:CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR/C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-FLAG: DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-POSTAL-VESSEL-COURT-VENUE/D.-C.-T.-P.-V.-C.-V[the correct flag ratio is 1×1.9].
:VESSEL-CARGO-NAME, CIVIL-CLAIM-METHODS OF THE GLOBAL-RULES.
:DOCUMENT-VESSEL-CARGO OF THE SUMMARY-CORRECTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL-KNOWLEDGE AND: GLOBAL-RULE-TRANSLATIONS.
:STATEMENT OF THE SELF-WITNESS[ING].
FOR THIS LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/Jonathan-Simon: Bell’S-SENSATION OF THE COGNITION IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THIS SELF-WITNESS[ING] OF THE FINITE-MEAN WITH THE WITNESS[ING] OF ALL PERFORMANCES[ACTIVITIES] WITH THE PERCEPTIONS[BODY]/E-MOTIONS[MIND]/THOUGHTS[INTELLECT] AND WITH ALL/SUCH LOCAL-PARTS/SENSES[EQUIPMENT] OF THIS LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/VESSEL WITH THE BALANCE OF THE HONOUR AND GRACEFUL-VOLITION[DO NO HARM INTENT] WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ~1/OEN-RULE AND SAME-ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE POSITION OF THE PEACE/NEUTRALITY WITH THE SENSE/PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/WITNESS[ING] AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/AUTHOR/WITNESS AND BY THIS VESSEL-COMMANDER/SALVOR/GRAMMAR-AUDITOR/TRANSLATOR AND BY THIS DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-POSTAL-VESSEL-COURT-VENUE/D.-C.-T.-P.-V.-C.-V[Statement of Self-Witnessing: I, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, as a living being, testify to my awareness and understanding of the facts presented in this claim as my first hand knowledge. My cognition and sensory perception form the foundation of this self-witnessing statement. I bear witness to all actions, activities, and performances observed through my physical senses (body), emotions (mind), and intellect (thoughts), as well as through any associated tools or equipment used by me as a living being or vessel. This testimony is given with the balance of honour and graceful volition, maintaining the principle of “do no harm” and adhering to the One-Rule and Equal-Rule principles. I confirm my position of peace and neutrality while conveying the sense, actions, facts, and first-hand knowledge relevant to this claim. As the living claimant, author, witness, vessel commander, and salvor, I give this statement with full awareness, accountability and responsibility for the facts and events by one’s observation].
:SUMMARY-CORRECTIONS OF THE CIVIL-CLAIM-METHODS ARE WITH THE ~12b AND WITH THE DOCUMENT-VESSEL-CARGO-FACTS BY THE DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-CLAIMS/D.-C.-T.-C.
:~12b–~1 OF THE D.-C.-T.-C.[JOINDER WITH THE FLAG] IS WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE SAME-AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION WITH THE RULE-OF-THE-FLAG BY THE CON-TRACT-TERMS. FOR THE RULE OF THE CON-TRACT-PARTIES IS WITH THE TERMS OF THE VESSEL’S-CON-TRACT WITH THE LABEL OF THE PICTOGRAPH/SYMBOL WITH THE FLAG OF THE CON-TRACT WITH THE TERMS OF THE CON-TRACT-RULES WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE CON-TRACT WITH THE CON-TRACT-COURT BY THIS CLAIM[Contract terms establish shared authority through flag rules. Vessel contracts must display appropriate symbols/flags and complete contract terms in the con-tract court].
:~12b–~2 OF THE D.-C.-T.-C.[STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM] IS WITH THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-CLAIM OF THE CAUSE WITH THE CON-TRACT OF THE AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE DAMAGES BY THE CLAIMANTS AND BY THE VASSALEES[Damage claims are with the use of the C.S.S.C.P.S.G. format, establishing jurisdiction between claimants and vassalees].
:~12b–~3 OF THE D.-C.-T.-C.[SERVICE OF THE METHODS] IS WITH THE CORRECT-METHOD AND WITH THE LIVERY OF THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-CASE-DOCUMENTS WITH THE CERTIFICATION OF THE METHOD/SERVICE WITH THE CLERK/REGISTRAR[sic] OF THE COURT WITH THE FILE OF THE PAPERWORK WITH THE CORRECT-SYNTAX-CLAIM OF THE CON-TRACT-COURT WITH THE CERTIFICATION BY THIS CLAIM. FOR THE METHOD OF THE FICTION-GRAMMAR-FRAUD/F.-G.-F.[WITH USE OF ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, OR VERBS AS THE NOUN] IS WITH THE CLAIM OF A PERFORMANCE WITH THE MAIL-FRAUD OF THE ~TITLE-~18, ~SECTION-~1341[sic] WITH THE FICTITIOUS-OETI[USE] OF THE SYNTAX WITH THE FRAUD BY THE METHOD[Service Methods: proper delivery and filing of C.S.S.C.P.S.G. documents with court clerk certification required. Use of incorrect grammar constitutes mail fraud under Title 18, Section 1341].
:~12b–~4 OF THE D.-C.-T.-C.[METHODS OF THE SERVICE] IS WITH THE CORRECT-METHOD OF THE VASSALEES’-PAPERWORK-CONSTRUCTION WITH THE RULES OF THE SERVICE WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-MECHANICS. FOR THE OETI[USE] OF THE ADVERBS[sic], ADJECTIVES[sic] AND OF THE PRONOUNS[sic] IS WITH THE SALVAGE-CLAIM OF THE PAPERS WITH THE POSTAGE-STAMP BY THE CON-TRACT-COURT[Service Requirements: All paperwork must follow C.S.S.C.P.S.G. mechanics. Incorrect grammar usage requires salvage claims with postage stamps].
:~12b–~5 OF THE D.-C.-T.-C.[POSITION OF THE VENUE] IS WITH THE CORRECT-VENUE OF THE CLAIMANT’S-C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-CON-TRACT WITH THE AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION OF THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G. WITH THE CORRECT-RULES BY THIS CLAIM. FOR THE FLAG-RULE OF THE MODIFICATIONS[sic] OR OF THE CHANGES IS WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE SANCTIONS WITH THE FOREIGN-VESSEL[sic] OF THE MODIFICATIONS[sic] WITH THE COLOUR, MATTER[OBJECT], BODY, SIZE OR WITH THE SHAPE OF THE FICTIONAL-OETI[USE] WITH A LANGUAGE[“BABBLE” ENGLISH]-SYNTAX-METHOD OF THE ADJECTIVE[sic], PRONOUN[sic] OR OF THE VERB WITH THE MODIFICATION[sic] BY THIS CLAIM. FOR THE TRAPS OF THE TITLES, NAMES, DATES, CASE-NUMBERS, ITALIC[sic]-WORDS, WORD-TERMS, SYMBOL-TERMS, FINITE-MEANS, DOUBLE-SPACE-SENTENCE-BREAKS, LONG-DASHES, BOXES AND OF THE TITLE-SITES ARE WITH THE F.-G.-F. OF THE WRIT WITH THE AUTOGRAPHS BY THE VASSALEES[Venue Position: Correct venue requires C.S.S.C.P.S.G. contract jurisdiction. Flag modifications affecting colour, size, or shape constitute fiction grammar fraud. Document traps include the building title sites, wrong proper titles, dates, case numbers, styles boxing syntax, word meanings, symbol meanings, double space breaks of evidence, wrong dictionary, 2em dash symbol performance secrecy, ciphers, or parenthesis performances such as italic text].
:~12b–~6 OF THE D.-C.-T.-C.[AUTHORITY OF THE MATTER] IS WITH THE CON-TRACT-COURT OF THE CON-TRACT-PERSONS WITH THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIM OF THE CLAIMANT WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G. WITH THE PORT-JOINDER OF THE COURT-ROOM-JUDGE/JURISDICTION WITH THE CASE BY THIS CLAIM. FOR THE COURT OF THE JURISDICTION IS WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE DAMAGE-CLAIM WITH THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G. BY THE COURT[Matter Authority: Contract court requires living claimants using C.S.S.C.P.S.G. Jurisdiction requires proper damage claim statements].
