Charter of rights of the network generation ⭕

When law limits the freedom of an individual to be an individual, the law itself becomes an offender.

Implied within the freedom of action is the clarity of law. 

Implied within the freedom of action is the inability to be judged by a law or a body of law that cannot actually be followed.

Governments may require that you show up in person for certain functions such as voting. They may confirm your identity by looking at you and looking at your driver's license, for example.

Exception for terror

In cases where the government believes that a real and present threat of a mass casualty event exists, it may cite this rather than a particular crime as a motive for the investigation of individuals closely linked to the issue at hand.

It may begin the investigation immediately, and then within 48 hours, it must get a warrant to continue. This warrant must be issued not from a favorable judge but from the judge most relevant to the individuals being surveilled as decided by proximity to those individuals.

It should document its rationale and provide it in trial.

If the warrant is not issued, the investigation must be dropped immediately and all information deleted and all findings must be treated as if they never existed.

Only if this warrant is validated can the investigation continue. The warrant must specifically state the reasons for the investigation and how long it will continue with a fixed and reasonable end date with the maximum of one month being given until another judge must reauthorize the collection of data.

Each time reauthorization is required, a new warrant must be issued from a different judge than the original, based on relevancy of proximity to the individuals investigated.

If the individuals are mostly international, then proximity of location is no longer relevant. In such cases, one must look at the nation in which the individuals are located. Find a state/province that starts with the same letter (or closest in alphabetical order) in the primary national language of the national jurisdiction that is doing the investigating, ask the most southeastern judge by location in that state/province and if a new warrant must be issued, they must find the most northwestern judge. Each new warrant must be issued by the judge furthest from the judges selected so far within the same state/province.

The investigation in question may not lead to the arrest of individuals on reasons for which they were not originally targeted, namely, as part of a terrorist plot.

E.g. One can't arrest a hit man for tax evasion just because one has got the right to investigate.

All these must be documented meticulously since they're subject to review by a Global Neutral Jurisdiction as a court of appeals in all such cases.

Acts of war

No such constraints are placed on an international conflagration in which two self-declared nations are at war.

This includes civil wars in which national separation has taken place with each side having actual military control over part of an original territory.

At no point does the lack of constraints include the ability to investigate or surveil one's own citizens without a warrant unless a condition that poses a clear, imminent danger to the fundamental survival of the nation or the lives of a substantial portion of its population, and which cannot be averted by any lesser means exists.

Such a condition must be approved after four days by the JBT and the JBT must specifically articulate criteria which must continually be upheld for the condition to remain and set a date of review or frequent dates of review, at least monthly, by which this condition must be judged by the JBT to as continuing to be real.

Pretextual prosecution protection for politically-active or public figures

In any case where a defendant, prior to indictment, is a well-known public political figure or otherwise well-known public ideologue, a whistleblower, or someone undermining the power of the national government through what they create, or someone who is by nature of their action opposing a matter that the government is likely to be in favor of (e.g. cutting the pay of judges), such individuals have a special right invoke a defense against pretextual prosecution.

In such cases, the obligation is on the government to prove with clear and compelling evidence that the investigation is not pretextual beyond a reasonable doubt.

A jury then listens not only to the evidence of the crime, but also to the reasons the defendant believes they were unfairly targeted, such as for their political beliefs. This forces the jury to decide if the case is about legitimate justice ("find the crime, then find the person") or a targeted attack ("find the person, then find a crime").

Should the jury feel the prosecution is fundamentally unfair, a tool being used to silence someone, they are empowered to find the defendant "not guilty." Their verdict becomes a final judgment on the integrity of the prosecution itself, regardless of the minor facts of the case.

In cases in which no jury is present, a judge must have the first ruling. However, if the value of the case is over $3,000 USD 2024 equivalent, or potentially causes the bankruptcy of an individual, or more than 3 months in jail, then the individual has a right to a jury in which this question can be used as a defense.

To exercise this right, the defendant must mention that they believe they have been unfairly targeted. All parts of the system of justice must comply with the discovery requirements necessary to prove that a defendant was unfairly targeted in a timely manner.

Every individual has the right to own and control their property. This right shall not be infringed by any requirement for state-issued permission to engage in ordinary economic life, nor shall it be burdened by unjust restrictions.

