<UNITED SOCIETIES IN SPACE, INC. (USIS) , is a Colorado non-profit corporation formed on August 4, 1994, at a conference in Cuchara, Colorado, (Cuchara is Indian for SPOON, the most open container), by Russians and Americans led by Oleg Alifanov, Ph.D., of the Moscow Aviation Institute, and Declan J. O'Donnell, a Colorado attorney at law.
< MISSION. Briefly, the mission of USIS and affiliates is to help create a space faring society during our lifetime. We focus on the space policy problems, legal matters, and societal concerns. Our style is to supplement the U.N. International Treaty Regime with functional entities where appropriate people can assemble, work, and actually execute an effort for the benefit of Humankind and its settlers in outer space.
< CONCEPT. Impressed on our mission is the “common law” development for 750 years. This experience of legal importance commenced in England during the dark ages, circa 1200 a.d. It was citizen-oriented; ran parallel to the established King’s Court of Law; relied on the Church Court; and required as its first principle that “no remedy at law” was available to the citizen (in the King’s Court). The second legal principle was that the remedy requested must be “equitable” to all concerned. The kings and queens of England permitted this commoner’s regime to flourish by not objecting. Eventually, circa 1600 a.d., the Queen’s Bench merged the common law into its structure calling it the “Court of Equity.”
We analogize the recognized and established regimes of the
U.N. and its space faring member nations as the kings and queens of space. How
we relate to this circumstance philosophically is detailed under HOW. Also,
see WHY.
Click for ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF USIS.
Click for CONSTITUTION OF THE REGENCY OF UNITED SOCIETIES IN SPACE.
Click for ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF LEDA (Lunar Economic Development Authority)
Click for ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF SODA (Space Orbital Development Authority)
Click for MISSION STATEMENT
< CORPORATION. United Societies in Space, Inc. is a Colorado non-profit corporation filed on August 12, 1993, with its formation dating to the first formal meeting of the original board on August 4, 1994, in Cuchara, Colorado.
< TAX ASPECTS. Effective by an IRS letter dated February 1995, the corporation was determined to be “exempt under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) and would be treated as a publicly supported organization and not as a private foundation during your advance ruling period.”
This advance ruling period ended on September 3, 1997. Pursuant to re-examination of tax returns and information provided to the Service on form 8734, the “Public Charity” status was granted on a permanent basis, (rather than the private foundation status). This was based on a finding that USIS qualified for the highest possible exemption under IRC sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and/or 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2).
< BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS. The current Board of Directors and Officers are listed under WHO, the address book. The original board of directors included 12 persons, 7 of whom were lawyers or paralegal professionals. The first Board who attended the first organizational meeting in Cuchara, Colorado, included Declan J. O'Donnell, Dr. Henry Cheung, Dr. Philip R. Harris, Mr. John K. Reynolds, Mrs. Jeri Mercer-Fike, Mr. Robert P. Kuntz, and Mr. Jerry Dickenson. The Board of Directors is self-perpetuating in actual practice although the O’Donnell law firm on behalf of the World Space Bar Association, Inc., has a supervisory role as described below.
An advisory committee was constituted under Article VI, par.
(b), of the Corporate Charter. Attorney George S. Robinson III was the
first President of this COUNCIL OF REGENTS. Original members included Josh
Abend, Oleg Alifanov, Larry Bell, Bruce Cordell, Frank P. Davidson, Jonathan E.
Ericson, Marsha Freeman, Nathan Goldman, Albert A. Harrison, Stewart W.
Johnson, Beatrice Lacoste, Charles Lauer, Scott F. March, Ivan Pavlovets, Jesus
Raygoza B., Marshall Savage, Willy Z. Sadeh, Michael Simon, John S. Spencer,
Harold M. White, Stewart B. Whitney, Kathleen Woody, Robert A. Wyckoff, and
Robert Zubrin.
< PURPOSES. The Corporate Charter recites in part that the purpose shall include “the promotion of outer space as a place to live and work as a society of peoples and to help create a basis for governance of societies in outer space and to educate people on the benefits and burdens attendant upon migrating into space as a society.”
< SUPERVISION. This movement began as a project of the World Bar Association (now known as the WORLD SPACE BAR ASSOCIATION). It exerts oversight at Article V, par. (a), of the Corporate Charter where a class of membership known as Humankind votes for the Board of Directors of USIS. All of these shares are kept in trust by the O’Donnell law firm as the managing agent of this bar association. It acts only as a veto power in case the purpose of the corporation is frustrated, except in one important particular, as follow:
“at the appropriate time and not later than creation of the meta nation, this Trustee shall assign said trust to a proper International or United Nations Instrumentality to hold for Humankind permanently, under the new nation’s constitution.”
Ten billion shares of membership were in fact issued to the O’Donnell professional corporation as manager of the World Space Bar Association. It will endeavor to perform this charter requirement when the Regency of United Societies in Space (ROUSIS) dissolves itself into the meta nation, i.e. a true government of space settlers in the territory of space. This metamorphosis is foreseen as likely by 2101 a.d., 100 years from inception of The Regency. It would be constituted by settlers aloft, on the Moon, in orbit, and at Mars.
< CORPORATE BYLAWS. Highlights from the standing bylaws of USIS provide as follows: AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE is authorized to handle interim board matters. It consists of the president, vice president, and two board members. ANNUAL MEETINGS are to be called with notice to the Board and other interested parties. All meetings are to be open to the public. We usually have these on August 4 every year in Denver, Colorado. ELECTIONS to fill a vacancy are by majority vote of the remaining Board Members. Terms are for four years. Nominations are made by any Board Member or Regent. All of those elected to date first served on the Regency Advisory Committee.
< AFFILIATES AND FRIENDS. The following organizations are identified as affiliates of USIS in the sense that they were created by it or share the same mission or have common interlocking directors.
World Space Bar Association, Inc., (WSBA), a Colorado non-profit corporation, 499 South Larkspur Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 USA. Declan J. O'Donnell, CEO.
Lunar Economic Development Authority, Inc., (LEDA), a Colorado non-profit corporation, 499 South Larkspur Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 USA. Brad Blair, CEO and Chairman of the Board.
Space Orbital Development Authority, Inc., (SODA), a Colorado non-profit corporation, 499 South Larkspur Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 USA. Alex Lightman, CEO.
Regency of United Societies in Space, Inc., (ROUSIS), a Colorado non-profit corporation, 499 South Larkspur Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 USA. Click for CONSTITUTION OF THE REGENCY OF UNITED SOCIETIES IN SPACE. President, Declan J. O'Donnell; Vice Presidents, Dr. Buzz Aldrin, Dr. Rashmi Mayur, and Dr. Bill Good.
Regency Advisory Committee, formerly known as the Council of Regents, an unincorporated group of advisors, 499 South Larkspur Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 USA.
Buzz Aldrin Library Room Committee, c/o USIS, 499 South Larkspur Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 USA.