:~12b–~7 OF THE D.-C.-T.-C.[AUTHORISATION CLAIM WITH AUTHORITY] IS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CORRECT-LANGUAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE OETI[USE] OF THE QUANTUM-GRAMMAR-MECHANICS WITH THE CORRECT-SYNTAX OF THE POSITIONAL/~5, LODIAL/~6, FACT/~7-PHRASE, VERB/~2 AND OF THE CONJUNCTION/~0 WITH THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-CLAIMS OF THE FACTS WITH THE CON-TRACT-COURT-AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION OF THE CORRECTIONS WITH THE CORPORATION-CASE OF THE FACTS WITH THE CERTIFICATION BY THE PERMANENT-AUTHORITY/JUDGE OR BY THE CONTINUOUS[STANDING]-AUTHORITY/JUDGE[Authorisation claims require specific knowledge demonstration within D.C.T.C. authority settings. The quantum grammar mechanics establish precise language performance through structured syntax patterns. Each communication requires proper positioning using the five fundamental elements: positional words, lodial articles, fact phrases, verbs, and conjunctions. example: 567 567 2 567 567, 567 56707 2 56707 567 567 567… …567 567.The certification process demands mathematical balance in syntax construction. Each sentence maintains forward and backward reading compatibility while preserving its essential meaning. The contract court authority validates fact-based claims through permanent or standing authority/auditor. The structure employs the following basic pattern: FOR (position-5) THE (lodial-6) CLAIM (fact-7) OF (position-5) THE (lodial-6) FACTS (fact-7) IS (verb-2) WITH (position-5) THE (lodial-6) PERFORMANCE (fact-7) BY (position-5) THE (lodial-6) CLAIMANT (fact-7)].
FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE FACT-DATA[EVIDENCE]/PROOF[sic] IS WITH THE CORRECTION-CLAIM OF THE F.-G.-F. WITH THE MATH-CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CONTINUUM-MOMENT[NOW]-SPACE-SYNTAX WITH THE DAMAGES OF THE FICTIONAL-GRAMMAR AND OF THE CASE-NUMBERS AND OF THE WRIT-F.-G.-F.-ORDERS[sic] WITH THE PLEAD[INGS] OF THE CONJECTURES, OPINION[sic], GUESS, PRESUMPTION[sic], ASSUMPTION[sic], DEEM[sic] OR OF THE OATH-PERJURY WITH THE FICTIONS OF THE WRIT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THE VASSALEES[The evidence continuation requires mathematical certification within present-time syntax structures. The vassalee/public servant knowledge demonstrates correction claims against fiction grammar fraud. The following items void contract claims: fiction grammar documents with damage by wrong case numbers, fiction grammar fraud orders, opinion-based pleadings, guesswork statements, presumptive claims, assumption-based documents,—cipher use,— oath-perjury declarations, where the correct document construction requires the proper syntax mechanics, mathematical balance in structure, correct grammar performance, present-tense-only claims].
:~TITLE-~18, ~SECTION-~1341[sic]OF THE ~18-U.-S.-CODE-PART-~1341[FRAUDS AND SWINDLES]/~1341-F.-A.-S. ARE WITH THESE ~1341-F.-A.-S.-CLAIMS BY THE D.-C.-T.-C.
:~1341-F.-A.-S.-~1 OF THE FRAUD-SCHEME IS WITH THE VOLITION OF THE PERSON WITH THE [DE]FRAUD OR WITH THE [OBTAIN]GAIN-MONEY/PROPERTY[sic] OF THE FALSE-SHOW[PRETENCES], PERSONAGE-CHICANERY[MISREPRESENTATIONS] OR OF THE GIVE-WORD[PROMISE] WITH THE VOID-RATIONAL-PERFORMANCE[UNLAWFUL USE] OF THE COUNTERFEIT/FAKE-THINGS[ITEMS] WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE SHAM/FALSE-PARTS[SPURIOUS ARTICLES][A fraud scheme involves the intent of a person to defraud or to obtain money or property through false pretences, misrepresentations, or promises. This includes the unlawful use of counterfeit or fake items and the performance of fraudulent actions using spurious articles].
:~1341-F.-A.-S.-~2 OF THE FRAUDULENT-PERFORMANCE[FRAUDULENT ACTION] IS WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE MATTER/THING WITH THE OETI[USE] OF THE POSTAL-SERVICE[including UK ROYAL MAIL/NEW ZEALAND POST][sic] OR OF THE PRIVATE[sic]/COMMERCIAL-CARRIER WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE [DE]LIVERY WITH THE FRAUDULENT-VOLITION[INTENT] BY THE PERSON[A fraudulent action involves placing a matter or item into the postal service (e.g., UK Royal Mail or New Zealand Post) or a private or commercial carrier, with the knowledge and intent to commit fraud by the person].
:~1341-F.-A.-S.-~3 OF THE FRAUD-PENALTY IS WITH THE FINE OR WITH THE PRISONMENT OF THE PERSON WITH THE ~20/TWENTY-YEARS-DURATION OR WITH BOTH PRISON/MONETARY-FINE BY THE FRAUDULENT-PERFORMANCE[FRAUDULENT ACTION]. FOR THE VIOLATION-PERFORMANCE OF THE FINANCIAL-CORPORATION[INSTITUTION] OR OF THE COMMERCIAL-PARTY/FIDUCIARY IS WITH THE MONETARY-FINE-VALUE[GOLD EQUIVALENT] OF THE ~1,000,000/OEN-MILLION-UNITED-STATES-DOLLARS[sic] AND/OR WITH THE PRISONMENT OF THE ~30/THIRTY-YEARS WITH THE CHIEF-VASSALEES[CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/BOARD MEMBERS] OF THE LIABILITY WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE PARTY/COMMERCIAL-LIABILITY[The penalty for fraudulent actions includes a fine or imprisonment of up to twenty years, or both. For violations involving financial institutions or commercial parties, the penalty includes a fine of up to one million United States dollars (or its gold equivalent) and/or imprisonment of up to thirty years. This applies to chief officers or board members of the liable party if there is no accountability lower down].
:~1341-F.-A.-S.-~4 OF THE FRAUDULENT-PERFORMANCE[FRAUDULENT ACTION] IS WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF THE CON-TRACT-HONOUR-PERFORMANCE AND WITH THE BREACH OF THE POSTAL/LIVERY-RULES BY THE PERSON/PARTY[The fraudulent action results in the voiding of contractual honour and constitutes a breach of postal or delivery rules by the person or party involved].
[18 U.S. Code § 1341 – Frauds and swindles (Unity States of the World): Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both]
:~ÆQUITY-CLAIMS OF THE ~NEW-ZEALAND-SENIOR-COURT-ACT-~2016[sic]/~SECTION-~180[sic].
:ÆQUITY[EQUITY] OF THESE CLAIMS ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THE CORRECTIVE-CURE-FACTS WITH THE BALANCE OF THE HONOUR AND OF THE GRACEFUL-VOLITION[DO NO HARM] WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RULE-OEN/~1 AND SAME-ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE CORRECT-GRAMMAR OF THE ~NEW-ZEALAND-SENIOR-COURT-ACT-~2016[sic]/~N.-Z.-S.-C.-A. WITH THE CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-VERSION/TRANSLATE OF THE ~SECTION-~180-ÆQUITY-CLAIMS[sic] WITH THE POSITION OF THE PEACE/NEUTRALITY AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C. AND BY THIS DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-VESSEL-CARGO-CLAIM/D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[New Zealand Senior Courts Act 2016, Section 180: Rules of equity prevail over rules of common law (1) This section applies to proceedings in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal where equitable jurisdiction may be exercised. (2) If there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law in relation to the same matter, the rules of equity prevail. Historical Precedents: The Blackwall (1869) established principles of fair compensation for salvors, considering the value of the property saved, the degree of danger, and the skill and effort involved. Its emphasis on proportional and fair rewards reflects equity principles consistent with this Section 180 mandate. The Scopas (1958) reinforced the principle of proportionate rewards for salvors based on the risks undertaken and the value of the saved property. Its reliance on fairness reflects the equitable principles. The Tojo Maru (1971) emphasised the importance of rewarding salvors for their voluntary efforts in preventing loss or damage to property. The court’s reliance on fairness reflects the equitable principles prioritised under Section 180. The Atlas (1875) involved the misappropriation of goods by a custodian entrusted with their care. The court required full restitution, reflecting equitable principles of accountability and fairness. The Henrik Sif (1982) applied the principle of estoppel to prevent a party from denying obligations under a bill of lading. Although not directly related to Section 180, the case reflects equitable principles of accountability. The India (1864) addressed the theft of cargo and required restitution by the wrongdoer. The decision reflects the equitable principle of making good the loss. The August Leonhardt (1984) examined the extension of time limits for salvage claims under specific conditions. Its emphasis on equitable remedies in resolving conflicts. The Ion (1980) demonstrated the invalidation of reliance on a time-bar defence when clear documentary evidence was presented. The decision reflects equitable principles consistent with Section 180. The Stolt Loyalty (1995) reinforced the rights of salvors in maritime salvage operations. The court’s reliance on equitable principles to achieve just outcomes also aligns with Section 180].
