Aug 24, 17 / Lib 12, 01 05:55 UTC


... and none of the administration seem to care about following their own written rules... No respect for "rules..." No adherence to legitimacy. Why bother writing Chapter 9 in the constitution??  


  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Aug 24, 17 / Lib 12, 01 05:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: 日本語

Aug 24, 17 / Lib 12, 01 06:00 UTC

Thank you so much Ann. For more clarification the section ann is talking about is asgardia forum under Ministry of affairs public sector weekly report 20 august also look closely at decrees umber 3 under voting regulations number 4 which states in abbreviation here that we will adopt the constitution after 1000 yes's. Now is the time to move on and vote for people interested in makeing the rest of the nation work go vote for your reps. people.

Aug 25, 17 / Lib 13, 01 08:03 UTC

Interesting, as the previous week's notes shows that only 36% percent voted in favor of ratification.

Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 00:08 UTC


Weekly reports of meeting notes, marketing posts on FB and Q&A videos sessions do not supercede or invalidate official decrees and regulations, which states that all certified Asgardians have the right to vote and a majority vote is required to ratify the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution has not been legitimately ratified, it lost it bid in a wide margin, as reported by the administration.

Your plea to "move on" illustrates that you have absolutely no comprehension or regard for the rule of law.

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 00:11 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 07:19 UTC

no one said a majority was needed to ratify only that 1000 votes were needed and we have that please move on

Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 08:33 UTC

So, even you, Dirk, are stating that Head of Nation's decrees are without any value? "a dead written law on paper"
Beware a law which can be changed by a post on FB.

Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 21:04 UTC

@Dirk Baeyens

FYI, that's not how laws or constitutional governments operate. You are either naive or sadly misinformed, I can't tell which. Read and educate yourself.

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 21:08 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 21:20 UTC

@Dirk Baeyens
I was not talking about the decrees but i respect them.
As they are stamped in time and will not change in the
future then they are only temporary papers in my view.

Nice to know you "respect them" as, as @Travin correctly pointed out, they're laws. Sorry to say that "your view" and Head of Nation's view are not the same... up to you to figure which view will be the most important/followed into Asgardia.

@Dirk Baeyens
The constitution, the faq, the news, etc, are the most
important texts at this moment as they will change
in time for the good of Asgardia and the citizens.

Even here, I'm failing to find "the FAQ, the news, etc." into Asgardia's laws definition: are you sure you're speaking about Asgardia too?

Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 23:44 UTC

@bleddynapturner ... no one said a majority was needed to ratify ...

You really should take the time to read and understand the subject before commenting. It clearly says in the Constitution itself, chapter 9 article 43, ratifying the Constitution requires a majority vote.

@Dirk Baeyens

We're quoting directly from official Asgardia documents that define law and what a law is.  Your opinion doesn't match with how  Asgardia defines itself, so you're just making things up. Delusional.

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Aug 26, 17 / Lib 14, 01 23:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aug 27, 17 / Lib 15, 01 09:13 UTC

@Dirk Baeyens
The constitution is ratified, point.

Exactly what I was saying: it's not more a matter of laws, even if internal ones, it's a matter of faith. Have luck with that.

Aug 27, 17 / Lib 15, 01 18:50 UTC

@Jason Rainbow

Incorrect. In very clear English my comment is about his contradictory logic, which I characterized as delusional. That's not a personal remark. 

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Aug 27, 17 / Lib 15, 01 19:03 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aug 28, 17 / Lib 16, 01 06:16 UTC

@Ann Griffith

That's awesome, and I sincerely wish the best for your efforts. However, that is neither the correct nor only option available. It is merely one option. And this a form of government like any other, run by humans, and change comes from all angles.

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Aug 28, 17 / Lib 16, 01 06:17 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aug 28, 17 / Lib 16, 01 06:35 UTC

how do you see calling someone delusional not insulting how do you not see calling someone naive or misinformed with out substantial proof insulting. (I am try to stay calm and trying not to call people names here) but How I see your statement of saying I am not reading these post as? Offensive, especially since I took the time to read each one of the post's. If I could have the moderators to remove you on those grounds I almost would, but I want to try and get people like your self to understand How things are. Ann is right the Administration and by extension the King whom appointed the Administration to run Asgardia Are Stateing that the Constitution is ratified this means that according to Administration and King that it has in fact been ratified regardless of what the incomplete and incorrect posted Constitution said, the constitution its self states the first constitution will be voted on but we saw changes to the constitution which nullified the first constitution and a new Constitution was put in it's place then an announcement by the Kings representatives said voteing will not only be extended but that with a set number of votes the Constitution would be adopted the Constitution it's self was not in effect at that time so it's trumped by the founder. I am one of those people who feels left behind I have worked on this Constitution sending in my idea's trying to get terminology down getting no recognition for it and all this hard work only to have people tell me they don't like it and it wont work and it's wrong and I don't know anything about it. You don't know this but I serve kings and queens even today I am an american so I know it sounds strange but I belong to an organization which is familiar with where Asgardia is heading it's got it's difference's sure but the basics are there and there is a way to change how things are so that is why I voted yes because once a base was established we could move on and fix the flaws with an answer from the majority of the people and not just the hands of the few.