Whole World Wants US TO DO IT, a committee to promote Buzz Aldrin’s Cycler Orbits, c/o USIS, 499 South Larkspur Drive, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 USA. Chairman and Co-Chairman, Dr. Bill Good and Mr. Gary Rodriguez and Mr. Declan J. O'Donnell, Esq.
Mars Society, Inc. www.marssociety.org an unaffiliated friend, 11111 West Eighth Avenue, Suite A, Lakewood, Colorado 80126 USA.
National Space Society, Inc. www.nss.org an
unaffiliated friend.
Space Tourism Society, Inc. www.spacetourismsociety.org
an unaffiliated friend.
< THE ORGANIZATIONAL
CHART
UNITED SOCIETIES
IN SPACE, INC. (USIS)
Serves as coordinator for
related and affiliated entities.
The Regency
(ROUSIS)
A
100-year space governance entity by force of convention and constitution.
It features 3 principal
Departments:
LEGISLATIVE
Ronnie Lajoie
LUNAR
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
INC.
EXECUTIVE
Declan J. O'Donnell
For municipal development of the Moon and certain
orbits.
Note that a Mars Cycler Orbiter Authority is scheduled for incorporation in 2002.
JUDICIAL
Kathleen Woody, Esq.
ORBITAL
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
INC.
World Space Bar
Association (WSBA)
Has oversight authority to
the USIS and
Board of Directors, but has
no duties to perform.
Advisory Committees
Are maintained for each SPECIALIZED
FUNCTION.
REGENCY ADVISORY
LEDA ADVISORY
SODA ADVISORY
Is maintained
for Government advisors.
By Declan J.
O'Donnell, USIS President
The reason for our movement is not entirely instinctive nor intuitive. Since Earth nations and the U.N. are in charge of space exploration, why not leave it to them to provide government in space. That is the logical and instinctive response, but we object. There are hidden problems in this arrangement and we believe more is needed to solve them.
The overall objective of the space activist movement is to advance the day when we are a space faring society, according to the National Space Society mission statement. We join in that objective. Relatively few U.N. member nations, however, care to advance a humans-in-space agenda. Note that we are approaching 50 years into the Space Age and only two nations have human rated launch facilities: America and Russia. America forbids citizens to enter space. (Consequently, when civilian Dennis Tito made a considerable donation for the privilege of a space flight, he flew from a Russian launch facility). The humans to space movement is in trouble.
In this paper, we will list some of the problems of a space policy and space law nature that constitute barriers to space travel by humans. The top 10 space policy problems at 1995 were listed in a publication by this author: See endnotes 1 and 2. Since then nothing has been solved, albeit the not so obvious problems have become worse, pandemic, and more covered up in some cases.
Then our regime of direct space governance will be summarized. The reasons for it will be stated in terms of how the space policy problems are cured as a result of its existence and/or its expected operations.
Lastly, there is an analysis of how this remedy dovetails into the space treaty regime. The combined effect of the U.N. regime and the Regency of space activists, playing off each other, will create a good synergy for Humankind. It will definitely advance the day when we are a space faring society because it will redefine and restate space law and policy for humanity and all nations, thereby reducing legal uncertainty for investors.
The National Space Society held its annual International Lunar Exploration Conference in 1995 at San Diego, California. Mr. O’Donnell was invited to survey space policy problems at that conference. His list of top 10 space problems at that time were abstracted as follows:
“ Abstract. The
top ten space policy problems at 1995 are;
1. lack of money;
2. lack of political focus;
3. conflicts of interest;
4. soft law proliferation;
5. strict liability on nations;
6. launch insurance cost;
7. space debris;
8. treaty enforcement;
9. ownership problems in space resources;
10. and the number one problem called “the Common Heritage of Mankind” treaty burden (also known as “Benefit Sharing.” (1)
This list was preceded by a 1994 observation by this author that the space treaties did not deal with any of the ordinary day-to-day legal problems that people experience. They merely dealt with abstract national principles, such as sharing of research, international cooperation, and benefit sharing. Part of this observation was as follows:
“Legal Void. Apart from the
policy disincentives for financing space projects, (referring to the lack of
any monetary and fiscal policy in space venues), there are true voids in legal
practices. For example;
there are no agreements for protecting intellectual
properties such as patents and copyrights.
There is;
1. no criminal code;
2. no contract law;
3. no property law;
4. no tax code, (no objection to this, but see 26 USC 863(d) providing that all income derived by a U.S. citizen from space activity is taxable by the USA);
5. no tort law;
6. no traffic regulation or rules;
7. no orbit allocation or protection of rights of way;
8. no rescue, docking, boarding, and entry standards;
9. no medical law, plan, or provision;
10. no educational system;
11. no social welfare;
12. no worker’s compensation;
13. no social security;
14. no subsidies;
15. no creditor’s or debtor’s rights;
16. no foreclosure and no way to obtain a secured property interest in space resources;
17. no mining regulation;
18. no exploration rules, i.e. what is a placer claim and where is it to be registered;
19. no law enforcement agencies to protect these things when they come into existence;
20. and, of course, no space money.”
(2)
All of these problems remain existent at 2001 a.d. However, some have experienced change for the worse and these need comment as follows: benefit sharing has now become a soft law problem as well as a space policy problem and ownership problems in space resources have become harder to solve then ever. These two important developments are treated briefly in order to show that the U.N. treaty system by itself typically impales itself on its own lance of good intentions. It is simply not flexible, not clear, and not at all enforceable.
“Benefit Sharing” has been unpopular with the space faring nations from the start. It requires some sort of tax or distribution that would spread out the benefits, profits, and rights earned by one nation to all others equally with itself. It is a treaty burden of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the constitution of space policy principles adopted by almost all of the U.N. member nations.(3)
In 1998, the U.N. General Assembly adopted by unanimous vote a resolution on “international cooperation” that neutralized benefit sharing. It provided that the treaty burden of 1967 called “Benefit Sharing” should be construed now to mean that it is simply part of the other 1967 treaty burden called “International Cooperation.” This waters down the sharing requirement considerably.
Unfortunately, there is no legal precedent for treaties to be amended by U.N. resolution, especially one adopted 30 years after the fact. This has created a soft law problem in that nations and individuals who rely on the 1998 U.N. resolution may find out later that the treaty principles of 1967 is in fact the hard law.
The property ownership issue has become more important and less likely to be solved by the U.N. Since 1995 it has become apparent in space industry circles that asteroids contain wealth – lots of it. SpaceDev, Inc. (4) and its founder, Mr. Jim Benson, target the capture of one such asteroid as a corporate mission. It asserts that any kind of possession by it of a rich asteroid will enhance its financial statement. Regardless of the importance of property law in outer space, the U.N. Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, (UNCOPUOS), does not even have this subject on its agenda. In 1999, another U.N. committee, (on the Moon Treaty of 1979), elected to not add a regime in space law for mining, development, and habitating. This ensured that property rights in space resources would remain unsolved.