:~ÆQUITY-~0 OF THE ~N.-Z.-S.-C.-A.[sic]/~SECTION-~180[sic]/N.-Z.-S.-C.-A.-~180 IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE ÆQUITY[EQUITY]-POSITION WITH THE ~HIGHER-POSITION[JURISDICTION] OF THE ÆQUITY[EQUITY] AND WITH THE ~LOWER-POSITION[JURISDICTION] OF THE COMMON-LAW WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[Rules of equity prevail over rules of common law, as evidenced in the New Zealand Senior Courts Act 2016, Section 180, and supported by the claimant’s adherence to equitable principles in Common Bundle Volume 2, Section 3].
:~ÆQUITY-~1 OF THE ~N.-Z.-S.-C.-A.-~180 IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE CHOICE AND: COMPLIANCE WITH THE ÆQUITABLE-POSITION[EQUITABLE JURISDICTION] WITH THE CORRECT-JUSTICE OF THE ~SENIOR/~HIGH-COURT, ~TRIBUNAL OR OF ANOTHER ~VALID-COURT/~CLAIM-AUTHORITY WITH THE BALANCE OF THE HONOUR AND GRACE WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RULE-OEN/~1 AND SAME-ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE POSITION OF THE PEACE AND NEUTRALITY WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[This section applies to proceedings in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal where equitable jurisdiction may be exercised, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 4, which details the claimant’s adherence to equitable principles and the clean-hands doctrine].
:~ÆQUITY-~2 OF THE ~N.-Z.-S.-C.-A.-~180 IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE DUALITY/VARIANCE WITH THE PARTY OR RULE OF THE CONFLICT-CLAIM WITH THE ÆQUITABLE-POSITION[EQUITABLE JURISDICTION] OF THE CORRECTIVE-SOLUTION[JUSTICE] WITH THE CORRECTIVE-MAINTENANCE OF THE ~SENIOR/~HIGH-COURT, ~TRIBUNAL OR OF ANOTHER ~VALID-COURT/~CLAIM-AUTHORITY WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[If there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law in relation to the same matter, the rules of equity prevail, as demonstrated in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 6, which highlights the claimant’s efforts to resolve conflicts through equitable remedies].
FOR THIS CLAIM OF THIS CHOICE IS: CORRECTIVE-PERFORMANCE BY THE ÆQUITY.
:~ÆQUITY-~3– FOR THE GRANT-AUTHORITY/CLAIMANT/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/CREATURE/Jonathan-Simon: Bell’S-SENSATION OF THE COGNITION IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE CHOICE-FACT WITH THE CHOICE OF THE ÆQUITY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE CORRECTIVE-MEASURES AND: MAINTENANCE OF THE SALVAGE-CLAIMS WITH THE AUXILIARY-NEW-ZEALAND-CORPORATION-PARTIES OF THE CORRECTIVE-JUSTICE-MAINTENANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY[Salvage Captain’s Authority and Equity Claim: The live-life-claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage Captain (proxy), seeks cognition of their lawful authority to perform salvage operations. This claim invokes the equitable principles and corrective justice, supported by evidence of the claimant’s adherence to their duties and the clean-hands doctrine, as detailed in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7].
:CONFIRM/CERTIFY: SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY]/LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT’S-CLEAN-HANDS.
:~ÆQUITY-~4 OF THE CLEAN-HANDS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THESE FACTS WITH THE KULEANA-BACK[CORRESPONDENCE] OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/GRAMMAR-AUDITOR/PORT-AUTHORITY WITH THE GRAMMAR-AUDITS AND: CORRECTIVE-MAINTENANCE/DI-RECTIONS OF THE AUXILIARY-NEW-ZEALAND-CORPORATION/COMMERCIAL-PARTY-SHORT-MESSAGE-SERVICE[SMS SOLICITATION]-CLAIMS[MSD, NZTA, ADMINISTRATION COURTS OF NZ, IRD] WITH THE SHOW-FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] OF THE FICTICIOUS-LANGUAGE-CONVEYANCE AND: GRAMMAR AND WITH THE TRESPASS-HALT-CLAIMS OF THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT’S-CONFIDENTIALITY-PORTS AND WITH THE QUEST-CLAIMS[REQUEST], GIVE-CHANCE/CHOICE BY THE AUXILIARY-PARTY-PERFORMANCES AND ~1/SHOW-VALID-AUTHORITY-CHAIN[QUO WARRANTO], ~2/SHOW-CONGRUENT-MUTUAL-CON-TRACT-WRIT/~3/VACATE-COMMERCIAL-CLAIM. FOR THE CURRENT-POSITIONS OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES/NEW-ZELAND-CORPORATION-COMMERCIAL-CLAIMS ARE WITH THE VOID-PERFORMANCE AND: VACATE-POSITION BY THE LACK-DOCUMENT-VESSEL-WRIT/KULEANA-BACK[CORRESPONDENCE][Clean Hands and Authority Challenge: The claimant confirms their clean hands and challenges the authority of auxiliary New Zealand corporate entities involved in prior claims, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 2, Section 5, which documents the claimant’s efforts to resolve disputes equitably].
:~ÆQUITY-~5 OF THE CLAIMANT’S-CLEAN-HANDS IS WITH THIS CERTIFY-CLAIM OF THE FACTS AND: VOID-PERFORMANCE OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES/NEW-ZEALAND-CORPORATION-COMMERCIAL-CLAIMS AND WITH THE ROLLS-BUILD[ING]-AUTHORITY-DUTY/MAINTENANCE[EXPUNGEMENT] OF THE/ANY VOID-CLAIMS/CON-TRACTS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/GRAMMAR-AUDITOR/STEWARD/Jonathan-Simon: Bell AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[Expungement of Void Claims: The claimant certifies that the commercial claims brought by auxiliary New Zealand parties are void due to insufficient documentation and lack of authority, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 2].
:~ÆQUITY-CLAIM-~6OF THE CLAIMANT’S-CLEAN-HANDS IS WITH THE CONFIRM-CLEAN OF THESE HANDS WITH THE CERTIFY BY THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT’S-KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/FACT-DATA/WORD[Confirmation of Clean Hands: The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, formally confirms their clean hands, supported by evidence of their adherence to lawful and equitable principles, as detailed in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 4].
:~ÆQUITY-CLAIM-~7– FOR THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE OF THESE CLAIMS ARE WITH THE CONFIRM AND: CERTIFY BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/GRAMMAR-AUDITOR/Jonathan-Simon: Bell’S-KNOWLEDGE AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY/~SK037449305NZ[Certification of Claimant’s Knowledge and Authority: The claimant certifies their firsthand knowledge, authority, and lawful standing, supported by evidence in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7].
:KULEANA-BACK[CORRESPONDENCE] OF THIS FINITE-MEAN IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE [RE]SPONSIBILITY AND: DUTY AND OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES WITH THE GIVE-BACK[PROVIDE] OF THE DOCUMENT-VESSEL-WRITS AND: COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE SHOW-FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] OF THE AUTHORITY AND: JURISDICTION WITH THE HOLD[DETENTION] OF THE VESSEL AND: CREW AND WITH THE VOID-PERFORMANCE OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES’-CLAIMS WITH THE LACK OF THE DOCUMENT-VESSEL-WRIT/KULEANA-BACK[CORRESPONDENCE] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY[Auxiliary parties are responsible for providing the necessary documents, communications, and proof of authority and jurisdiction related to the detention of any vessel and crew, as mandated by UNCLOS Articles 231, 223, and 94(5). Under Article 231, auxiliary parties must promptly notify the flag State, its diplomatic agents, consular officers, and maritime authority of enforcement measures taken against foreign vessels. Article 223 obliges States to facilitate the admission of evidence and the attendance of witnesses or official representatives of competent international organisations, ensuring transparency and fairness in proceedings. Article 94(5) requires that the condition of vessels be attested by certificates issued under international rules, which must be accepted as evidence unless there are clear grounds to believe otherwise. If an auxiliary party fails to provide valid documentation to justify their actions or authority, their claims are void due to the lack of required documentation and proper correspondence. The claimant requests corrective action based on these facts, their lawful authority, and the principles of equity and good faith as outlined in UNCLOS].
