A Question Of On Going Legality

DO YOU KNOW, NOT EVEN BRITAIN CAN TRULY LAY CLAIM TO THE LANDS OF ONCE SANER RHODESIA BASED ON HOW IT WAS PRIVATELY CONSTITUTED!! SO IN FACT, THOSE LANDS STILL BELONG TO ALL THOSE BORN AND RAISED TO IT - IN LAW!

READ DIVINE INSPIRED DIRECTIONS DELIVERED BY CELESTIAL INTELLIGENT CREATIONS (CIC's) OF OTHER WORLD'S

IF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, IS FOUND GOLD BULLION, THEN WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO CLAIM IT? YET, ALL YOU NEED DO IN ORDER TO SECURE IT, IS TURN THE KEY! YES, IT IS THAT SIMPLE!! BUT ALSO HARD ENOUGH TO RECOGNISE, WHEN MINDS REMAIN SO CLOSED. THE VERY SAME KEY IS IN FACT IN YOUR PALMS. THE SAME COMBINATION KEY, FIRMLY PLACED IN YOUR HANDS. THE VERY KEY TO THE REAL YOU AS A GOLDEN NUGGET OF EARTH. NOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT? MIGHT HELP BY GOING TO THE WEB PAGE INDICATED BELOW. FOR THE VERY SAME KEY, IS FOUND THERE. WILL HELP OPEN THE DOOR TO MANY RICHES WAITING TO BE CLAIMED. YES, CLAIMED BY YOU AS THE GREATEST GIFT AND SECRET OF THEM ALL. CLAIM YOUR VERY OWN GOLD DUST WHICH IS WORTH FAR MORE THAN CAN EVER BE PURCHASED ON PLANET EARTH - NO MATTER HOW RICH YOU ARE!

"If you take my flag, you take everything... I should be a fool to give up my flag
and my traditions, and I should be a knave because I should be
Despised by my own countrymen and distrusted by yours."

Remark by Cecil John Rhodes, Founder of The Rhodesia's during an interview by the German editor of the "Free State Express" quoted in Le Sueur's ‘Cecil Rhodes’

We Rhodesians, would yet end up losing a whole lot more than our flag, but also whole lands and lives!

These rising lands and stretching for mile upon barren mile soon will produce for all to see. Rising lands from out of nothing but carved out of the blood, sweat, tears and toil of aching and breaking backs. Many succumb under its blazing glare to where some men even fear to tread and dare. Here are lands rising from which men and women across the seas turn into ‘God’s own Land.’ Give rise then to these lands of Rhodesia fair.

Rising lands, rising lands bless those who but will dare. Oh rising lands, rising lands lift our souls towards your glorious sunshine. There to bless all who live in her and so give rise to lands of Rhodesia set so fair.

Give us strength to face all danger and, Where challenge is,

 to dare.  Guide us, Lord, to wise decision, ever of thy

grace aware. Oh, let our hearts beat bravely always,

for this land within thy care.

Rise, O voices of Rhodesia, bringing her your proud acclaim,

Grandly echoing through the mountains, rolling over

far-flung plain. Roaring in the mighty rivers, joining

in one grand Refrain. Ascending to the

sunlit heavens, telling of her

honored name.

All references to British sovereignty over the lands known as the Rhodesia's, now (Zimbabwe and Zambia), remain highly questionable. And more specifically in relation to the Southern Rhodesia, while also includes the North, and possibly also lands then known as Nyasaland, now (Malawi). Indeed, certainly appears after certain relevant protestations, these lands never retained legal British jurisdiction as constituted in and by International Law.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) program titled ‘Rhodes’ certainly brought into question British intrinsic legality, backing and support of those lands, generally. According to the program, the two Rhodesia's or North and South, was actually established by their British founder Cecil John Rhodes. So in effect, had actually been privately formed and constituted. They were founded by financial support of private and institutional means. In effect, directly contradicting and further implying, 'No other jurisdiction, other than privately - had or did pertain.'

Successive British Government’s, had not extended official sanction on these defined, geographic lands situated in Africa. This was expanded on further, during another BBC program titled ‘Rebellion.' This program, then set out to show Rhodesian's at fault. Here it was openly stated, the Rhodesian Government, was in default for declaring Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in the year 1965. In effect, British Authority once more, were insisting on having it's cake and also eating it. If then drawn down further to actual legalities, the question is still unanswered to actual legal jurisdictions, per say.