Unfortunately, the 1967 treaty burden against the ownership and appropriation of space resources does not have any exception for SpaceDev, Inc. nor for Mr. Benson. That means that investors in a near earth asteroid return mission have no assurance of financial recognition of their captured wealth. This result flows from the circumstance that there is no legally acceptable basis for converting public lands into private property in space. The asteroid scheme is no different from fencing off a part of your local public park and claiming its value on your personal financial statement: that won’t work at the bank. This circumstance does not change just because the park contains valuable minerals.
Therefore, the list of the Top 10 Space Policy Problems of 2001 is the same as that of 1995. The list is probably pandemic with no hope for any relief unless approached from an out of the box place: we intend to do just that.
The Regency of United Societies in Space, (ROUSIS), was created by USIS at the close of its year long, White House registered millennial event convention on August 4, 2001. The approved constitution appears in this Web site at WHAT. It is a direct governance system for outer space. Fifty Foundation Regents serve as legislators, executives, and judges.
This space governance entity is a common law government trust with a character of compliance to space treaty principles. The Regents are trustees and Humankind is the beneficiary. Space resources are the res of this trust. The constitution has extended common law into outer space not only for the purpose of accommodating this new citizen movement entity, but, also, for the purpose of establishing a basis for law and order among settlers. The common law cut off date in space is August 4, 2000, and the reference book is a series called Corpus Juris Secundum. This body of law fills a void in space law as to contracts, torts, property, and criminal law. Therefore, from the very inception of our Regency there has been value added to the outer space mission. Now we have less legal uncertainty in the final frontier.
Three authorities have been created to work with ROUSIS at the municipal levels of space governance. The first one was created in 1998 for the Moon. It is the LUNAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INC., (LEDA), a Colorado non-profit corporation. Its advisory committee includes Dr. Buzz Aldrin and Dr. Michael Duke. The second one is the SPACE ORBITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INC., (SODA), a Colorado non-profit corporation. Its advisory committee includes Dr. Peter Glaser. The third one is being finalized in 2002 a.d. around the Buzz Aldrin Mars Cycler Orbit Project. These entities are dedicated to a mission of municipal governance for their named venues in cooperation with ROUSIS as the federation of local governments and authorities in space.
The combination of USIS entities is designed to accommodate any off world mission, one at a time or all at once. A maximum 100-year life is placed on the ROUSIS so it will seek to organize a democracy of space settlers before it ends. Hopefully, 100 years will be adequate to achieve an off world estate for our space faring societies.
The paradigm for space governance as reflected by the space treaties and U.N. COPUOS may represent the dominant estate of legal space governance. ROUSIS may represent the secondary estate. Therefore, new treaties that seek to abolish, override, or amend ROUSIS governance would control. This is analogous to 750 years of development of the common law from England to America during the 1700s; from America to its extraterritorial courts in 1850; and, now, into outer space effective August 4, 2001, by force of the ROUSIS Constitution.
The analogy is that common law remedies were available only while the Kings and Queens of England, or the Congress of the United States here in America, did not object and there was no remedy at law under their dominant paradigm. Only then could the Common Law Courts of Equity grant an equitable remedy to supplement the legal system in place, (such as the treaty system for space law in our analogy).
Under this common law system, legal titles to land were
supplemented with equitable titles that ran concurrent to the legal titles of
the Kings and Queens of England. These equitable titles were;
1. the trust,
2. the lease,
3. the easement,
4. and the mortgage,
all of which were secondarily appended to legal titles. They had limited life and were possessory in nature so no legal titles were affected.
The common law as extended into space on August 4, 2001, therefore, did more than add Corpus Juris Secundum to the treaty system. It also set up a dual title capacity over space resources so settlers could gain an estate in space: a trust beneficial estate; or a lease on space resources like the Moon or Mars; an easement to access their leases; and capacity to mortgage any of these to a creditor who required security for a loan to get the settler into space in the first place. This helps resolve the property law problem in space without having need for another space treaty.
The ROUSIS secondary space governance paradigm, therefore, plays off of, and tends to extend farther, the principles of the space treaty system. The common law rule against perpetuities is one life in being plus 21 years for the trust. This was extended to 99 years for the lease, the easement, and the mortgage. When these possessory estates end, the U.N. public title of space resources becomes unencumbered with these estates. If objection is made by the U.N., then the estates would end sooner: This is The Rule in Shelly’s Case, QB, circa 1620.(5)
A synergy is expected to result as common law estates are forged onto public lands known as space resources. A system for effecting “benefit sharing” may be engraphed here, also. The space treaty principles as a whole must be considered as important to the character of the secondary paradigm. In fact, one of the salient benefits to humanity may be the ongoing reconsideration of how to apply policy principles like benefit sharing in space settlements even though the U.N. has abandoned the idea by General Assembly Resolution.
The consensus mission of the space activist community may be that stated by the National Space Society: To advance the day when we are a space faring society. One of the barriers to accomplishing this objective is a void in reasonable space law and policy for space settlers. Investors can tolerate economic risk but not legal uncertainty. USIS has created a Regency for 100 years of direct common law governance in space, one that should repair legal uncertainties and establish a fair extension of the space treaties. A synergy is expected and this may very well advance the day when settlers do arrive in space. It should at least reduce barriers to space travel caused by the space treaties.
(1) O’Donnell, D.J., “Top 10 Space Policy Problems at 1995,” Space
Governance Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, December 1995, p. 40.
(2) O’Donnell, D.J., “Overcoming
Barriers to Space Travel,” Space Policy Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4,
1994, p. 252.
(3) The Treaty on Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,
Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27, 1967, by the United
Nations, a.k.a. The Outer Space Treaty, 1967, (OST).
(4) SpaceDev, Inc., is a public company with a rounded array of projects
at this time. See, www.SpaceDev.com
(5) The Rule in Shelly’s Case, QB, circa 1620, resulted from
a trustee in the equity side of the Queen’s Bench, which merged there from the
Church Court in evolutionary fashion. The beneficiary occupied his lands as an
heir of an heir to that estate, thereby evidencing possession in perpetuity.
This would eliminate all value in the legal title so the rule against
perpetuities was adopted.
