not edited. thoughts on the topic, will be edited later. lot of topics to cover and the find online and add or argue. interpret according to RULE

Government of an Ark
This content actively translated into 103 Tongues!


"That We Govern for Freedom"
"Oceans and Atmospheres"

Ark Law

Ark Law is the argument of belief in the United States, where belief is proetcted by the constitution and the actions of belief. This section helps person of anARK argue belief accroding to natural in the United States and among other nations. The use of ark law is being developed with Arch law. Where Arch law is natural law, and ark law is natural belief, not similiar to sharia law, american, english, or the law of other nations. We should live according to what is natural for us, and where it is needed to argue what is natural, these resources or provided and with examples for comparison offered. In this first presenation, methods for arguing the statements at Government of anARK are presented. The statement are prosperity agreements among men, establishing during the age of reason, what is natural. Specifically, the sense and use of.

The statements of anArk (a natural belief)
  • My Speech is not a crime. The use of the voice permits us to attract a mate; to warn others a predetor is near by screaming, to rationalize a danger, to discuss an action or hypotheitcal, and more... voice could be considered an offense to other people, like talking to loud in the library, alleged a violation of an envirnment requiring quiter activity.
  • My Sight is not a crime. The use of sight premits us to see a danger and respond to it, to idenitfy a beauty, to see the environemtn around us and interact with it. Their are many types of sight. sight can be construed a crime if it violates environment, including recovery of other information.
  • My Smell is not a crime. To freedom to smell something before we consume, to smeel a thing or an area before we enetr it idenitfy a danger or pungent odor, to determine a mate or the habits of potential or existing mate, or others person in the area.
  • My Hearing is not a crime. An ability tolisten to what others are saying; we are free to hear the activty in the environemt, to recover what is natural for us to hear andsue it to make decisions for survival and more.
  • My Construction (arch) is not a crime. The way i was born is not a crime, and to wear my genes as i was born, is not a crime.
  • My Continuum is not a crime. The data refelcted from my person, held by the continuums of which we sewar on, is not a crime, but the ifnromation contain in it could be a crime. Example, if i take the oath on the continuum of lgith and iu am asked to swear on that continuum, the arguement made is relative to whatever actions the man took in his life, as the light is reflected from the skin, or radio ove rlong eporiods of time. The arguement, has the person state the statement of truth does not deviate from that statement. if a lie if made and you win the court case, your arguement is held somewhere else.
  • My Belief is not a crime. My belief, and the life i live the result of it where indicated, is not a crime; less it violates a propserity agreement, of planet and environment, life, or liberty, or those other agreemtns from one antion to another where needed is the evaluatiion. belief could be argued a crime, example, a chrstian determines he wants to hang jesus pictures all over the woods, but they are not his woods, and the property owners allege jesus is gang stalking him. The violation of environment might be the crime, not the belief of nailing jesus pictures to trees. belief and environment, a group of people allege they dont want the trees torn down! and business owner states their attempt to harm the land is violating environment, and asked them to leave. Is the fight permitted? Yes. The challnege presneted is compared to asking cows to intercept chemtraqil planes to save their own lives. The only way to save the ecosystem, is to present a challeneg from the siialir species.
Arguing the Specifics
  • Equality arguing by comparison and where trillons of individual flock members like animals, insects and more, there is not a crime for these statements. Among men, some whom allege some portion of 7 billion people is permitted these sense, and some portion is not; the arguement of equality arise.
  • Those men alleging a label of other man, among these statements and using the same sense, compared to seeing or hearing the same thing, earn the demon they allege of another. If two men commit a "crime," and one asks another to judge that offense becuase it is their belief that the sense earns a label, and it is not the belief of the other, the man seeking a judge for that crime of sense can be charged, and the other can not.
  • If a group of men allege it is a felony to use a sense, and those men regulary use the same sense, those men are also liable a felony by count and frequency of occurance. In some states, like florida, the badge of an officer or agent of the state and united states can be removed for a misdemeanour charge.
  • The allegations of inequality stating the use of sense is a felony is incured by the person requesting another pass judgement and where it is agreed. Where the judge, attornies, lawyers, doctors, prosecutors, phychiatrists, or other persons and jury commit the same offense to understand the crime of sense alleged, they are each liable the penalty they impart. If a citizen is charged a crime for the sense of hearing, and then each of these persons mention prior hears what the victim hears during the court case, and those persons agree it is crime, then they are each charged a crime according to their agreement of penalty, and relative to freqeuncy of occurance.
  • If a crime of sense is alleged as retroactive, then the allegation of sense is also retoractive for the men asking for a judgement, and according to frequency of occurance. A officer stating the sense of sight is retoractive, is also liable the retroactive penalty, and among his peers.
