Can be found here: http://www.sunreign.com/info/SelfDefenceAgainstExtinction Comments are welcome, especially of experts.

Anybody that wants to refer us to legal experts for an international opinion (we are looking in Holland ourselves). Questions raised are: 1. What do you do if you believe your life or that of people you care about is threatened but you can's convince authorities (the police) to take action. 2. How far can a person go if the threat is complex, slow, international, legal. 3. What is the implication in terms of protection of other people in disabling a device, aparatus, vehicle, machine that is considered a mortal threat if it does not direcly involve anybody (secretly taking the bullets out of a gun owned by a threatening person f.i.). How is this considered an act of 'other' defence? More here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwRSHuuYrNY

Am going to have a preliminary converstation with an expert on self defence law tomorrow..

In a preliminary conversation with a legal expert on self defence it seems there are several avenues to defend actions to stop extinction. The expert has agreed to cooperate with the project so we can have a Q&A to outline the options for defence. This is (for now) regarding Dutch law only. We hope to record in Dutch and English. This was a very productive meeting, the person in question (that will remain anonymous for now) has personal interest in the matter. The firm he works for is well established. As a consequence of our explorations there may be a second project, a case against the dutch state for negligence, but this will be a longer term undertaking. Thanks for your support, please tell a friend.

Imagine you where a butler serving on the Titanic during its maiden voyage. You where send down to fetch more champagne, but as you cruise the corridors below the water line you notice looking into the rooms there are a thousand little holes in the hull, and through each hole there is water flowing in.. You try to alert the people above, but they are to drunk to respond. You want to reach the leaks and plug them but some guys are playing poker in a room you need to cross to get to the leaks. They are to focussed on the game to notice and don't want to be disturbed.. Another butler comes down to see what takes you so long and after showing him the leaks he tells you 'what use is plugging any of these leaks, there are thousands of them, forget about it' and disappears.. You break through the poker room and start plugging the leaks. The commotion allerts everyone and the rest of the leaks are plugged by combined effort.. The ship is returned to harbour, it never sinks, and you are not convicted of assault (the poker players resisted violently) and damage to property (breaking the window to get to the holes) on the grounds of self defence, defence of others and their property.. Upped the budget to get a more realistic cost (hiring HDV camera's etc.)

If one is interested in the proof of dying oceans, one need to ask people gathering data. David French is not a scientist, but he manages the partnerships that allow the ship of Antinea to gather data on our oceans on a 10 year journey. He acknowledges there is a trend of deterioration with real risks for coral reefs. He does not want to draw further conclusions as he is no scientist. I need to find people that will. The pattern is glaringly obvious. A common defence is that we are merely discussing predictive models, but if that is the case, can we invalidate all predictive models, including those used to calculate the value of derivatives or those used in newfangled precrime analysis? See the short interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGJt-fzvH_U Visist http://www.rincker.nl and domate so I can do more prelminary interviews. To simplify the divident payment process divident is taken to zero for now. We do offer honorary mention of people supporting this project.

James Lovelock expects earth to go into a hot period, meaning a reduction of its human population of 85% this century. He believes it is irreversible and it can not be slowed down.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQ-NqaYFzs Hopefully he will want to help build our defence..

Some 'Journalists' reporting on the dire state of the oceans will nontheless shy away from supporting an effort to build evidence of the ultimate consequence of that process. A pity. I spoke to someone lobbying for human righs yesterday and she already signalled there where more cases of climate refugees, but there was no consensus yet on how to deal with them. The best option seems migration, but imho that is not an option because you are losing ground forever. One will expect that at some time in the future it can be shown patents violate human rights, as the technology to stand ones ground in Africa exists, but is hoarded and kept expensive, a commercially motivated position that may at some point turn into an act of genocide. When I return from the Europe Energy Tour I hope to do recordings of the structure of the case we want to build. What avenues might prove succesfull. Thanks for your support!