Clearly demonstrated through it's own denunciations; that Britain retained no legality over day to matters concerning Rhodesia. Britain on one hand, had clearly distanced itself from that termed official occupation during the late 1800's. Yet, also somehow, in principle at least, retained certain divine rights. To reclaim that which it's own leaders down the decades, conceded it never officially designated or proclaimed a country and or colony. So in effect, by so claiming, disclaimed any built in recourses over paying out on outstanding pensions, for example. The successive British Governments in effect, have actually conceded points of default in the programs. Still to this very day and on one hand, disclaiming any responsibilities, even actual ties.

Then with the other, claiming actual jurisdiction, yet would not honor pensions due to Southern Rhodesian's employed in the service of His/Her Majesty's Government. Simply denied those able to prove conclusive employment contracts, along with direct British linkage or a lineage, exists. They remained perfectly happy to en-act laws on one hand. But in general legal terms, then simply covered themselves from all and any legal, outstanding obligations. Yes, merely turned their backs on those officially employed by His/Her Majesty's Government and written under legal, binding contracts. In effect, totally negated any official sanction and or jurisdiction, by not honoring actual prove-able terms and conditions of employment to His/Her British Majesty's Government.

So which side of which coin was being offered, honored or indeed played? A point I would go on to query with the Broadcasting Standards Commission of Britain. Those bodies purporting to represent accuracy and fairness to mere subjects on the streets. I set out to quantify and qualify total accuracy of their accounts involving both programs of 'Rhodes' and the so called 'Rebellion.' The British Government, would totally negate any accountability and responsibility, by more openly stating on one hand; they held no jurisdiction and or obligations to the lands or people.

The Collins English Dictionary clearly outlines 'Rebellion,' as meaning; organised opposition to a Government or other legal authority and rejection of an accepted moral code or convention of behavior. Rhodesian authority and according to British interpretation, retained official jurisdiction over lands through definition on one hand. Events therefore, could not be termed or construed as ‘A Rebellion.’ Indeed, Rhodesia was already independent and as clearly outlined and so defined. Therefore, Rhodesian's in fact, had stuck to the letter known as definitions and rules of engagement.

They had actually agreed terms and conditions in the year 1961. Agreed to the gradual and smooth transfer of the power base to the majority. The goal posts were then moved on that score and not by Rhodesian's! So in effect, Rhodesian's had continually endeavored in practice; to maintain moral code's of conduct. While also entrenching conventions of civil behavior and order. Therefore, it is highly questionable whether actions could be defined as 'A REBELLION.' They were in effect, actually DEFENDING a legal, defined entity in their own right. A defined, operative entity and or lands, while also ensuring and securing law and order, along with sustainable futures for all it's people's and whole lands.

QUESTIONS - QUESTIONS AND MORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS! CONFUSED OVER THIS - JOIN THE CLUB!

Interpretations of international law, indicates we were clearly and legally in possession of lands by means of 'De Jure' let alone 'De facto' independence. In international terms through association as more open trade agreements and by other means, also therefore recognition.' That in fact, it was the British themselves who might have defaulted by claiming jurisdiction over what on one hand, is advertised as non-existent rights of tenure on their behalf. Questions, questions and more questions left unanswered to this very day. Did Britain then and as defined and enshrined in international law, ever gain and or accede to official and legal jurisdiction over the Rhodesia's? Highly unlikely and therefore all counter productive actions against the lands and people, might well remain unanswered in international law.

Cecil John Rhodes, along with those following in one form or other, had legally secured jurisdiction through definition and rules ‘Governing Legal Tender.’ Yes, to retain rights as bequeathed legal entities through birth rights as the registered off spring. To those born and raised to the lands known as ‘Legal Entities of 'The Rhodesia's and Rhodesian's.’ If International Courts as due recourse and rights, were not encumbered by influences and by their own admission; Rhodesian's might well retain a clear cut case on human rights having been totally infringed.

Indeed, that’s even before allowance is made for sanctions which also followed, and supported by forces and measures designed to overthrow a so called, illegal regime. We retain original accession to this very day, and therefore are still the heirs apparent! So, did Britain ever retain even minimal jurisdiction as clearly outlined and disclaimed by it's own admissions? Indeed, through recorded pronunciations; it clearly then claimed it did not. Most clearly, is indicated those actually born to the lands, along with indigenous tribes, retain legal title and tender to this very day. Yes, we remain heirs apparent to our own lands through birth as legally indicated in international law.