• The right to transact and convert
  Every individual has the right to freely move, transfer, and convert their property to any other form, and to use any mutually agreed-upon medium of exchange, including other national currencies, commodities, or digital assets, for all private debts and transactions. The state cannot restrict this right, but it retains the authority to define the required medium of exchange for the payment of taxes and fees for government services. No individual shall be compelled to provide an account of assets held outside of national government control, nor shall any restriction make the utilization of such assets so cumbersome that they lose their value.

• Protection from unjust seizure
  The seizure or restriction of property by the state is prohibited without a criminal conviction of the property's owner. This prohibition does not prevent a law enforcement officer from seizing property that constitutes direct evidence of a specific crime upon a lawful arrest, nor does it prevent the seizure of property to neutralize an immediate and articulable threat of violent harm. Any other pre-conviction seizure requires a warrant from a public court, based on a standard of probable cause that the specific property is the direct instrument of a violent crime.◇ 

• The right to sound money
  The national government is prohibited from engaging in any monetary policy that results in a debasement of the national currency by more than 5% in a single year, as measured by a broad-based basket of consumer goods and assets.

• The right to financial privacy
  The state is prohibited from mandating the mass, non-specific reporting of financial transactions. The surveillance of an individual's financial activity requires a specific warrant, based on probable cause of a specific crime.

Jury trials are considered excessive for minor offenses, defined as those involving less than the value of $3,000 or a potential sentence over three weeks. For all other major cases, the accused has the right to request a jury trial at no cost. 

• (1) Nullification
  The court must instruct the jury that they have the power of jury nullification. This instruction shall clarify that while the jury is expected to apply the law as written, they have the ultimate power to return a "not guilty" verdict if they believe a conviction would be unjust. 

• (2) Impartial jury selection
  During jury selection, if the judge grants a prosecutor's motion to dismiss a juror "for cause," the defense has the right to issue a "juror's veto." This veto immediately and irrevocably overturns the judge's decision, and the juror is seated. The defense may use this veto a maximum of two times during the trial. No further procedures may be used to invalidate the value of the juror's veto.

• (3) Good faith defense

  • In all cases involving 3 months jailtime, or serious penalties which would be the equivalent of a $30,000 fine or more, defendants have the right to argue that what they did was for the good of the community regardless of what the law says.

    • Juries have the right to be made aware that they are allowed to weigh in through a not guilty verdict on the integrity of the law, not only if the individual broke it.

      The judgment of the jury is broken up into two separate events.

      • First, they decide if the individual was guilty of the crime, something in which unanimity is necessary.

      • After this, they separately decide if the law and not the individual was at fault. And if 60% of jurors agree that the law was at fault, the defendant is acquitted.
        The defendant has the right to argue their motive, the public interest and the injustice of the law and violations of the Charter by the law as a part of their defense. The judge must instruct the jury that it may consider these arguments when reaching its verdict. 

• (4) Evidence, if classified, shall be handled under procedures that prevent its public disclosure while ensuring the substance of the argument can be presented to the jury. The defense attorney, however, has the right to the to all the knowledge that the prosecution has and has the right to blow the whistle if kept from arguing their case on balance with the prosecution due to classification.

• (5) The right to a fair jury pool

  • In any case brought by a national government against a person*, the defendant is guaranteed the following rights where the case is worth more than $30,000 or a year in prison. 

    • The defendant has the right to file one pre-trial motion for a "blended jury pool." The court must grant them 72 hours to reach out to their digital society. The digital society has the right to allow or deny this, but they must respond within 72 hours with a decision on their intention. And they may relay to their Accord if they feel the case is just, but they don't have the resources to pursue it, and this grants the Accord one week to accept. If granted, this motion requires the court to select at least 50% of the jury pool from the defendants Accord, if the digital society is part of one. The national government bears costs of their transport and lodging where digital connection does not suffice. 

For example, if under any system judges are promoted by the number of people they convict, they would be more likely to convict people. 

Human beings have the right to be subject to a system of law and justice which incentivizes neutral, fair and dispassionate legal treatment. 