Importance is attached to the question of timing. USIS as a movement inches along at a very slow pace, perhaps because the concepts are extremely future-oriented and it is hoping the industry will catch up. The leadership of this movement consists of volunteer weekend warriors (so to speak) on a modest budget. They can not move faster because their day jobs are demanding. In spite of this circumstance, USIS has matured gradually and steadily and appropriately.
|
The historical timeframe has been as follows: |
|
|
1980 |
The World Bar Association was formed and the legal concerns about space exploration began to be discussed and researched. |
|
1990 |
The World Space Bar Association (WSBA) name change occurred in order to focus this association on space policy problems. |
|
1992 |
Declan J. O'Donnell as President of the World Space Bar Association published his earliest essay called, “A Basis for Government in Outer Space.” This was VERY WELL RECEIVED in the space policy community that identified to this bar association. (1992 was International Space Year and it witnessed the death of Isaac Asimov, Girard K. O’Neill, Gene Roddenberry, and other giants: perhaps their spirits merged here. |
|
1993 |
United Societies in Space (USIS) was filed as a Colorado non profit corporation. This was a project of the World Space Bar Association and by official duty it supervises activities of USIS. |
|
1995 |
Space Governance Journal became the official publication of USIS. It had begun in 1993 with Dr. Philip R. Harris as editor and Declan J. O'Donnell as publisher. |
|
1994 to 2001 |
Ten Countdown Conferences were held by USIS in Colorado at cities including Cuchara, Colorado Springs, Estes Park, and Denver, as well as at Stanford, California, all on AUGUST 4. During this period, we formed two entities as local venue managers: The Lunar Economic Development Authority, Inc., (LEDA), and the Space Orbital Development Authority, Inc., (SODA). |
|
2001 |
On August 4, 2001, USIS created the Regency of United Societies in Space, (ROUSIS). The conference at the University of Denver College of Law International Legal Studies Program, our co-sponsor, also produced a constitution. |
|
2002 |
USIS and the Regency plan to expand from a virtual space governance paradigm into a proactive leadership role in a citizen movement to locate a permanent human presence off world. The promotion targets include Buzz Aldrin Cycler Orbit project. This features the maintenance of three large space ships in orbit between Earth and Mars: it is a 100-year whole world program. |
Future work devoted to the proposition that the eventual governance paradigm in space will be that which helped put us in space in the first place.
On Saturday, February 16, 2002, we will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Phillip S. Miller Library in Castle Rock, Colorado, (961 South Plum Creek Blvd.). The agenda will include these matters:
· Planning the summer conference Labor Day weekend with the National Space Society in downtown Denver, Colorado.
· Approving a legislative program to be considered by the ROUSIS Legislature.
· Finalizing the Dr. Buzz Aldrin Room at the Phillip S. Miller Library, what books to feature, and how displays are arranged, and who will use it.
· Projecting internationally, how to locate such a Buzz Aldrin Space Room in libraries worldwide, what budgets to set, and how to promote same.
· Appointment to vacant executive offices in ROUSIS and on the USIS Board of Directors.
· Appointments to, and approval of, the Whole World Wants US TO DO IT program. This is built around the Aldrin Cycler Orbit to Mars project; the Girard K. O’Neill Taurus project; the Dr. Peter Glaser solar powered satellite program; the Dr. David Criswell Lunar Power Coalition concept; and the Moon Habitat, mining, and tourism ideas of Dr. Buzz Aldrin, Dr. David Schrunk, and John Spencer of the Space Tourism Society.
· Advisory Committee nominations for three groups: ROUSIS, LEDA, AND SODA.
On Labor Day weekend, we will meet as a legislative body to consider proposals entered on February 16, 2002. This will be announced in National Space Society literature in re the International Space Development annual conference.
On August 4, 2002, we will meet at the University of Denver Law School, as usual.
WHO we are as a corporation with affiliates and advisors and observers is portrayed below in three sections:
*NOTE: This book updates from years 1994, 1998,
and 2000. PLEASE CALL USIS headquarters to effect any amendments or
to correct a listing.
Humanitarian Award by year
of induction.
The following biographies are illustrative of participants in our space governance movement. More formal and complete curriculum vitae can be supplied on request.
< DECLAN J. O’DONNELL is President of USIS and ROUSIS and is on the Board of Directors of USIS and LEDA and SODA and the World Space Bar Association, Inc. His is publisher of the SPACE GOVERNANCE JOURNAL. Mr. O’Donnell is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, 1960, and of the University of Michigan Law School, 1963. He was Staff Assistant to the Governor of Colorado, John A. Love. He is a recipient of the Indira Gandhi Award for his work in international space law. He has published over 50 articles on space law and policy.
< RONNIE LAJOIE is Chief Legislator of ROUSIS and he is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Space Society. He works for Boeing out of Huntsville, Alabama. He has published extensively in space publications.
< KATHLEEN WOODY is Chief Justice of ROUSIS Supreme Court. She has legal background as a Deputy for the U.S. Department of the Treasury. She has worked on the faculty of several leading law schools, including Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, and Georgetown Law School. She has published a book on her efforts to assist Russian Provinces rebuild their economies and infrastructure after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
<
DR. BUZZ ALDRIN serves as Vice President of ROUSIS and as Advisor to the
Lunar Economic Development Authority. His resume and extensive background can
be found at his web site www.aldrinbuzz.com
or at keywords Buzz Aldrin.
< DR. RASHMI MAYUR of Mumbai, India, serves as Vice President of ROUSIS and as a member of the Board of Directors of USIS. He has received international recognition as a UN operative and for his devotion of time to international issues at the UN in regards to space and the environment. He is well published.
Philosophically, we emulate the common law as it developed in England, spread out to nations everywhere, came to America, and is now extended to outer space. This migration of the ancient idea of common law runs parallel to the recognized and established regime of international space law as maintained by the United Nations and its space faring member nations.
There is no intent nor legal capacity to replace treaty law. Instead, the idea is to supplement it with workable and equitable solutions to every day space settlement problems. The International Space Treaty Regime is valuable and dominant. However, it leaves a large void in the space venue as to commercial, residential, and societal matters, such as property law, contract law, tort law, and criminal law. There was none.
How common law was extended by us into outer space deserves more. The highlights of this journey are summarized below in 10 easy steps:
u 1200 a.d. the concept of a commoner’s legal regime that operated under and separate from the king’s regime in England became acceptable, so long as the king did not object; the king had no competing remedy for the person; and the result fit into a traditional concept of fairness, soon called “equitable remedies.”
v 1350 a.d. the trust estate was created by the Church Court when land owners failed to return from church sponsored crusades. Wills were not recognized in the King’s Court so the deceased landowner’s written directions to his next best friend, (such as to deed his castle from him to the next best friend and, at his death or failure to return from the crusade, for that friend to further convey to his eldest son), were unenforceable at law. The Church Court had no problem. It called the next best friend the legal owner subject to a trust estate for the benefit of the son, the equitable owner.
w1400 a.d. and later the Church Court extended this idea by creating lease hold estates to protect the tenancy of serfs loyal to the eldest son. Then, it created the easement estate to protect ingress and egress for the son and his serfs. Eventually, it created the mortgage estate so the son could borrow money by pledging his trust estate to a lender, the mortgager, who became a contingent beneficiary of a trustee who was also the beneficiary of another trust impressed on his father’s next best friends many years ago. (Don’t worry if this appears complex).
x 1500 a.d. saw the common law feature contract law as an extension of tort law called “trespass on the case,” i.e. breaching a promise was analogous to trampling on your neighbor’s property rights in a “chose in action,” i.e. a floating right (not yet vested), to receive a “thing.” Similarly, a common law of crimes emerged out of a “writ system” whereby the sheriff received directions in writing from the church, the governor, and occasionally from a landowner.
y 1600s saw this system incorporated into the English legal system as a body of law known as the “Court of Equity” law. The dominance of the ruler’s law was demonstrated early on: Shelly’s Case, QB circa 1620 a.d., demonstrated how the common law would defer to the recognized legal system by bending or adjusting to it.