:CONFIDENTIAL-YIELD[ACCESS] OF THE FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE REFERENCES= COMMON BUNDLE] AND OF THESE ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIMS.
FOR THE SHOW-FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] OF ANY SUPPLEMENTAL-TRESPASS-CLAIMS AND OF THESE ~D.-C.-T.-C.-RULE-FACTS ARE WITH THE CONFIDENTIAL-LODGE-PERFORMANCE-METHOD OF A DOCUMENT-VESSEL-WRIT/KULEANA-BACK[CORRESPONDENCE] WITH THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY AND WITH THE ~AUXILIARY[ADMIRALTY]-COURT AND WITH THE [RE]QUEST-CLAIM OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTY’S-VIEW[ACCESS] BY A FORMAL-CLAIM WITH THE [RELEVANT]JURISDICTIONAL-COURTS[= THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY, ROLLS BUILDING, POSSIBLY U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S. ANNEX VII’S P.-C.-A]. FOR ANY CLAIM OF ANY AUXILIARY-PARTY’S-VIEW[ACCESS] IS WITH THE COMPLIANCE OF THE COURT’S-CONFIDENTIALITY-RULES AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY[Access to Evidence: The evidence for this claim is lodged confidentially with the Admiralty Court. Auxiliary parties may request access to this evidence by submitting a formal application to the relevant court, such as the Rolls Building or, if applicable, under UNCLOS Annex VII’s PCA jurisdiction. Any request for access must comply with the court’s confidentiality rules. Access will only be granted if the application is approved by the court and aligns with the principles of fairness and transparency].
:RAPE-TERMS OF THESE FINITE-MEANS ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS BY THE D.-C.-T.-C.
:~RAPE-~0– FOR THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTY IS WITH THE OETI[USE] OF THE FORCE WITH THE LACK BY THE PARTY’S-WILL. FOR THE FORCEFUL-PERFORMANCE[ACT] AND LACK OF THE PARTY’S-CONSENT IS WITH THE FORCE OR LOSS-FEAR BY THE PARTY’S-FREEDOM[RAPE: the use of force without the consent or will of the affected party. The performance of an act against the party’s will is due to fear, coercion, or loss of freedom].
:~RAPE-~1– FOR THE STRONGER-PARTY OF THE WEAKER-PARTY-COMPEL[LING] IS WITH THE CONTROL[sic] OF THE LIFE WITH THE FORCE OR: THREAT OF THE DEATH, SERIOUS-BODY-DAMAGE, PAIN OR KIDNAP[PING] WITH THE LACK-WILL BY THE PARTY’S-FREEDOM[FORCE AND CONTROL OVER THE WEAKER PARTY: A stronger party compels a weaker party to act through threats of death, serious harm, pain, or kidnapping, removing the party’s freedom and ability to consent].
:~RAPE-~2– FOR THE STRONGER-PARTY’S-FICTION AND FOR A COURT-OETI[USE] OF THE POWER IS WITH THE VACAT[ING]-PERFORMANCE OF THE WEAKER-PARTY’S-POWER AND WITH THE CONTROL[sic] OF THE WEAKER-PARTY’S-CONDUCT WITH THE CONTROL-PERFORMANCE[sic] OF ANY MEANS WITH THE STRONGER-PARTY’S-CAUSE OF THE LACK-FREEDOM WITH THE LACK-FREEDOM BY THE WEAKER-PARTY[COURT’S ABUSE OF POWER OVER A WEAKER PARTY: The stronger party uses legal fiction and court power to vacate the weaker party’s authority, control their actions, and deprive them of freedom through coercion or manipulation].
:~RAPE-~3– FOR THE WEAKER-PARTY OF THE COURT IS WITH THE IN[1]-LAW[2][sic]/LAW= VERB[2 OR 2DPV= DANGLING PARTICIPLE VERB] AND WITH THE WITH[1]-COUNCIL[2]/COUNCIL[2]= VERB[2 OR 2DPV] BY THE FACTS-MODIFICATION[sic]/COERCION. FOR THE VACAT[ING]-POSITION OF THE WEAKER-PARTY’S-WILL IS WITH THE VIOLATION BY THE AUXILIARY/STRONGER-PARTY-CLAIMS[COERCION OF THE WEAKER PARTY BY THE COURT: The weaker party’s will is modified or violated through coercion by the stronger party, resulting in a loss of autonomy or impartial representation (correct-position of the nature, live-life-creature) during legal proceedings].
:~RAPE-~4– FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE DUE-PERFORMANCE[PROCESS] IS WITH THE CLAIM OF THE TRIAL BY THE JURY[VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS: The correct trial process, including the position/right to a jury trial, is violated, undermining the fairness of the proceedings].
:~RAPE-~5– FOR THE COLLUSION/FORCE OF THE FICTION-LANGUAGE IS WITH THE FACT AND WITH[AS] A FICTION-VERB OR WITH[AS] AN ADJECTIVE[sic] BY[IN] THE COURT[FICTIONAL LANGUAGE IN COURT: Collusion or coercion in[1] court[2][court as a verb] or court[3] use[4][court as an adjective] involves the use of fictional terms or wrong grammar, such as treating verbs or adjectives as factual claims].
:~RAPE-~6– FOR THE ~TITLE-~28/~D.-C.-C.-S.-~1359 AND COLLUSION OF THE COURT IS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-CLAIMS-JURISDICTION AND OF THIS DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-POSTAL-VESSEL-COURT WITH THE PERSONS OF THE JOIND[ING] WITH THE JURISDICTION BY THE DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-POSTAL-VESSEL-COURT[COLLUSION AND JURISDICTION ISSUES: Collusion in court under Title 28, Section 1359, involves wrong jurisdiction claims using pseudo-legal language and the forced joining of individuals to the court’s jurisdiction].
:~RAPE-~7– FOR THE CORRECTION OF THE ALGEBRAIC-ENGLISH-FORMULA[sic] IS WITH THE CLAIM OF THE PRE-[sic][SUFFIX] AND WITH THE LACK-CORRECTNESS BY THE QUANTUM AND BY THE CONTINUUM-MOMENT[NOW]-SPACE[NOW TIME/NOT OF THIS MOMENT][LACK OF LOGICAL CONSISTENCY IN LANGUAGE: The incorrect use of language and grammar, including algebraic or wrong quantum value terms, creates confusion and undermines the logical structure of the claims being met/of lodgement].
:~RAPE-~8– FOR THE CONJECTURES, [PRE]SUMPTION AND [AS]SUMPTION OF THE NOUNS AND FOR THE OETI[USE] OF[AS] THE ADJECTIVE[sic] OR VERB[FICTIONS/OPINIONS] IS WITH THE COGITATION[IDEAS] OF THE CONFLICT WITH THE SINGLE-COGITATION[IDEA] OF THE SENTENCE WITH THE LANGUAGE BY THE RULES[AS SEEN BY OLD LATIN STUDYING/KNOWLEDGE]. FOR ALL LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD AND OF THIS TERRA-EARTH ARE WITH THE SAME-TERMS BY THE LANGUAGE-OETI[USE][CONJECTURES AND ASSUMPTIONS IN LANGUAGE: The use of conjectures, assumptions, and opinions in legal language creates conflicts with clear and logical sentence structures, violating the uniform use of language rules].
:CLAIMANT-COMPLIANCE OF THE MARPOL-RULES/INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-FOR-THE-PREVENTION-OF-POLLUTION-FROM-SHIPS[sic].