In the same way, a person under prosecution has the right to understand the incentive structures of the system facing them and to defend themselves on the basis that the incentive structures are aligned not for a neutral execution of the law, but one that is perverted in favor of a negative outcome for the defendant. This perverted incentive structure must be significant, distinct and provable.

The results of surveys themselves done over time should represent the established interpretation of a particular right. However, if an individual is able to pay a reasonable sum for a new survey, having a choice of venues to have the survey completed, they may be judged in accordance with that survey's findings. The defendant gets to choose the service which gets the people's opinion.

Reasonable restrictions on what a valid jurisdiction is such as, how long the defendant has been a member of said jurisdiction, may be imposed by a judge. Although the judge does not get to choose those who take the survey, they may impose reasonable restrictions on the individuals participating in the survey to ensure they have no pre-existing knowledge of the case or relationship with the defendant and similar reasonable restrictions. 

As societies become more and more complex, the different areas that need to be regulated in themselves grow in enormous complexity and therefore governments are tempted to delegate the regulation of a particular sector of economy to a particular regulatory body.

These regulations themselves act as laws, imposing fines, restricting actions, etc. But, are often not subject to the same level of scrutiny.

• Regulators are not subject to elections.

• Mandates are often broad.

• They lack judicial oversight.

• Widespread regulatory capture (the biggest players influence the regulations, to the detriment of all the others.)

• Regulatory codes contain hundreds of volumes of tens of thousands of pages of dense technical rules, making the clarity of law impossible. 

No pressure or limit may be placed on the total freedom of action outside of a private home, life or establishment without codified law. In other words, the law must be written, relatively static, and well circulated. 

The rules of regulatory bodies must be explicit, specific, unambiguous and clearly authorized by law. In other words, it must be interpretable by a reasonable person. It can't be overly broad. And it must have a legal basis for it's existence in law. 

Regulatory bodies must have a clear reconnection to subjugation by the people and the wishes of the people. 

Regulatory bodies must outline reasonable fees or punishments for violations prior to enacting them. 

Regulatory bodies are subject to veto from legislators if a nation has them.

Regulatory bodies must not be allowed to regulate speech and expression. 

Regulators cannot work for the industries they regulate within five years or receive value from those industries.

Regulatory bodies must provide a list of regulations and must create a system by which AI can read that list and give people a "Sure Statement" of whether or not the action that they intend to do violates the regulation. This Sure Statement is a complete defense in court against regulatory action. However, regulatory bodies may revoke Sure Statements after they are issued or after they are found to be a useful defense in court, provided the party is given reasonable time to step back from the actions done under the assurance of the Sure Statement before being held accountable. 

Cyber-sovereigntists believe it is unjust to have a process of justice in which an accusation is weaponized as a means of separating an individual from their property or inflicting other direct or indirect harm as a means of punishing an unconvicted individual or creating an incentive for an innocent person to enter a plea bargain. 

No state may weaponize the legal process itself as a weapon to crush a party before they get a fair hearing.

Of sound mind

Due to a long history of governments mislabeling people as mentally ill, including women who were seeking a career in the early 1900s and recently homosexuality. People must have the right to take advantage of the Golden Law regardless of who is labeled as being of a sound mind. 

Namely, anyone able to live independently and 16+ must have the right to leave any digital society and take advantage of The Golden Law. 

Digital justice

The Golden Law should not be interpreted to undermine the accountability of an individual or corporation for their deeds within a particular society but should give reasonable ground for a society to enact it's form of justice. 

If an individual commits something listed as an offense in a digital society, that digital society will have the right to take that case all the way through to completion including seizing digital assets and expelling a person from that society. 

Defining hindrance

Simply the friction of leaving a society could be considered a hindrance if interpreted too broadly. Instead, this provision seeks to undermine the deliberate attempt to lock in an individual in a society by legal contract (even by a corporation in a society) or by other deliberate means. Asking members of society to move funds to a bank within that digital society should not be considered a hindrance provided those terms and amounts are clearly understood by the individual. As some societies may take the approach of receiving a grantee to ensure if the individual breaks laws. 

No amount of coercion used by a national government to force someone to join or leave a digital society is considered reasonable. 