Many questions simply remain ignored, conveniently. History clearly demonstrates a 'Brutal Betrayal' lingers to this very day and therefore as still outstanding. Yes, deserves and decrees due recognition, along with final rectification of such highly severe factors, which in turn have blighted whole lives. These factors, need to be addressed by a wider world. It should not have been us Rhodesian's in the dock, but international law concerning our legal birth and human rights. The wrong party in effect, was jailed and the innocent bystanders. Indeed, simply abandoned, while the world now sees lands known as Zimbabwe, totally ruined. The once Bread Basket of Africa, namely Rhodesia, now totally left in ruins.

Indeed, we can claim that far more balanced representations be delivered in free, fair, democratic and civilised lands. A re-run of the program titled ‘Rebellion,’ should be shown. Yet, this time under title of ‘Principles of Rebellion.’ A totally free and unbiased program, which hopefully delivers far more accurate, balanced versions representing equations of all the facts. This is even before allowance is made as to written agreements signed and sealed and with successive British Governments during the years 1961 and 1964.

A world of course, should fully realise; justice has not be delivered! Well no of course it has not, for simply is not standard norms of parity, nor any fairness. International law as we know it, tends to lean towards a bias. Therefore, a wider world, cannot advertise itself as described or genuinely democratic, nor transparent entities. In effect, Cecil John Rhodes, founder of The Rhodesia's, had secured principles of expanding a business, but through unsecured loan arrangements. Lenders and or institutions, had not retained rights to foreclose on loans as and when so choosing, let alone did any other entity retain a right of recourse!

Millions upon millions have now felt direct impacts of law and order breaking down. Britain, appears to have conceded the point by operating highly questionable rights over lands, but more specifically in relation to Southern Rhodesia. It should not have according to some protestations, even discussed, let alone interfered in the lands. Yet and to this very day, it withholds compensations and rights to thousands of former colonial pensioners. It continually claimed a jurisdiction, but not when clearly and legally bound to recompense individuals, even whole lands for subsequent events and also outcomes.

There might well retain legal, outstanding claims based on binding contracts as minimal, due references. Surely, any right minded person, has to concede a moral right and duty to deliver due justice on outstanding obligations, still exists? One would think so, but do recall, earth justice is not entirely designed for us mere mortals. It is monopolized by those who agree to partake under a games set of rules, then once on the pitch of play, tend to amend rules suiting given circumstances. In other words, any agreed off-sides rule, only applies to one side. The whiter than white, appear to play games in gray zones, to then leave millions totally bereft. We were most certainly gazumped, as foundations of our legal lands and principles, had been ruthlessly overrun, even destroyed. Rhodesia and all belonging to it, still belongs to the rightful off-spring, both black and white, indeed of ALL RACES!

The only true justice and freedom left open to mere mortals, are those designed by far greater universal laws

"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens,"Carl Jung

"Faith can move mountains. Faith is free, cannot be purchased or manufactured. Since faith is free, the value of faith is based on how deeply a person believes. In addition, the fact that faith is free, makes faith available to everyone. Faith is a commitment that does not come from a price tag or prestigious award, but rather from a free will decision. Yes, faith can move mountains, if a person's faith is deep. Faith can also move people; it can move people in a very special way that creates a sense of unity and harmony. Free will has unlimited capacity through - THE POWER OF FAITH."

"They say remaining true and genuine is an art which should be taught, so can then be etched to all conscious minds." Robert Winston Burnett. Received through automatic writing from the divine light on the 24th January 2005."

"A land will not be allowed to flourish so long as strife as a weakness, remains the strength of others," Robert Winston Burnett

If, as Winston Churchill believed, "We shape our dwellings and afterwards, our dwellings shape us," then as Earth remains our main residence, "We have ensured it also delivers cause and affect."

TRUE FREEDOMS AND COMBINED OPERATIVE LAWS, CANNOT BE MANUFACTURED BY MAN ALONE. FOR THEY ARE ORDAINED AND SO ALSO SEALED THROUGH CONFORMITY TO UNIVERSAL LAWS AND BALANCE

The Nextage is here as alternative means to claiming lasting freedoms and 'ALL' ours if truly wanting it, enough!