The King’s Court applied its new found Court of Equity laws to modify a trust. It decreed “The Rule in Shelly’s Case,” that a beneficiary’s estate in a trust at common law could not last longer than “21 years plus a life in being.” In this case the original next best friend trustee had died and his heir died and his heir died so the current trustee claimed that his legal title was clouded far beyond the remedial purposes of protecting the original landowner’s eldest son. In fact, it had now surped the King’s law of deeds by lasting far too long and making ownership a burden rather than a benefit.
Once the combined court of law and equity acted to limit the life of Shelly’s estate, all trusts were changed equally, as a matter of law. No problem.
z 1700s witnessed a migration of common law to many nations, notably to America and India. England had abandoned its claim to jurisdiction over the high seas and the property law of trusts, leases, easements, and mortgages had become popular in commerce. A “cut off date” was selected by each jurisdiction.
{ 1850 a.d.: U.S. Congress enacted legislation to extend the common law from America to its extra territorial courts. This included courts on board vessels at sea. Maritime law applied to ships at sea but that proved inadequate because maritime law often referred to applications of the law of the flag of the ship. That, in turn, begged questions of equity versus legal interpretations regarding which laws of which states of the United States should be applied. For example, Maritime law said the captain should perform marriages (and funerals) at sea. However, it did not recognize common law marriages nor state what to do to marry two people by ceremony. Many state legislatures had different rules and some had not yet adopted the common law at all. The 1850 a.d. extension by Congress cured these legal problems.
| 1900s: States of the USA codified common law by legislative enactment in almost all important areas, such as property, contracts, and torts. Then they typically abandoned common law except as a basis in the court system to effect common law remedies or to interpret what the statutes meant, thus referring to the history of common law, including the elaborate “writ system.” Later the writ system was abandoned in favor of specific statutes.
} 2001 a.d.: United Societies in Space extended the common law into outer space as part of its Constitutional Convention from August 4, 2000, to August 4, 2001, creating the “Regency of United Societies in Space” The convention was noticed to all U.N. offices, all U.N. delegations, and to all space agencies. No objections were received. NASA appointed an observer, Diana Hoyt. Since 1994, the U.N. maintained an observer, Beatrice Lacoste, UN-EPA, and U.N. news correspondent, Nairobi, Kenya.
~ 2001 TO 2101 a.d.: The Regency legislature and supreme court will extend and bend this rich tradition into a body of law that may be called “Astro Common Law” to supplement the valuable but often inert space treaty law, so long as no objection, amendment, or sanction is decreed by treaty for the benefit of Humankind, our focus and our beneficiary.
The legal foundation for our entities is the TRUST. We view managers as trustees of a common law governmental trust. The Regency also incorporates the concept of the British temporary regency used to govern during the minority or incapacity of the prince or reigning royalty.
Consistent with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the agreed beneficiary is Humankind and all of its nations on Earth. A transition is contemplated whereby the eventual primary beneficiary will be human settlers in outer space. That transition should be executed without conflicts of interest.
Added into USIS space governance principles are those substantive characteristics of government set forth in the U.N. Charter of 1945 at Chapter 11 in respect to “territories not yet ready for the full measure of self governance.” Procedural safeguards are mimicked by maintenance of a Regency Advisory Committee and an USIS Corps of Observers. We see space as a territory with separate jurisdiction from Earth Nations and a place with distinct venues, such as low Earth orbit; high orbits and Lagrange Points; the Moon; Mars; asteroid belt; gas planets; and cycler orbits.
One of our projects is to help develop cyclers proposed by Dr. Buzz Aldrin and a team of specialists from Purdue University and coordinated by the Sharespace Foundation, Inc. We hope to be part of a whole world leading edge permanent space habitat project. Nations are solicited to join into this citizen led and privately financed project.
The Denver Space Constitutional Convention was noticed for five years in advance in various media, plus special notice to the space industry and by announcements in the Space Governance Journal. All of the member delegations of the UNITED NATIONS were noticed in early 2000 a.d.
Delegates to the Convention assembled at the University of Denver College of Law, International Legal Studies Program, co-sponsored with United Societies in Space. The Convention Hall and several meeting rooms were contributed by the D.U. program headed by Dr. Ved Nanda. The sessions on August 4 and 5, 2000 a.d. were adjourned for one year and until August 4, 2001. This allowed time for conference amendments to the draft constitution to be circulated and ratified one year hence. The ratification process would be completed by vote of 2/3 of the Regency’s legislative body, as would all future amendments be processed.
At the Convention there were 50 foundation regents appointed and 20 alternates, all coming from USIS supported agencies. The list of regents who have accepted their appointment and now represent humanity as trustees for management of space as a venue is published in this journal.
The base document was published in Space Governance Journal, Vol. 6, p 22. It is the product of a two year Global Space Essay Contest. The announcement about the genesis of the basic organic document for a Regency of United Societies in Space is published in the SGJ, Vol. 6, inside front cover:
The adoption process was presided over by USIS and NSS board members Mr. Ronnie Lajoie and Mr. Greg Allison. Each section of the constitution and all proposed amendments were displayed on a screen with computer generated changes. The delegates discussed each sentence and every proposed change. Arguments ensued on certain points so pro and con speeches were allowed. A video graph of the entire event was made.
On the ratification session at August 4, 2001, Mr. Lajoie announced that 75 technical amendments remained as well as three substantive additions. He allowed a voice approval of the organic document as it was completed on October 1, 2000 a.d. He recommended a later ratification of the 75 technical amendments and three substantive additions by 2/3 of the legislative body of ROUSIS meeting in Denver in conjunction with the National Space Society ISDC meeting on Memorial Day weekend 2002 so a full quorum of all interested parties and 2/3 of the certified legislators could be conducted. Thus approval of the group meant that the October 1, 2000, draft of the constitution, as appears herein, was final, but that technical and minor amendments may be considered later. Ronnie also mentioned that 5 or 10 years of some sort of amending process may be anticipated for such an important document.
Appointments would be confirmed by a simple majority vote. There was a majority in attendance so those were processed forthwith.
The proposed minimum size of the Regency had been set at 200 regents. The delegates viewed that as too high, especially for the initial operations of the group. The minimum was reset to 50 regents. These appointments, as were nominated by the delegates from USIS panels, appear elsewhere in this journal.