Speed of change

A person can only change their digital society once every six months maximum. They can leave their society at any time but if they join a new one, they simply create more jurisdictions and laws they're subject to, while invalidating the legal benefits of being part of any of those societies.

From forced abortions to taking people's children without a jury's verdict, to genocide against native peoples, the recent history of abuses of government toward children is incredible. 

Canada’s residential schools 

• For over a century, the Canadian government took more than 150,000 Indigenous children from their families. Their language and culture were forbidden, and abuse was widespread. Reports of forced sterilizations are as recent as 2018. 

UK's Tavistock gender clinic

• In 2022, a review found it rushed children into life-altering medical treatments without proper care.

Modern child protective services overreach

• In the West today, children can be taken from loving families based on a single anonymous call, a disagreement with doctors, the choice to homeschool, or for simply being poor, with a judge only getting involved after a social worker has already separated the family.

National governments do not have a role to forcibly educate or influence children against their parents consent, nor is a lack of education considered neglect. 

Parents should be allowed to raise children by their own tradition and values, or in the common customs of past generations, imbuing their children with their ideals and directing the life growth and well-being of their children according to their own standards and values. 

National governments shall be found to have no case in which parents are raising children honestly according to their own values, even if those values lead those children down a path unaccustomed to by society. 

National governments shall only make cases against parents in which children are physically abused (not just physical discipline), or sexually abused or if the children ask for and continue to consent to help. 

Consent may be challenged in a national jurisdiction's court if not obtained in the above-mentioned manner. The judge in question must define "reasonably widely published", based on feasible standards comparing the practices of other societies and on their reports as mentioned in the footnotes of the Core concepts. 

The rights listed in this Charter are not intended to infringe upon these commonly understood necessary exceptions as they are commonly understood today. Most of these will not translate to digital circumstances and should not be interpreted as doing so. 

Exceptions related to searches and seizures

1. Exigent circumstances
   In situations of immediate and overriding danger, such as the hot pursuit of a violent felon, a house fire, or hearing cries for help from within a residence, officers may enter a private space and conduct a limited search without a warrant to protect life or prevent the imminent destruction of critical evidence. 

2. Search incident to a lawful arrest
   Upon making a lawful arrest, an officer may search the arrested person and the area within their immediate control. This is permitted for two reasons only: to find and remove any weapons the person could use to harm the officer or escape, and to prevent the person from hiding or destroying evidence related to their crime.

3. The automobile exception
   Because vehicles are mobile and have a lower expectation of privacy than a home, an officer who has probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of a crime may search it without a warrant.

Check this.

1. Consent
   An officer may conduct a search without a warrant if they have received voluntary, uncoerced consent from a person who has the authority to grant it for that property or space. 

2. Inventory of impounded property
   If property, such as a vehicle, is lawfully seized by the government, officers may conduct a thorough inventory of its contents. This is not to search for evidence of a crime, but to create a record to protect the owner's property and to protect the officers from false claims of theft.
   

Exceptions related to due process and speech

1. Public safety questioning
   The right to remain silent does not apply when an officer is questioning a person to neutralize an immediate and ongoing threat to public safety. For example, an officer may ask a suspect who has just been arrested, "Where is the gun?" before reading them their rights if there is a danger it could be found and used by someone else.

2. The right to anonymity
   Individuals are not required to produce identification to use the internet, but their identity, if provided, may be uncovered if part of a lawful investigation protected by all the other rights listed here.

3. Proceeds of crime
   The right to benefit from one's labor does not extend to profits gained from criminal activity. The government has the right to seize any and all assets that are proven to be the direct proceeds of a crime for which a person has been convicted provided the proceeds are returned to society, not the seizing institution.
   

Mixed exceptions

• Child welfare
  The right of parents to raise their children as they see fit means the government must get parents permission to deal with cases of neglect. 

• Truthfulness
  Officers of the law are required to be truthful and represent the law honestly in interactions with the public. They cannot lie about evidence or a person's rights or use deceit as a weapon against a law-abiding individual. 
  This rule does not prevent an officer from concealing their identity during an undercover operation that is formally authorized and documented in advance as part of a specific investigation. However, the moment an officer reveals their authority to make an arrest, this truthfulness rule fully applies. 
  Undercover operations may not place threats or significant pressure on individuals to commit a crime directly or via a motivated informant. 

