free to publish this letter to your mailing list.)
Sealand has in fact received defacto recognition from several
countries prior to 1988, including Germany (Who sent a diplomat to
negotiate directly with Prince Roy in 1978) and England, who's Home
Office openly stated that Sealand was not part of the UK up until June
5, 2000.
In 1990 (two years after the 1988 extension of territorial waters)
there was another incident in which warning shots were fired and
charges were filed in Britain against members of the Sealand security
staff. The charges were summarily dropped based upon the 1968 court
decision and a statement from the British Home Office to the police
that Sealand was not UK territory.
Several departments of the British Government continue to maintain
that Sealand is independent from the UK. Prince Roy's pension based on
his decorated WWII service to the British military is paid to him only
while he resides in the UK. He is not eligible for payment during the
times when he is in residence in Sealand based on the pension
department's decision that it is not part of England. The British
department of Health and Social security even wrote a letter to the
Prince's son Michael that states "A ruling has now been given by our
solicitors branch that you are not liable to pay contributions for
periods when resident on Sealand." None of these official policies
have changed to date - even after the recent HavenCo press storm.
If Sealand was sovereign in 1988, as many international law experts
maintain, then an extension of Britain's territorial waters is
completely irrelevant. Even if one only grants terra-nullis status to
Sealand in 1988, Sealand does not automatically become part of Britain
through an extension of territorial waters - the treaties that allow
for these extensions do not allow claim to additional physical
territory. An extension of British waters does not effect Sealand's
status in any way.
Myself and many reporters contacted the British Home Office numerous
times between 1988 and 2000 and were informed without exception that
Sealand was not British territory, and that UK laws did not apply
there. When the media attention for HavenCo hit on June 5th, 2000,
during the first half of the day British officials were saying that
Sealand was not part of Britain, but later in the day they reversed
themselves and started claiming that it was no longer independent
based on the 1988 extension of waters. This claim would not have been
legally valid even if it had been made in 1988, but to make it now,
after 12 years of a demonstrable pattern of continued recognition of
Sealand's independence, is completely ridiculous.
Based on the above evidence, your statement that "Since then London
has extended its territorial claim, which means Sealand -- recognized,
I believe, by no country in the world -- is no more independent than a
rowboat anchored 10 feet out in the Thames." would seem to be
pejorative, inaccurate, and ill-considered. You have a far reaching
and well respected voice. You should, therefore, check the facts and
consult the experts before you speak you mind in a public forum.
Regards,
Sean Hastings
CEO, HavenCo Ltd.
mailto:ceo@havenco.com
http://www.havenco.com
v-mail:+1.800.why.sean
PGP Fingerprint: E97D 10D9 3F49 6F2A 3FD2 76BE A513 3863 A6C1 865D
- - -
The following is a transcript of a television interview with Dr Gary
Slipper, Director of Law at the Open University, by Anglia TV
(www.anglia.co.uk).
- - -
"Sealand seems independent according to current international law.
There are three criteria for being a state
1) Is there an identifiable state?
2) is there an identifiable people?
3) is there an autonomous Government?
And the answer to these questions in respect of Sealand is Yes Yes and
Yes.
Plus there have been at least two occasions when the British
government and
law courts, have through officials concerned with them, recognized
Sealand
as an independent state.
It's very difficult to see what the British government can do now to
get out
of this mess. It's allowed circumstances to paint itself into a
corner, and
there is no obvious way they can deal with it."
- - -
- -----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:42:39 -0400
To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: FC: UK immigration authorities take first action against
HavenCo
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
[Part of the allure of HavenCo is that it is based on Sealand, an
ostensibly independent nation. But that concept is based on the
thinnest of
legal foundations: A 1968 court decision that said Sealand was outside
of
Britain's territorial waters:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36756,00.html Since then
London
has extended its territorial claim, which means Sealand -- recognized,
I
believe, by no country in the world -- is no more independent than a
rowboat anchored 10 feet out in the Thames. --Declan]
[...]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOW88g6UTOGOmwYZdEQIHLACeIbos2OVx2kHSpYZU2bUre3vOcKIAn0AJ
gfNaFHqUGXIHvodv62gmD5m0
=tPnR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----- End forwarded message -----
-- jesse reed vincent --- root@eruditorum.org --- jesse@fsck.com pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91 ------------------------------------------------------------- "If IBM _wanted_ to make clones, we could make them cheaper and faster than anyone else!" - An IBM Rep. visiting Vassar College's Comp Sci Department.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 17:53:49 PDT