The maximum size of this Regency is set at 500 regents. The concept is to expand the Regency when the workload is greater. During the foundation period, i.e. while we are forming the Regency, a smaller group of very interested regents was considered beneficial. For example, a quorum was barely met at the August 4, 2001, Convention final proceedings. If we had to deal with 200 rather than 50 regents that may not have been possible: international travel restrictions, limited budgets, and conflicts in scheduling make it difficult to assemble larger groups for international meetings. Proxy voting is not recommended for this activity.
Article II, Section 10, was the most discussed and debated section at the convention. The intent of USIS in having a Department of Defense is stated in Space Governance Journal, Vol. 6, p 4, “Military Assistance Program.” Here Regent Carol Rosin and Justice Stephen S. Doyle and Editor Declan J. O’Donnell detail a program for the use of military space construction battalions, formed internationally from relevant talent pools. This is a version of the more traditional military conversion to civilian endeavors promoted by federal and state agencies. However, the assistance program does not seek to demilitarize any forces that participate: it merely creates by reorganization relevant space construction units to help civilian space settlements get started. As stated in the article cited above: purposes are…
· “Maintenance of public health, safety, and security of space settlements.
· “Military construction resources would be suitable for road building, site leveling, constructing bridges, tunnels, caverns, and wells on the Moon and Mars.
· “Space Power Supply Systems, such as the Space Solar Power Systems designed by Dr. David Criswell and Dr. Peter Glaser, may be assembled by these space construction battalions, not only for beaming solar microwave power to Earth, but, possibly, providing civilian settlements with power on the Moon, at orbits in space, and at Mars.”
The role of ROUSIS was to access and co-opt the military complex internationally as a partner in future space settlement planning and development. Regent Rosin spoke of this at our meeting at Stanford University and Justice Stephen Doyle has written extensively on this subject. The existence of a ROUSIS Department of Defense is and was at all times considered to be for the purpose of coordinating these kinds of activities.
Nevertheless, delegates chose to empower ROUSIS with the capacity to have its own defense force. The consensus was that no governance authority could be credible unless it had this capacity. No doubt such a force would be contracted rather than maintained: its naked legal availability is important. The primary mission of ROUSIS, however, is to provide a reasonable and civilian governance regime.
Article V of the constitution as published for delegates at p 17 of the Space Governance Journal, Vol. 7, was deleted. This Article restated contemporary space policy issues and tended to commit the Regency to likely solutions, or tended to take positions on certain issues. The delegates voted to strike out this Article as not appropriate for constitutional level presentation.
During the debate on this section, it was agreed by the delegates that the space policy section would be published in the journal but not as part of the constitution. There was a consensus to the effect that the space policy issues were well stated and fairly treated. The dominate and concluding vote, however, was that no space policy should be advocated in the constitution. Regents worldwide need to have the freedom to express various views over the 100 year term.
Therefore, the deleted Article V, at SGJ Vol. 6, p. 17, is not part of the constitution itself. The primary topics of this article are:
· Treaty burdens
· Space agencies
· SETI
· Regulation of spaceship standards
· Military assistance
· Management of space resources and property rights. The Regency may be expected to deal with all of these subjects, but not as constitutional level obligations: Space policy recommendations may change periodically.
Regent Jesus Raygoza B. of Guadalajara, Mexico, has agreed to represent United Societies as Chairperson of the Mexican Space Agency Project. The mission is to cause Mexico to form a National Space Agency.
On August 4, 2001 a.d., during the USIS Convention at the University of Denver College of Law, the committee held its first meeting. Mr. O’Donnell, Mr. Gary Rodriguez, and Mr. Bill Good were present with Mr. Raygoza and Mr. Miguel Perez of Guadalajara, Mexico. Special guests were introduced as follows:
· Mrs. Diana Hoyt
Chief, NASA Department of Policy and Plans
· Ms. Liticia Calzada
General Counsel of Mexico
Mexican Consulate Offices
48 Steele Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
The committee urged Ms. Calzada to carry our project mission to Mexico City next week during her visit with the newly elected President of Mexico. She should also coordinate with NASA and USIS in order to establish an effective agency. Mr. Raygoza advised her that there is a large group of Mexican citizenry who are well known as space activists. They have many projects that need government attention, such as the Mexican Space Port project.
Mr. O’Donnell hand delivered a formal letter to Ms. Calzada. He asked that the new Mexican National Space Agency be organized initially near the bottom of the governance structure for Mexico, with a modest budget. This would give its staff time to work out a program before publicity could be organized to focus on it. Also, time was needed to work out Mexico’s space agenda, budget, and international relationships.
Ms. Calzada rejected that strategy. She planned on having it start as an agency in or near the office of the President at the top. She felt this was an important project and Mexico must realize that it has priority, politically, in order to improve the lives of the Mexican people.
Ms. Diana Hoyt gave her assurance that NASA would support her mission. “Mexico is a natural for outer space exploration and National commitment. It has not only the natural resources needed for this adventure, it also has the human resources, a proud history of exploration, and good relations with NASA, our Government, and with the American people.” She endorsed the concept of starting the new Mexican National Space Agency at or near the top of the government in Mexico City.
Mr. O’Donnell reminded the committee and its special guests that things happen fast. When outer space is opened for human settlement politically, the pace of space development will outpace the development of cyber space. Whenever that burst of excitement begins, Mexico will need to have a national agency to coordinate activity. Until then, NASA, the UN, and USIS at least need a proper contact place in Mexico.
The delegates have not yet voted on three important pending substantive amendments. These and 75 technical amendments will be considered during upcoming meetings where time may permit adequate discussion. The issue of environmental protection was provided under the larger issue of space resource management. A new department with cabinet level appointments will be brought forward in due course.
The environmental component takes wording out of the controversial Moon Treaty of 1979. However, the words “Common Heritage of Mankind” (CHOM) are replaced by other words in the Moon Treaty that are more traditional and workable, one noteworthy word being “equitable.” In this amendment a balance is being recommended that will permit development while preserving outer space as a place for future generations of humankind, all in conformity with treaty burdens in effect at this time.
The problem with the 1979 phrase “Common Heritage of Mankind” is that it became well defined as preventing all development. In the Law of the Sea Treaty signed by America in 1992, this fearsome phrase was defined to include 100% sharing of all benefits, by actually delivering them in kind to all nations, subject to a management formula by all nations, exclusively for peaceful purposes, and preserving the premises for future generations. Knowing that this redefinition is too restrictive for developers, it was rejected by the proponents in favor of the word “equitable.”
The words “equitable sharing” and “equitable uses” are also used in the Moon Treaty. These were used in the proposed amendment. Common law courts have a 700 year history of applying these equitable standards. Since our ROUSIS constitution extends the common law to the venue of outer space and the court system of ROUSIS is invited to apply common law remedies, the alternative treaty language “equitable sharing” was believed more appropriate. Courts of equity take all interests into account, including the interests of developers, future settlers, and space governance. It is feared that CHOM would be interpreted as excluding those interests in favor of preserving the premises forever for future generations of humankind.