* A person in this context is any single individual, whether represented by a corporate shield or not, and any entity whose annual turnover is insignificant (average salary of person in national jurisdiction times four). 

Be aware that trade and commerce, especially for corporations, should happen on established and predictable foundations. The goal of this provision is not to significantly undermine that fact.

Specifically, the right of corporations to take advantage of the people's interpretation is limited by the JBT's approval with a mandate on the JBT to ensure that trade and commerce is established on a predictable foundation.

❋ To be clear, simple physical discipline, which creates no physical harm, is not considered a form of abuse that national governments can intervene for. 

⁂ If there are not three companies within that jurisdiction, more, then whatever company is left is the company that will be used. If there are no companies, then a company from an Accord will suffice, if there are none, then the court chooses the method to have this carried out. 

⁑ When there's a case between two members of a digital society and one member in their defense of their rights pushes that case to their national system, then the digital society may be required to comply with (discovery) an investigation into if the party in question has too much influence over the nation's laws or the digital society's laws to benefit from those laws as a matter of a conflict of interest. It's there that a judgment can be made about what constitutes too much influence. 

In every case in which this document mentions a process in which an individual or person has rights, any party would have those same rights, whether that party represents a group of people or just a single individual.

The court may bar that same company in question from doing future surveys for that court alone if the court believes proper procedure was not followed and outlines this publicly.

^Some provision must be made for the case in which an individual is detained and makes that detainment area unsanitary for other people to inhabit, and yet no other sanitary detainment center or holding cell is available. Otherwise, in a cell might be a form of denying it, or denying the government's ability to hold anyone during a large-scale protest or roundup of individuals.

This condition may only extend for a maximum of two days.

‡ This does not include the removal of reviews published by other citizens, in fact it explicitly precludes it. This right does not necessarily extend to corporations or similar legal shields.

✧ JBT's have the exclusive right to clarify this right. One single international standard must be set by most JBT's in order for any clarifications by any JBT to be valid. At least a majority of JBT's must agree for a standard to be set. The standard must simply clarify these principles: 

People should be given reasonable access to reasonable tools to delete their data in reputation systems within 60 days. Attempts to destroy entities that are not societies or governments by mass deletion campaigns are not considered valid. 

Synapse's built-in tools are considered the full requirement of this need, with no further imposition on digital societies if they choose to use Synapse.

◇ In cases where the state can demonstrate probable cause that specific assets are about to be used to facilitate a specific and imminent act of violence, it may obtain a temporary, pre-charge seizure warrant from a judge through a secret, ex parte proceeding. This warrant and the evidence supporting it must be made public and reviewable in an open court within a strictly limited time frame, such as 72 hours, unless a judge makes a specific finding that doing so would create an immediate threat to human life, in such a case, the deadline may extend 180 days total.  

◎ Digital Gold refers to specifically the money used in Synapse. If another fork of Synapse becomes more popular than Synapse, then that fork will also get the protection of Digital Gold.

Extraneous notes

Freedom to benefit from one's own labor 

We oppose unreasonable restrictions on the ability of an individual to profit from their own labor. 

Unreasonable 

At least 60% of the value a person generates should be retained by that individual.

On the freedom to benefit from one's own labor

By nature opting to pay more voluntarily, for example in your digital society, is not an unreasonable restriction. 

Defining the Charter

The Charter is not only this document but also all documents found under the category Charter.

On Synapse legalization

Cyber Sovereignty has been created to work hand in glove with Synapse. Therefore, if anything is the default functionality of Synapse, it is legal under Cyber Sovereignty if Synapse had the functionality before Cyber Sovereignty has been officially codified into any nation state’s constitution. To be clear, if Synapse, the version of Synapse adopted by 60% of digital societies or more, is the same one that allows for Digital Gold to be redistributed to the treasury of digital societies when an individual has no gold storage and holds on to gold for 30 days, this is not considered a taking.

This right does not extend to a malicious exploit placed in Synapse, or something that goes against the spirit of the Charter and was not originally intended to be part of Synapse or has been placed in by a foreign power or otherwise maliciously injected into Synapse by a non-digitally aligned entity.