I traveled to France and Spain over 10 days so I apprecieate the shares not being retracted. It is an important issue as ever, not only are all factors in the market stacked against a timely response to climate change, in a report on the MENA region (countries bordering on the mediteranian) the predictions are food production in some areas will be reduced by 40% in 2050. Most of north Africa will be desert. This will mean both conflict and migrations. These numbers are staggering and should trigger an almost military type operation to fight the desertification (as the process is one way). Do you feel not enough is done and your livelyhood is in jeopardy? How about your rights to act? http://tinyurl.com/3y4mr9c

Do you feel you could survive in world where oceans are rotting swamps, just like Gary Schaffer of Denmark’s Niels Bohr Institute predicts? http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/04-02-2009/107061-mass_extinction-0/ It's ugly, and we could do something about it, but this would probably be deemed a crime, or would it?

Dutch fishermen are fighting windturbine plans as the turbines are to be build some of their productive grounds. They haven't read the UN report that says there's only 40 years of fishing to go. That is not only because of overfishing, but also because of ocean acidification, the absorption of CO2 by the oceans lowers the pH, and many species have pH critical moments in their ontogenesis (development of the embryo). This means lifeforms in our oceans simply disappear. I recieve links from Jennie Hofman of ecoadapt.org on the topic. Read between the lines. Do you feel comfortable with this proces or these findings? would you like to put yor own muscle behind action? What are your rights if you do? http://www.ocean-acidification.net/ http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf

Due to demand for shares the project has increased it's budget. Now it will work to attain the coveted A+ rating. We will focus on the way 'noodweer excess', or 'extreme force' can be warranted by pent up frustrations over longer periods of time. In dutch law it is in some cases excusable if one uses extreme force (possibly with damaging effects) if one is caught in a momentary rage that has its origins in compounded negative experiences over time (think of child abuse). An interesting variation is that of media induced rage. Think of the taped sermons and rants muslim terrorists listen to. Who is responsible for the behaviour of the unfortunate inductee? On the other hand the defence needs to prove that an informed layman has enough information to fear real danger to his life and property, the lifes of others (grandchildren perhaps) and their properties, that is not met by adequate measures by the authorities.

The subject of this documentary is serious, and it is certainly credible to contemplate and analyze the risk of human extinction, after all, that is what most enviromental analysis is about, toxicity, depletion, degradation and how to revive our ecosystem. All because it supports our livestyles, livelyhoods and ultimately our lives, locally and globally. Join the linked in group if you take the question seriously and want answers. Invite those that may be equally interested, or even able to help with building a case to defend ourselves against extinction. http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=3429480

Wow, got a mailing fromGreenpeace today: "Hi, We've all been waiting a long time for politicians to take action on climate change: nudged them along, pushed them harder, painted banners, held rallies, signed petitions, sent letters, took photos - some of us even climbed mountains and invited themselves to Head of State dinners. They didn't listen. (yep) We all know the urgency of acting on climate change. The days of waiting for the end of playground politics are over - and we are getting to work without them, since they won't join us. (really tell me now!) That's why we're counting down the days till Sunday October 10th - that's the day when thousands of people from all around the world will get together to stop climate change, in a unique event involving you and your community. " They have some ideas: http://tinyurl.com/3agsd7h #1 "Organize a street party" #2 "Get your community to switch to green energy" You see, while we are being green and social the factories, trucks, planes, saws, mills, oildrills and refineries are happily churing away, delivering all those things we need to us. Seriously don't think you are stopping climate change on okt 10th 2010 please. If we would like to really stop increases in emissions that cause climate change (for instance three new coal fired power plants in Holland) there is no legal procedure. The deal is done, we are to obey the industry lobbied decisions. Yet we know for a fact those plants are destroying our ecosystem, they are killing our oceans and even causing a direct pollution related increase in mortality in Holland. How can that be? There must be a judge that finds real action justifiable.

Annika Dean and other activists just shot down the largest coal terminal in Australia. It is not that hard, loading and unloading coal is a delicate process because of the large equipment used. Safety first is the general rule in logistics, so activities where shut down during the incursion. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68P00D20100926 Rising tide http://www.risingtide.org.au/ This is a perfect case of self defence against extinction. If you hear the people talking about the impossibility of replacing current fossil energy sources by renewables you hear an admission that 1. The damage done requires us to switch 2. The damage is to expensive to fix, and the cost of dealing with it are to high. What does that say about the true cost of coal, oil and gas? Suicidal oil shills like Bjorn Lomborg will argue it is useless to do anything and we should wait for a smart solution. We all know that is like trusting prayer will cure a fresh bullet wound to ones heart. Action is needed and activist need to be protected by fair law. How would that work?