One interest that needs to be guarded is that of the venue of outer space. Whatever the venue needs to maintain its version of “natural” is going to be important. Perhaps the issue of terra forming Mars will challenge the nature of space more than any other single redevelopment concept. Our court system needs to have a fair, common law, and equitable standard in order to evaluate all kinds of development proposals, even the Mars terra forming proposals, for the benefit of all humankind.
The proposed substantive amendment sets up a Department of Space Resource Management. The chief of this department is part of the president’s cabinet. It calls for an inventory of space resources to be managed. Part of this process invites the legislature to set aside vast areas of space that will remain undeveloped and not actively managed. The constitution also permits “bubbles,” like in Swiss cheese, so local governments can manage their venues. The Mars Society appears to prefer that kind of mosaic and the delegates have no problem in permitting Mars to develop its own governance/space resource management regime. ROUSIS will assist as needed.
Hopefully there will be common standards developed so space developers are able to plan on consistent standards at all space venues. This will be important as to standards for habitat ingress and egress and docking procedures on space vessels. One of the goals of space governance is the preplanning for common safety of settlers, rescue of those in need, and construction standards that are safe, inspected, and truly habitable by all. The Department will endeavor to set and maintain such standards for developers of space venues. It will also provide remedies that are consistent with international law so the world can trust its enforcement capabilities.
The proposal to create this department was tabled. The ROUSIS legislators felt that such a department in the Executive Branch was premature until the Legislative Branch had formed a concensus on the various underlying issues.
Perhaps the most important reason for having property rights that can be mortgaged by the owners in space is the prospect of permitting lenders of capital to acquire a security interest in the resources. The mortgage is essentially a trustee arrangement and it is a common law estate. Thus the proposed amendment to the space governance constitution allows for creditors to acquire a mortgage interest in developable space resources that are zoned or designated for development. This is believed to represent a legally significant departure from international law.
Article III, Section 4, extends common law estates in property to space. The common law estates are the trust, the lease, the easement, and the mortgage. Creditors may be granted a mortgage.
However, the grant is tempered with a modification to foreclosure procedures. Upon default and notice of foreclosure, the Department of Space Resource Management acts as the trustee of the mortgage estate. Under enabling legislation that will be enacted by the ROUSIS legislature in due course, it will require the encumbrances cleared by a form of escheat so the government may have a say so in who takes it over and when and how. This temporary holding by the Space Governance Department is meant to eliminate partial completion problems, lengthy abandonment, and unsightly construction sites in space. The Trustee Department is expected to pay off the debt, remedy the construction project problems, and resell the project to an approved developer with a workable business plan.
The creditor may also become paid by the department, which effectively guarantees the loan and steps into the shoes of the lender (if the loan was originally approved by it). This is designed to encourage lenders to put up with a higher degree of risk in the final frontier. The source of payment will be ROUSIS bank and it will be repaid when the project is completed, inspected, approved, and resold. Construction lending is specialized and the department will need to become good at it. Since there are no commercial construction projects completed in space to date, ROUSIS will need to take a leadership role in setting standards for that activity. This constitutional provision will not only enable that result, it may also require it, when finally adopted.
Another section in this proposed department is that of the Space Alien Nation Advocacy Office. This group would track the Disclosure Project and attempt to sort out alien contact reports. If a contact is made, we would seek an intergovernmental alliance with that alien nation or home base.
ROUSIS is conceived as a human trusteeship for the benefit of humans on Earth and, eventually, settlers in space. It is not here to serve the interest of aliens. However, it appears that Earth nations may be alienating the aliens by their negative governance policies. If true, the legitimate aliens with whom contact may be established would appreciate an alliance with a non-military, non-antagonistic international government that truly represents all humanity (rather than one nation or region or union). There is no other world governance organization except ROUSIS that could qualify as such a likely contact point for such an alien nation or headquarters.
The delegates finally decided on six vice presidents who would succeed to the presidency in the event the President had to be replaced. These would do so in succession from first to second to third, etc. Each would be expected to appear on behalf of the Regency in far away places where the President may not be able to attend. For example, First vice president Rashmi Mayur of Mumbai, India, would cover events in India and that part of the world. Second vice president Buzz Aldrin could cover events in California or while on other trips that he regularly takes. The third vice president is Dr. William Good of Colorado. Three more are to be nominated during 2002 a.d.
This feature may be unique to ROUSIS. However, as a truly international trust it may be called upon to attend far-flung events. The headquarters in Castle Rock, Colorado, is one mile closer to the venue of outer space but it is not any closer to the world capitals. The six vice presidents feature helps spread out the burden of appearances worldwide.
The First Century of the Third Millennium is selected as the term of the ROUSIS trust. By the end of that term, and hopefully even sooner, space governance should conduct a convention in space with delegates who have settled there already. Some of the Regency constitution may survive and much of the practices it has sponsored should be adopted by the settlers. However, the trustees known as Regents will simply go out of business at the 100 year mark. The thinking is that 100 years is ample time to achieve an off world estate so why not JUST DO IT! If this does not work within 100 years, we will concede defeat for our species and consent to abort the project.
There was no objection to this philosophy among the delegates. In fact, it appears to represent one of the primary applications of the common law principle of limited life to the space governance trust.
The Secretary of the Treasury is in charge of setting up a central bank of the Regency. It is indicated because one standard monetary system is needed for space commerce. Rubles, lire, pounds, francs, and dollars should not be permitted to compete with each other in space. If one of these sneezes in space, then all of them on Earth may catch a cold and become sick forever. Instead, during the 100 year Regency era at least, all Earth monies should be traded into the ROUSIS bank in return for space money. This alone should be the legal tender in outer space.
Furthermore, competition in national monies in space would be awkward to tolerate because some are hard and some are soft and most are not even space faring at all. If a project in space is financed by a nation with soft money that is not even space faring, depreciation could ruin the project mid-stream. It might overtax the resources and its loan guarantee program and cause undue problems with escheating foreclosures. ROUSIS needs to require space money for use in our off world estate for humankind.
1. Dr. Buzz Aldrin was awarded the SPACE HUMANITARIAN award, the highest award bestowed by the Board of Directors of United Societies in Space. Dr. Aldrin is Vice President of the Regency (aka ROUSIS). The award recognizes Buzz for the volunteer time and effort that he donates to the cause of advancing the day when we can be a space faring society. He is available to us and the National Space Society, the Mars Society, the Space Tourism Society, the Lunar Economic Development Authority, the Sharespace Foundation, the Space Orbital Development Authority, and many others. These organizations have co-sponsored this award.
Mr. O’Donnell made the presentation at the Awards Banquet on Saturday night, August 4, 2001 a.d. at the Riverfork Restaurant in Drake, Colorado. He observed that Buzz Aldrin was one Apollo astronaut who not only walked on the Moon, on July 20, 1969, but, also, is one who has continually given back to the industry more than he took. His free flowing energy for space activism is legendary.