Aug 28, 17 / Lib 16, 01 13:26 UTC

@Ann Griffith
I know you are frustrated because you want people to move forward, but some of these people have been involved from the beginning and feel left behind and ignored because they do not agree with a Monarchy.

As far as I can see, frustration can only grow and grow: as you also can see, the administration always refused to publish its own roadmap, even if asked to do many times, so to know where it was going to: they just "do things" (which should be very clear on their own roadmap, and the fact they have one is, objectively, out of doubt, for a project of these dimensions) letting people know after things are done/decided/whatsoever (e.g. look at Asgardia-1).
That's why, by the way, many valuable persons (I'm still not counting myself into them), wishing to "do things" and to "contribute" their own ideas and projects, gone elsewhere.

@Ann Griffith
Staff tries to compare "Our" Monarchy to current places like Sweden and UK, that is not true! The Kings and Queens have no active role in politics any more!

Correct: traditional authoritarian monarchies became parliamentary or representative monarchies with time, Asgardia's one still seems a traditional one: comparing it with a company's hierarchy gives you a better idea about how it's operating.

@Ann Griffith
Just so you know, I voted yes! I knew nothing could be done or changed from the outside. I urge those of you who have not voted yes to do so also to help me to make changes from within! That is the only way we can do petitions!

I respect this idea and, in other cases, I tried the same you're trying now. Unfortunately, into Asgardia, I became to the conclusion that it's simply unfeasible: if you think to the Asgardia's monarchy in parallel way as it was a company's hierarchy, you'll see that, being an employee, even becoming an office's boss (comparing to a Parliamentary office), doesn't give you the "powers" required to really change the things or, if there will be a real "risk" you can do it... just read your own Constitution, art. 32, par. 9, point b, first item.

Sep 2, 17 / Lib 21, 01 09:28 UTC

But 171 nations of Earth have agreed the term ASGARDIA is owned by the project in the United States, so if this continues to be the position of Asgardia - then they are acting in knowing infringement to the Berne Convention and claiming their laws and procedures do not follow fundamental tort law (Articles of Rome) to allow for fraud and deceit in the recruiting of personnel.  

There is no Asgardian law, only a contract with other countries subject to class action litigation with damages for any property claimed by should they fail to honor their agreement or contract.  No body at law or body politic may dictate the terms contrary a written agreement presented to the public, as such act of publication using wire is a formal act of International and Interstate Commerce, and subject felony wire fraud charge in the jurisdiction in which the identity or property to include names or location data of residents and citizens of those territories are used or appropriated for commercial or public use by the foreign party.  This is established in laws against parties using content scrapped from Facebook and other sources without express consent or in violation with their terms and conditions set forth there.

So having been gone a month I return to see that THE SPACE KINGDOM OF ASGARDIA and "" have fractured, creating a new legal entity that has no legal binding relationship to the prior proposed SPACE KINGDOM OF ASGARDIA (SKA), and is operating as a government under the direction of a "non-government organization (NGO)" in violation of their charter.  Such activity would nullify their official acts as outside the license of operation by the parent country and other countries who recognize NGO status as non-sovereign foreign organizations similar to the Red Cross or World Reconstruction Fund (World Bank).  Neither of which is authorized to make law which are afforded recognition as binding by persons in those territories or States, nor over any territory or province in which the nations engage in commerce or commercial travel (Space, United Nations charter).

There is no need to present to a non-recognized body assembled without legal authority granted in contract, nor validity of such authority over any person without the compliance to the law, as determined in International human rights so reserved in 1901 and recognized by the United States in 1907 for adoption in the United Nations at its formation, as present in Oklahoma Constitution Article II section II-1.

The declaration of a nation without mandate is simple tyranny, fraud if assets are taken, and infringement upon the rights of foreign nationals if their identity is used to support or promote the legitimacy of such despite dissent in excess of 51% of the population and contrary a formal written offer or agreement.

Operation in this methodology without license in the territories is also covered under 18 USC 1961 (Racketeering) and a felony in the United States.

All persons associated with the organization in name or as officers or promoters would be subject to such charge on any injury, infringement, or unauthorized use of the identity or location or infringement of rights so reserved (18 USC 241) by such parties, where due process following conventional agreements are covered, and subject civil remedy under Title 76 of treble damages for time and materials, fees, and other assets employed without compliance to the written agreement.

Hopefully this is not personal in any way, and will provide a framework to help understand why Asgardia continues to be regarded as a fraud by professionals observing the fiat decree behavior following a public offer to "hold a vote" and terms set forth in the Chapter 9 Article 42 and 43 rules which were ignored to substitute 100,000 signatures or other arbitrary claim to dispute the failure to carry out fundamental ordinary procedures.  

I returned in hope this was not as ridiculous as when I left, and find myself disappointed.