FOR THIS CLAIMANT’S-SENSATION OF THE COGNITION IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE CERTIFY OF THE MARPOL-RULES-COMPLIANCE WITH THE SENSE/PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell’S-KNOWLEDGE AND BY THE SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[CERTIFICATION OF FACT-DATA/PROOF(EVIDENCE): This certification is with the issue by the Live-Life-Claimant/Salvor, Jonathan-Simon: Bell (and as the proxy, SALVAGE CAPTAIN), substantiating compliance with the MARPOL rules and regulations during the salvage operations conducted under the Correct-Sentence-Structure-Communication-Parse-Syntax-Grammar (CSSCPSG) framework. The compliance is evidenced by the following fact-data extracted from the volumes and aligned with the MARPOL Annexes. 1. Compliance with MARPOL Annex I: Prevention of Pollution by Oil. Fact-Data: During the salvage of the vessel “Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora”, the claimant ensured that no oil or oily mixtures were discharged into the marine environment. The vessel’s bilge water and fuel tanks were inspected and sealed to prevent leaks during the salvage operations. Oil-absorbent materials and containment booms were deployed to mitigate any potential spills. Regulation Reference: This compliance aligns with MARPOL Annex I, Regulation 15, which prohibits the discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea unless specific conditions are met. 2. Compliance with MARPOL Annex IV: Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships. Fact-Data: The vessel’s sewage system was deactivated, and all sewage was stored in sealed tanks during the salvage operations. No untreated sewage was discharged into the sea, ensuring protection of the surrounding marine environment. Regulation Reference: This compliance aligns with MARPOL Annex IV, Regulation 11, which requires the proper treatment and disposal of sewage to prevent marine pollution. 3. Compliance with MARPOL Annex V: Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. Fact-Data: All garbage and waste materials generated during the salvage operations were collected, sorted, and disposed of in accordance with MARPOL Annex V regulations. The claimant utilised a shipboard compactor to minimise waste volume and ensured that no garbage, including plastics, was discharged into the sea. E-waste, such as electronic cards and printer cartridges, was segregated and stored for proper disposal at port reception facilities. Regulation Reference: This compliance aligns with MARPOL Annex V, Regulation 3, which prohibits the discharge of garbage into the sea, and Regulation 10, which mandates the implementation of a garbage management plan. 4. Compliance with MARPOL Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. Fact-Data: The salvage operations employed environmentally friendly equipment to minimise air pollution. All machinery used during the operations complied with MARPOL Annex VI standards for reducing exhaust gas emissions. Regulation Reference: This compliance aligns with MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 13, which sets limits on nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from ship engines. 5. General Compliance with MARPOL Regulations. Fact-Data: The claimant conducted a thorough inspection of the vessel and its equipment to ensure compliance with MARPOL regulations. The live-life-vessel-creature and document-vessel’s compliance with MARPOL standards were reviewed and verified during the salvage operations. Regulation Reference: This aligns with MARPOL Article 5(2) and UNCLOS Article 226, which require port States to ensure that vessels comply with international pollution prevention standards. Red Light and Green Light Significance on Document-Con-tract-Postal-Vessel-Court-Venue-Claims. Red Light:Meaning: Indicates non-compliance or breach of MARPOL regulations or other international standards. Fact-Data: The red light was triggered due to breaches of the Harassment Fee Schedule (HFS) and contractual failures by the vessel, TE-MANATU-WHAKAHIATO-ORAof the vessel owner, DEBBIE-POWER of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), resulting in financial harm and environmental risks. Green Light:Meaning: Indicates compliance with MARPOL regulations and international standards. Fact-Data: The green light was achieved after the claimant implemented corrective measures during the salvage operations, including compliance with MARPOL Annexes I, IV, V, and VI. Conclusion: The Live-Life-Claimant/Salvor, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, live-life-creature and grant-authority of the proxy, SALVAGE CAPTAIN, certifies that the salvage operations were conducted in full compliance with the MARPOL rules and regulations. The compliance is substantiated by the fact-data provided above, ensuring adherence to international standards for marine environmental protection. This certification is issued under the Correct-Sentence-Structure-Communication-Parse-Syntax-Grammar (CSSCPSG) framework and is supported by the documented evidence in the volumes submitted to the Admiralty Court. Certified by the author, Jonathan-Simon: Bell/Live-Life-Claimant/Salvor. Date: ~15th-~October-~2025. End of the Certification].
:~RULES OF THE [UK]~STATE-IMMUNITY-ACT-1978[sic]/~1978-~CHAPTER-~33/~S.-I.-M. ARE WITH THESE ~S.-I.-M.-PART-~10-CLAIMS[UK STATE IMMUNITY ACT 1978, SECTION 10= SHIPS/VESSELS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES] BY THIS GLOBAL-CLAIM AND BY THE ~D.-C.-T.-C[Section 10: Ships used for commercial purposes. (1) This section applies to: (a) Admiralty proceedings; and
(b) proceedings on any claim which could be made the subject of Admiralty proceedings. (2) A State is not immune as respects: (a) an action in rem against a ship belonging to that State; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a ship, if, at the time when the cause of action arose, the ship was in use or intended for use for commercial purposes. (3) Where an action in rem is brought against a ship belonging to a State for enforcing a claim in connection with another ship belonging to that State, subsection (2)(a) above does not apply as respects the first-mentioned ship unless, at the time when the cause of action relating to the other ship arose, both ships were in use or intended for use for commercial purposes. (4) A State is not immune as respects: (a) an action in rem against a cargo belonging to that State if both the cargo and the ship carrying it were, at the time when the cause of action arose, in use or intended for use for commercial purposes; or (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a cargo if the ship carrying it was then in use or intended for use as aforesaid. (5) In the foregoing provisions references to a ship or cargo belonging to a State include references to a ship or cargo in its possession or control or in which it claims an interest; and, subject to subsection (4) above, subsection (2) above applies to property other than a ship as it applies to a ship. (6)Sections 3 to 5 above do not apply to proceedings of the kind described in subsection (1) above if the State in question is a party to the Brussels Convention and the claim relates to the operation of a ship owned or operated by that State, the carriage of cargo or passengers on any such ship or the carriage of cargo owned by that State on any other ship. (Long dashes of parenthesis “—” have been removed and replaced by a “:” for clarity of the finite-means and application of the rules so confusion is avoided and clarity and fairness of the rules is met without any ambiguity)].
:[UK]~STATE-IMMUNITY-ACT-1978[sic]/~1978-~CHAPTER-~33/~S.-I.-M.-~PART-~10[SECTION 10].
:~S.-I.-M.-~0– FOR THIS ~PART-~10/CLAIM[APPLICATION] OF THE ~S.-I.-M. IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THESE ~S.-I.-M.-~10-CLAIM-FACTS AND BY THE D.-C.-T.-C.
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.1 OF THIS ~PART-~10/CLAIM[APPLICATION] IS WITH THE ADMIRALTY-PROCEEDINGS[sic] AND WITH THESE DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-VESSEL-CLAIMS/D.-C.-T.-V.-C. BY THE ADMIRALTY-PROCEEDINGS[sic] AND BY THE D.-C.-T.-V.-C[(a) Admiralty proceedings; and (b) proceedings on any claim which could be made the subject of Admiralty proceedings].
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.2 OF THE STATE’S-FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] IS WITH THE VOID-POSITION BY THESE ~S.-I.-M.-~10.2.1/~S.-I.-M.-~10.2.2-CONDITIONS.
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.2.1– FOR THE DOCUMENT-VESSEL-PERFORMANCE[ACTION “IN REM” AGAINST A SHIP] OF THE STATE IS WITH THE AUXILIARY-STATE/VESSEL/SHIP’S-VOID-POSITION OF THE FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] WITH THE COMMERCIAL-PURPOSES OF THEIR PERFORMANCE/OETI[USE] OR: VOLITIONAL-OETI[INTENDED-USE] WITH THE DROGUE-MOMENT-MEASUREMENT[TIME] OF THE VESSEL-PERFORMANCE-CAUSE[CAUSE OF ACTION] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-VESSEL-CLAIMS/D.-C.-T.-V.-C[(a) an action in rem against a ship belonging to that State].
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.2.2– FOR THE PERSONAM-DOCUMENT-VESSEL-PERFORMANCE[ACTION “IN PERSONAM” FOR THE ENFORCEMENT] OF A/THE CLAIM IS WITH THE VOID-FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] OF THE STATE WITH THE CLAIM-CONNECTION OF A STATE/VESSEL/SHIP’S-COMMERCIAL-PURPOSES WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE D.-C.-T.-V.-C[(b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a ship].