  • A crime organzation might chase men who witness (sight) a crime they have committed. Officers whom make chase of the victim for witnessing a crime (sight) are liable the charge they allege when compared (equality) and according to law of the nation. An officer alleges he can do to the witness, the crime the person saw in a photograph (sight) and because the person witnessed it, including to his schools and churches, is actually committing a crime, and the sight of is not a crime.
  • If the person knows that filing a report (sight) will have a group of people conspire to do harm to others that could result in harm (seeing a photograph), and can demonstrate such activity the result of report, and that person knows harm will occur (torture, murder, etc), the person should not file the report with those men or report to those whom might make available to other men also doing similiar harm (drunk list); or risk allegations of intent to do simliar harm among victims, witnesses, judges, and juries (for sight); and should not make a movie of that harm after report, as a film maker of identical crime alleged (motive, intent) stating sight is a crime.
  • The american stated that free speech is a prosperity agreement (voice), then proceeded to use his voice to demonstrate speech is not a crime (encouraging a natural reasonsing for use of voice); while informing soldiers of monitoring programs recording their speech at home and work in a military town, and as part of a vocal feed back loop utilizing recovery of information to idenitify an edge for automated media services alteration (utility knife) and electronic harrassment. The prosperity agreement of free speech is upheld for the american and the soldier, and not for the aggressors forcing vocal recovery onto the target (the edge) and with statements hourly into the victims home or workplace by violating terms of service for media delivery, county or town codes with trencher deployed "phone lines," privacy, or whom are engaging digital occupation and electronic quartering of the home and work place, during a time of peace or war.
  • The group of men allege the belief (a natural belief) of the person is a crime, and the individual can not compete with the law of the nation. Perhaps requiring each individual to believe in government or accept church in some similiar way. In the united states, the meeting places are designated, and the belief of each person for government or church can be different when arguing at those places. The personal belief of the individual can openly influence the arguement without comiting a crime and belief can not be a reason for exclusion or it might be a crime. In the capital of tallhassee, 67 county representatives argue, and among 23 million self governments where each individual could possibly be from another set of laws among state and nation. Their is no requirement for any individual to believe the same of government or church as any other, and only a requirement to understand interaction with the public systems (as agreed or amended by the time in history) are in place to encourage productive participation. The american currency bears the statement "in god we trust," and a small encyclopedia distiguishing 2500 gods and deities, demonstrates the citizen is not required to accept any individual god or diety or combination of, only that which they believe when reading the statement, if any at all.
  • The sense of sight does not earn the label of what is seen. The example is a collection of 2200 hollywood DVDs on the book shelf, or 20. Where a citizen might suggest the person who bought those movies earns the label of the actors in those movies by seeing the particpants act, or is inclined to act like those actors. The suggestion for sense and label is made with a comparison of equality. A collection of NCIS movies, does not make the person an expert or a police officer, and the actor in the movie can not be charged a crime, even where the script suggest a crime was committed by actor a, b, or c. The depiction of fantasy and reality, real or imagined crime, is compared to youtubes collection of "polcie officers shooting" suspects to death.
Natural and Unantural
  • Natural is discerned: as established activity demonstarted over very long periods of time >2000 years.
  • unnatural activity is discerned where no comparison of activity among flock for comparison over very long periods of time can be discerned.
  • An example of natural freedom does not include a freedom to spray the territoiry or toehr naturasl. No natural comparison exist.
  • An example of natural freedom does not include some authority to deply electromagentic weapons under all of the homes or cities to trap, prepare apeople for war, or other wise do harm with electrical weapons.
Arguing and Livining according to Belief
  • An amial has a song! A Bird on a branch and wolf howling at the moon, a cicada screaming on the porch or cat fighting in the woods... animal after animal is noted to have a voice and a song. For men, the accusation or pursuit of a song is motivated in some way.
Ark, Arc, and Arch Law and the RULE

There is a natural RULE, discerned over thousands of years by our scientists, and what is an unnatural RULE, defined by planet and position near star and in space, and discerned by scientific effort among men for what is added to the RULE equation. To maintain health of the people and flock, we adhere the rule and require innovation within what is shown by science to be safe for people, from failure or success of uncertain or certain science sets.

Arguments and Structure of individual government
  • Arch Law, Natural Law in a Natural Nation
  • Arch Embassy, Where the Embassy of Washington Dc or the States will not represent the Individual
  • Ark Law, Grounds of Belief argued as part of United States or American Law
  • Arc Law, Law governing the use of spark relative to natural energy container measurements.