2. Regent Dr. Rashmi Mayur announced on August 4, 2001, at the USIS Denver Space Convention, that Mr. Declan J. O'Donnell was selected to receive the “FREEDOM AND FUTURE” award from the International Institute for Sustainable Future in India. Five persons worldwide are so honored and Mr. O’Donnell is the only American this year. The award announcement states: “We honor you for your dedication, vision, and selfless contribution to the highest ideals for Earth and its Future.”
3. The USIS Space Monolith Awards were presented to the following Regents by Mr. O’Donnell:
· Mr. Brad Blair for his hard work on the Lunar Economic Development Authority, Inc.
· Mrs. Kathleen Woody for her work as chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Regency of United Societies in Space.
· Mr. Ronnie Lajoie for is hard work as Chief Legislator of the Regency of United Societies in Space and as a member of the Board of Directors of USIS, as well as of NSS.
· Mr. Jesus Raygoza of Guadalajara, Mexico, for his long and hard work in organizing USIS of Mexico and serving as chair of the Mexican National Space Agency for USIS and the Regency.
4. The Awards Banquet was paid for and hosted by Max and Elissa Haghighi of Drake, Colorado. This substantial donation was received with gratitude from all USIS members and friends in attendance at their gourmet restaurant in Drake, Colorado.
A plaque was awarded to Dr. Rashmi Mayur by the USIS Board of Directors. He has traveled from Mumbai, India, to USIS meetings and events unselfishly for six years. He has served on the Board for five years. He is active in the UN and brings our message to the delegates and UN committee members regularly.
Mr. O’Donnell recognized the importance of his UN activism. During 2000 a.d. USIS sent a formal notice of our Constitutional Convention to each UN delegation, along with a copy of our proposed constitution. In return we received no objection from any delegation.
WHERE are we?
< INTERNATIONAL presence is sought and maintained with personnel in other countries. See, address book under WHO. Key persons internationally include: Jesus Raygoza B., MEXICO; Dr. Rashmi Mayur, INDIA; Rafael Ponce, CANADA; and James Caravela, EUROPE.
< JURISDICTION is asserted into outer space from 200 miles above Earth to the outer reaches of our solar system. This claim is the basis for, and the character of, The Regency. It is stated in the ROUSIS Constitution at Article IV, Section 1, comity, and the Declaration of Trust on page 1, “The res of this trust shall be space resources in a territory extending from 200 miles above Earth to the end of the solar system; the Trustees shall manage same for the benefit of all, asserting jurisdiction to that end.”
< www.US.DOIT.SPACE This is a project of USIS that features a committee of space activists from many organizations. Its mission is to cause a citizen spearheaded, permanent off world estate and economy for Humankind. It focuses on the Buzz Aldrin Mars Cycler program as its lead project with stations on the Moon and Mars and platforms in orbit. It is “The Whole World Wants US to do it.space” program.
· PHASE ONE is contributions from the general public representing Humankind, the ultimate beneficiary of our trust estate.
· PHASE TWO is subscription of Earth governments to take over subdivided portions of the off world estate as designed by Phase One contributors and our Committee of the Whole. Each government would deliver product and habitats in space.
· PHASE THREE is activation of an off world economy in space, using space money, a space bank, and ROUSIS leadership.
The final budget for this citizen lead space migration is unknown. However, we predict it will be over 1 quadrillion U.S. dollars equivalent, assuming 100,000 settlers are accommodated initially and during the 100-year term. Seed money from citizens and businesses is called for in the order of 200 million U.S. dollars for Phase One.
Citizens who contribute to Phase One will vote every year on August 4 as to the conception, direction, and design of this off world estate and how we go about achieving it during one lifetime. The cost of the vote is $2 during 2002
a.d., $3 during 2003 a.d., and so on. Each Amicus Curia (friend of the committee) voter will pledge and pay $2,000 to the project’s Phase One Trust Fund. Net proceeds after expenses will go to Phase One design, planning, and bidding processes.
Contact us to subscribe and advise regarding the only
humans to space program that has any chance at all of surviving and achieving
its goals. Call 800-632-2828 or
e-mail to djopc@qwest.net
< AUTHORITY BONDS. You may subscribe to 30-year high interest bonds of LEDA and/or SODA at $5,000 USD each for revenue bonds and $500 USD each for mini bonds that subordinate to the revenue bonds but have privileges.
< SPACE MONEY CLUB. You are entitled to have and keep issuances of USIS space money at a level twice as much as you commit to any of the above opportunities. Maintained by USIS, this space money is a product of the SPACE MONEY CLUB, a barter club and affiliate of the International Reciprocal Trade Association. It has contemporary trading benefits among approximately 600 barter clubs. However, its principal advantage is the future potential prospect that our space projects will succeed and our space money will be legal tender off world, having comity value on Earth, and, in any event, Space Money Club certificates may have historical value to participants. This is the same space money as covered by Lou Dobbs on www.space.net This availability is subject to request and your enrollment under trading rules of the space money club. Call 800-632-2828.
We can recommend the following web sites for your consideration:
http://gos.sbc.edu/g/galloway2.html (Eilene Galloway) This is a good article that defines problems with an historical summary dating to October 4, 1957, when Sputnik performed one orbit of the Earth, “like a spark that ignited and speeded the process of developing the exploration and peaceful uses of outer space on a continuing and larger scale.” It details the creation of NASA and UNCOPUOS.
www.gov/science/galloway_10-01.htm
(Eilene Galloway) “NASA AT 40: WHAT KIND OF SPACE AGENCY DOES AMERICA NEED
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?”
www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/04_2/Danilenko/HTML/text.html “Outer Space and the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process,” by Gennady M. Danilenko. The problems with competing national interests and fragmented space law form different sources and conflicting treaty provisions notwithstanding there is a need for ongoing space law development. The need for a new and comprehensive space law treaty is explored, if not recommended. (132 footnotes.)
http://home.talkcity.com/PlayingFields/davebrett/SpaceSettlement.html This is the Space Settlement Initiative of Mr. Alan Wasser Awasser@worldnet.att.net It asks Congress to grant land on the Moon/Mars to settlers who arrive there. (We would prefer a U.N. grant of a 99 year common law lease).
http://www.charmed.com/html/corporate/people/alexlightman/07_1998_Star%20Scores.htm
Article by Alex Lightman as published in Space
Governance Journal, 1998. This proposal has
the United States rather than the U.N. head up as trustee an authority for the
benefit of all to develop space.
www.spacefuture.com/archive/real_property_rights_in_outer_space.shtml
Article by attorney Wayne White recommending a functional title to property
under space objects and personnel of a nation at that location to accommodate
their functions. An historical and logical argument supports such a treaty
regime idea.
www.usis.sumaato.com The homepage for
United Societies in Space, Inc.
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/legal_and_regulatory_issues_for_passenger_space_travel.shtml
“Legal
and Regulatory Issues” by Patrick Collins and Koichi
Yonemoto.