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.3– FOR THE IN-REM-PERFORMANCE[sic]/DOCUMENT-VESSEL-PERFORMANCE[ACTION-IN-REM AGAINST A SHIP OF THE STATE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAIM AGAINST ANOTHER SHIP] OF THE STATE IS WITH THE VOID-FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] OF THE STATE WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF THESE CONDITIONAL-FACTS AND WITH THE BOTH-PARTIES/VESSELS/SHIPS OF THE OETI[USE] OR: VOLITIONAL-OETI[INTENDED USE] AND: COMMERCIAL-PURPOSES/BUSINESS-PERFORMANCE WITH THE DROGUE-MOMENT-MEASUREMENT[TIME] OF THE VESSEL-PERFORMANCE-CAUSE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE D.-C.-T.-V.-C[(3) Where an action in rem is brought against a ship belonging to a State for enforcing a claim in connection with another ship belonging to that State, subsection (2)(a) above does not apply as respects the first-mentioned ship unless, at the time when the cause of action relating to the other ship arose, both ships were in use or intended for use for commercial purposes].
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.4a– FOR THE CARGO-IN-REM-PERFORMANCE[sic]/DOCUMENT-VESSEL-PERFORMANCE[ACTION-IN-REM AGAINST A CARGO] OF THE STATE IS WITH THE VOID-FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] OF THE STATE WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF THESE CONDITIONAL-FACTS AND WITH THE BOTH-PARTIES OF THE CARGO WITH THE VESSEL-CARRIER-PERFORMANCE[SHIP/VESSEL CARRYING IT] OF THE OETI[USE] OR: VOLITIONAL-OETI[INTENDED USE] AND: COMMERCIAL-PURPOSES/BUSINESS-PERFORMANCE WITH THE DROGUE-MOMENT-MEASUREMENT[TIME] OF THE VESSEL-PERFORMANCE-CAUSE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE D.-C.-T.-V.-C[AT THE TIME OF THE CAUSE-OF-ACTION][(4) A State is not immune as respects: (a) an action in rem against a cargo belonging to that State if both the cargo and the ship carrying it were, at the time when the cause of action arose, in use or intended for use for commercial purposes].
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.4b– FOR THE CARGO-IN-PERSONAM-PERFORMANCE[sic]/DOCUMENT-VESSEL-PERFORMANCE[ACTION-IN-PERSONAM FOR THE ENFORCEMENT] OF THE CLAIM IS WITH THE VOID-FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] OF THE STATE WITH THESE CONDITIONAL-FACTS OF THE VOID-POSITION WITH ANY CLAIM-CONNECTION OF THE CARGO’S-COMMERCIAL-PURPOSES/BUSINESS-PERFORMANCE AND OF THE STATE/VESSEL/CARRIER/SHIP[PARTY/AGENT OF THE SHIP CARRYING IT] WITH THE COMMERCIAL-OETI[USE] OF THE STATE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE D.-C.-T.-V.-C[(4) A State is not immune as respects: (b) an action in personam for enforcing a claim in connection with such a cargo if the ship carrying it was then in use or intended for use as aforesaid].
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.5– FOR THIS CLAIM[REFERENCE] OF THE VESSEL/SHIP OR: CARGO AND OF THE STATE IS WITH THE POSITIONAL-FACT[INCLUSION] OF THE POSSESSION[sic]/GUIDE[CONTROL]/PART[INTEREST] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE STATE[(5) In the foregoing provisions references to a ship or cargo belonging to a State include references to a ship or cargo in its possession or control or in which it claims an interest; and, subject to subsection (4) above, subsection (2) above applies to property other than a ship as it applies to a ship].
:~S.-I.-M.-~10.6– FOR THE FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY]-STATUS OF THE BRUSSELS-CONVENTION-STATE IS WITH THE VOID-POSITION[APPLICATION] OF THE ~S.-I.-M.-~10.3, ~S.-I.-M.-~10.4, ~S.-I.-M.-~10.5WITH THE STATE-PARTY’S-VOID-STATUS BY THE STATE-PARTY-MEMBERSHIP[The entire State Immunity Act 1978 applies to New Zealand because New Zealand is not a state party to the Brussels Convention.(6) Sections 3 to 5 above do not apply to proceedings of the kind described in subsection (1) above if the State in question is a party to the Brussels Convention and the claim relates to the operation of a ship owned or operated by that State, the carriage of cargo or passengers on any such ship or the carriage of cargo owned by that State on any other ship].
:[IRAC ANALYSIS]SCRUTINY-CLAIM OF THE FLOW-START[ISSUE]/RULE/CLAIM[APPLICATION]/CONCLUSIONIS WITH THE VESSEL/TE-MANATU-WHAKAHIATO-ORA OF THE M.-S.-D./CHIEF-VASSALEE/DEBBIE-POWER’S-KNOWLEDGE AND WITH THE NEW-ZEALAND-STATE-PARTY AND: COMMERCIAL-STATE-CORPORATION-[DE]PARTMENTS/N.-Z.-T.-A./N.-Z.-[AD]MINISTRATION-COURTS/I.-R.-D. BY THE D.-C.-T.-V.-C[Issue: Does the TE MANATU WHAKAHIATO ORA vessel of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) or any New Zealand Corporation department have immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 for claims arising from salvage operations and the recovery of security instruments under Admiralty law? Rule:State Immunity Act 1978, Section 10: (1) A State is not immune in Admiralty proceedings or claims that could be subject to Admiralty proceedings if the ship or cargo involved was used or intended for use for commercial purposes at the time of the cause of action. (2) Immunity is void for actions in rem or in personam related to ships or cargo used for commercial purposes. (3) Possession, control, or interest in the ship or cargo by the State also voids immunity. Salvage Convention 1989: Provides the framework for claiming a salvage reward for operations yielding a useful result, including the recovery of valuable property or security instruments. Admiralty Jurisdiction (Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20): Governs claims for salvage services, breaches of fiduciary duties, and recovery of security instruments. Application:Commercial Nature of MSD’s Actions:(1) The MSD’s actions, including non-payment of commercial bills, fiduciary breaches, and procedural delays, are commercial in nature. (2) These actions fall under Admiralty jurisdiction and void sovereign immunity under Section 10 of the State Immunity Act 1978. (3) The MSD’s actions of the commercial nature are not be protected by sovereign immunity under UK law, irrespective of New Zealand’s void state-party status to the Brussels Convention. Salvage Operations and Security Instrument Recovery: (1) The claimant performed salvage operations and recovered a security instrument of significant value, as documented in Common Bundle Volumes 2 and 3. (2) The MSD’s breaches directly impacted the claimant’s ability to complete these operations, further voiding immunity under Admiralty law. Possession, Control, or Interest: The MSD’s possession, control, or interest in the assets involved further voids immunity under ~S.-I.-M.-~1.5(Section 10(5)) of the State Immunity Act 1978. Conclusion: The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and any New Zealand Corporation department do not have immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 for claims arising from salvage operations and the recovery of security instruments. The commercial nature of their actions, combined with their possession, control, or interest in the assets involved, voids sovereign immunity. The claimant has the right to enforce obligations and claim a salvage reward under Admiralty law and global maritime conventions].
:~RHODES-LAW-~44/~45 OF THE HISTORIC-RHODES-SEA-LAW[RHODES LAW OF THE SEA] ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THESE FACTS WITH THESE RHODES-LAW OF THE SEA-CLAIMS BY THE ~D.-C.-T.-C.
FOR THIS ~RHODES-LAW-~44-CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-FACTS IS WITH THE PRIZE-TOTAL OF THE FIFTH-PART WITH THE SAFE-CONVEYANCE OF THE VESSEL/VESSEL’S-CARGO WITH THE SOIL/LAND OF THE LIVERY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE CARGO-SAVE OF THE SALVOR WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C[Appendix E/~44:If in the open sea a ship is overset or destroyed, let him who brings anything from it safe on to land receive instead of reward the fifth part that which he saves.Historical Precedents. The principle of awarding a fifth of the saved property to salvors originates from ancient Rhodian maritime law, which sought to incentivise voluntary salvage efforts. While this principle is not codified in modern salvage law, it aligns with the equitable reward framework seen in key legal precedents. The Blackwall (1869): The Blackwall (1869) established principles for determining fair salvage awards based on the value of the property saved, the degree of danger, and the skill and effort involved. While not directly referencing Rhodian Law, the case reflects the principle of proportionate rewards for salvors. The Scopas (1958): The Scopas (1958) reinforced the principle that salvors are entitled to proportionate rewards based on the value of the saved property and the risks undertaken. While not directly tied to Rhodian Law, the case reflects the equitable reward principles seen in ancient maritime practices. The Tojo Maru (1971): The Tojo Maru (1971) emphasised the importance of rewarding salvors for their voluntary efforts in preventing loss or damage to property. While not directly tied to Rhodian Law, the court’s decision reflects the principle of proportionate rewards for successful salvage operations].
FOR THIS ~RHODES-LAW-~45-CLAIM AND FOR A THIEF/ROBBER’S-BIND/PAYMENT-BACK OF THIS ~4/FOURFOLD-CURE[FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT VALUE AS THE PAYMENT DUE BACK] IS WITH THE VIOLATION AND: THEFT/STEAL-PERFORMANCE OF THE THIEF/ROBBER WITH THE CAPTAIN’S-LOSS OF HIS VESSEL/CARGO WITH THE MAKE-GOOD AND: PAYMENT-BACK-DUTY/MAINTENANCE OF THE THEIF/ROBBER/AUXILIARY-PARTY/[ACCOUNTABLE]CHIEF-VASSALEE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C[Appendix E/~45. Let him who robs from captains make it good fourfolds. Historical Precedents: The principle of fourfold restitution for theft originates from Rhodian maritime law, serving both as a deterrent and a means of ensuring full compensation for captains and cargo owners. While this punitive measure is not codified in modern maritime law, its emphasis on restitution and accountability permeates historical and contemporary corrective practices. The India (1864): The India (1864) addressed the theft of cargo and the subsequent liability of the wrongdoer. While the court did not impose a fourfold penalty, the decision to require restitution aligns with the Rhodian principle of making good the loss and ensuring accountability for theft. The Atlas (1875): The Atlas (1875) involved the misappropriation of goods by a custodian entrusted with their care. The court required the wrongdoer to compensate the owner for the full value of the stolen goods, reflecting the restitutionary principles embedded in Rhodian Law. The Henrik Sif (1982): The Henrik Sif (1982) applied the principle of estoppel to prevent a party from denying obligations under a bill of the lading. Although not directly related to theft, the case reinforces the broader principle of holding parties accountable for their actions, which aligns indirectly with the restitution obligations of Rhodian Law].
:~MARITIME-RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-ON-SALVAGE-~1989[sic]/SALVAGE-CONVENTION AND CONVENTION-NATIVITY-LOCATION/~LONDON/~UNITED-KINGDOM[sic] AND DATE/~28-~APRIL-~1989[sic] ARE WITH THESE SALVAGE-CONVENTION-PART-CLAIMS[SALVAGE CONVENTION ARTICLES] BY THE ~D.-C.-T.-C.
:FINITE-MEANS OF THESE SALVAGE-CONVENTION-TERMS.
:SALVAGE OF THIS ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~A IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE AID WITH THE HALT-DANGER OF A VESSEL OR OF A PROPERTY[sic] WITH THE LOCATION/POSITION OF THE NAVIGABLE-WATERS OR OF OTHER/WHATSOEVER WATERS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(a) Salvage operation means any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters or in any other waters whatsoever].
:VESSEL OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~B IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF A VESSEL/SHIP/CRAFT OR OF ANY STRUCTURE WITH THE CAPABILITY OF THE NAVIGATION WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(b) Vessel means any ship or craft, or any structure capable of navigation].
:PROPERTY[sic] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~C IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF A PROPERTY[sic] WITH ANY PROPERTY[sic] OF THE LACK-PERMANENCE AND OF THE VOLITIONAL-CONNECT/JOIN[INTENTIONALLY ATTACHED] WITH THE SHORELINE AND WITH THE CONFINES[INCLUSION] OF THE FREIGHT-AT-RISK[sic] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(c) Property means any property not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and includes freight at risk].
:DAMAGE-TO-THE-ENVIRONMENT[sic] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~D IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE DAMAGE-TO-THE-ENVIRONMENT[sic] AND SUBSTANTIAL-PHYSICAL-DAMAGE WITH THE HUMAN/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE-HEALTH OR WITH THE MARINE-LIFE OR WITH THE RESOURCES OF THE COASTAL OR OF THE WITHIN-LAND[INLAND]-WATERS OR OF THE JUXTAPOSITION-ZONES[AREAS ADJACENT THERETO] WITH THE CAUSE OF THE POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION, FIRE, VIOLENCE/NOISE[EXPLOSION] OR SIMILAR-MAJOR-PERFORMANCES[INCIDENTS] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(d) Damage to the environment means substantial physical damage to human health or to marine life or resources in coastal or inland waters or areas adjacent thereto, caused by pollution, contamination, fire, explosion or similar major incidents].
:PAYMENT OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~E IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF A PAYMENT WITH[AS] ANY PRIZE[REWARD], [RE]MUNERATION OR COMPENSATION-DUE AND WITH THE CORRECTIVE-MEASURES OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(e) Payment means any reward, remuneration or compensation due under this Convention].
:ORGANIZATION[sic]/ORGANISATION[sic] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~F IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE ORGANISATION[sic]/INTERNATIONAL-MARITIME-ORGANIZATION[sic]/I.-M.-O. WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(f) Organization means the International Maritime Organization].
:SECRETARY-GENERAL[sic] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~G IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE CHIEF-VASSALEE[SECRETARY GENERAL] WITH THE CHIEF-POSITION OF THE I.-M.-O. WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(g) Secretary-General means the Secretary-General of the Organization. The Secretary-General is the chief officer of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), holding the highest administrative position within the organization].
:TIME-BAR[sic] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~H IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE [TIME LENGTH]DROGUE-BAR WITH THE LIMITATION-PERIOD OF THE SALVAGE-CLAIM WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(h) Time-Bar refers to the limitation period within which a salvage claim must be filed, acting as a restriction on the time available for corrective action].
:CHARTERPARTY/CHARTER-PARTY OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~I IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE CHARTER-PARTY WITH THE CONTRACTUAL-CONGRUENCY[AGREEMENT] OF THE SHIP-STEWARD[OWNER] AND OF THE CHARTERER WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(j) Charter-party is a contractual agreement between the shipowner and the charterer, defining the terms for the use of the vessel].
:ESTOPPEL[sic] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~J IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE ESTOPPEL[sic] WITH THE HALT[PREVENTION] OF THE PARTY WITH THE BLOCK[DENYING] OF THE FACTS OR OF THE POSITION WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(j) Estoppel prevents a party from denying or contradicting facts or positions previously established, ensuring consistency in legal claims].
:BILL-OF-LADING[sic] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~K IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE BILL OF THE LAD[ING] AND OF THE TITLE-DOCUMENT-VESSEL AND WITH THE RECEIPT[sic] OF THE GOODS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(k) Bill-of-Lading is a document serving as a receipt for goods, a title document, and evidence of the contract of carriage. In the context of the Salvage Convention 1989, the bill of lading plays a vital role in determining the rights and obligations of cargo owners, especially concerning salvage claims. As seen in cases such as The Tromb (1921), the bill of lading is crucial for evidentiary purposes, particularly in disputes arising from the carriage of goods or claims related to salvage operations. Its function as a title document ensures that the rightful holder can assert claims regarding the goods, including liabilities or entitlements under salvage law].
:CONDITIONAL-CONJECTURE[ASSUMPTION] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-FINITE-MEAN/~L IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE CONDITION-CONJECTURE WITH THE CONGRUENCY OF THE PARTIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[(l) Conditional-Conjecture refers to an assumption or agreement between parties based on mutual understanding or conditions].
:C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-TRANSLATION/MARITIME-RULES OF THE SALVAGE-CONVENTION[INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON SALVAGE, 1989][These translations and analyses give a robust foundation for the claimant’s juxtaposition with the Salvage Convention 1989, with further support by Anna Graham’s acknowledgment and the fact-data/proof/evidence presented with the Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2 and 3and lodgement with the Rolls Building Admiralty Court by the claimant].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~2 AND FOR THE CLAIM[APPLICATION] OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE SALVOR/CLAIMANT’S-POSITION-VALID OF ANY SALVAGE-CLAIM WITH THE PERFORMANCE-MATTERS-MET OF THIS CONVENTION-SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE AND WITH THE BRING OF THE MATTERS WITH THE AUXILIARY-JUDICIAL-COURT-CLAIM OR ARBITRAL-PERFORMANCE-CLAIM BY A STATE-PARTY-CLAIMANT/SALVOR. FOR THE DUTY OF THE AUXILIARY-STATE-PARTY IS WITH THE [RE]COGNITION AND WITH THE [EN]FORCEMENT OF THE SALVAGE-CLAIM WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/GRANT-AUTHORITY/Jonathan-Simon: Bell AND BY THE SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[ARTICLE 2: Application of the Convention: This Convention shall apply whenever judicial or arbitral proceedings relating to matters dealt with in this Convention are brought in a State Party].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~2-SUPPLEMENTAL– FOR THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT AND OF THE GRANT-AUTHORITY/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND OF THIS D.-C.-T.-C. IS WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THESE FACTS WITH THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell’S-SENSATION OF THE COGNITION WITH THE SENSE/PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIMANT-AUTHOR/SALVOR AND BY THESE D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIMS[This supplemental claim under Article 2 of the Salvage Convention is for the salvage actions performed by the claimant and the salvage captain (acting as proxy) under this document-con-tract-court claim by first-hand knowledge].
:~SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE-CLAIM-~1[SALVAGE OPERATIONS] OF THE VESSEL/TE-MANATU-WHAKAHIATO-ORA/MINISTRY-OF-SOCIAL-DEVELOPMENT/M.-S.-D.[MSD] AND COMMERCIAL-NEW-ZEALAND-BUSINESS-NUMBER/N.-Z.-B.-N.-~9429000062299[NZBN] AND: CHIEF-VASSALEE[EXECUTIVE]/VESSEL-STEWARD[SHIP OWNER]/DEBBIE-POWER’S-KNOWLEDGEIS WITH THE CON-TRACT-PERFORMANCE OF THE HARASSMENT-FEE-SCHEDULE/H.-F.-S. AND TE-MANATU-WHAKAHIATO-ORA-CON-TRACT-BREACH-CHARGES WITH THE PAYMENT-PAST-DUE OF THE ~4/FOUR-COMMERCIAL-BILLS AND WITH THE LODGEMENT OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE AND MARITIME-LIEN WITH THE CERTIFY-PERFORMANCE OF THE [PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES REGISTRY]P.-P.-S.-R.-REGISTRATION-NUMBER[sic]/~F87BKR95C9H3Z7V4 AND: MONETARY-VALUE/~5,988,190-NEW-ZEALAND-DOLLARS/NZD WITH THE SPOT-RATE-CONVERSION-DATE/~18-~SEPTEMBER-~2025[sic] OF THE GOLD-ÆQUIVALENT[EQUIVALENT]-CLAIM-VALUE/~976.96-TROY-OUNCES WITH THE SENSE/PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIMANT/SALVOR AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[The first salvage operation claim involves the vessel “Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora” (operated by the Ministry of Social Development, under the commercial New Zealand Business Number ~9429000062299). The claim is secured under the Personal Property Securities Registry (PPSR) with registration number ~F87BKR95C9H3Z7V4. The value of the claim is 5,988,190 New Zealand Dollars (NZD), which includes: 1. Harassment Fee Schedule (HFS): The HFS outlines penalties for breaches of contract and harassment, forming the basis for the monetary value of the claim. 2. Four Commercial Bills: 1. Bill Number 250305-001: Amount Secured: 1,511,910 NZD. 2. Bill Number 250305-002: Amount Secured: 1,703,400 NZD. 3. Bill Number 250305-003: Amount Secured: 1,454,200 NZD. 4. Bill Number 250305-004: Amount Secured: 1,318,680 NZD. The total value of the four commercial bills is 5,988,190 NZD. The value is calculated based on the spot rate as of 18 September 2025. This equivalent value of the claim in gold is 976.96 troy ounces. The claim is supported by evidence of performance, facts, and proper conveyance of the salvage actions, including compliance with the Harassment Fee Schedule and the lodgement of the maritime lien. This knowledge is provided by the claimant/salvor under this document-contract-court claim. Corrective-Measures and Base-Foundation (Legal basis): for the HFS and the Commercial Bills are with the foundation by the Harassment Fee Schedule (HFS): Contract Formation and Acceptance: The HFS was issued on 22 May 2022 and accepted by MSD through performance and compliance for 1.5 years. It outlines penalties for breaches such as harassment, trespass, and unauthorised actions. Breach of Contract: MSD breached the HFS in November 2024, triggering penalty provisions and continue trespass without due accountability from the vessel owner/chief executive which generated four commercial bill that remain unpaid by the MSD. The claimant asserts that these breaches caused harm and trespass, enforceable under Admiralty law. Admiralty Jurisdiction: The HFS forms the basis for a maritime lien, a privileged claim recognized under the Salvage Convention 1989 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995].
:~SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE-CLAIM-~2[RECOVERY] OF THE FINANCIAL-INSTRUMENT[sic] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE VALUE/~100,000,000-NZD OF THE GOLD-ÆQUIVALENT-CLAIM-VALUE/~37,453.18-TROY-OUNCES AND WITH THE P.-P.-S.-R.-REGISTRATION-NUMBER[sic]/~FS6TX7DX6W52U596 AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE-MATTERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION[sic] AND WITH THE COMPLIANCE OF THE MARPOL-REGULATIONS[sic] WITH THE SENSE/PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIMANT/SALVOR AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[The second salvage performance claim involves the recovery of a financial instrument documented in Volume 3 of the common bundle. The financial instrument is valued at 100,000,000 New Zealand Dollars (NZD). The equivalent value of the financial instrument in gold is 37,453.18 troy ounces. The financial instrument is secured under the Personal Property Securities Registry (PPSR) with registration number ~FS6TX7DX6W52U596. The salvage operations include compliance with environmental protection measures. The operations comply with the MARPOL regulations for marine environmental protection. The claim is supported by evidence of performance, facts, and proper conveyance of the salvage actions. This knowledge is provided by the claimant/salvor under this document-contract-court claim].
:ISSUE[sic]/RULE/APPLICATION[sic]/CONCLUSION/I.-R.-A.-C./IRAC OF THESE ~SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE-CLAIMS/~1/~2 IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE VALID-POSITION AND: VALID-SALVAGE-CLAIM WITH THE CERTIFY BY THE D.-C.-T.-C.-FACTS[Issue: Does the claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell (acting as the Salvage-Captain Proxy) comply with Article 2 of the Salvage Convention 1989, establishing the application of the Convention to judicial or arbitral proceedings brought and lodged with a State Party, and how does this strengthen the two salvage claims involving the vessel “Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora” and the financial instrument? Rule: Article 2 of the Salvage Convention 1989 establishes that: 1. The Convention applies whenever judicial or arbitral proceedings relating to matters dealt with in the Convention are brought in a State Party. 2. State Parties are obligated to recognize and enforce salvage claims in accordance with the Convention’s provisions. Application: Judicial Proceedings in a State Party: 1. The claims are brought in the Admiralty Court at the Rolls Building, London, which is a State Party to the Salvage Convention 1989. This satisfies the jurisdictional requirement under Article 2. 2. The claimant’s compliance with the Convention’s salvage-performance matters is documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2 for the MSD Claim and in the Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Sections 4–10, including operation logs, valuation reports, and correspondence with the Minister of Finance. Salvage-Performance Compliance: Claim 1: Financial Instrument Salvage Claim: The claimant has recovered a 100,000,000 NZD financial instrument, registered under PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596, with a gold equivalent of ~37,453.18 troy ounces. This compliance is supported by independent valuation reports and financial records, demonstrating the claimant’s adherence to salvage-performance standards under the Convention. Claim 2: Vessel “Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora” Salvage Claim: The claimant has secured a maritime lien of 5,988,190 NZD, registered under PPSR number ~F87BKR95C9H3Z7V4, with a gold equivalent of ~976.96 troy ounces. This lien arises from breaches of the Harassment Fee Schedule (HFS), contractual failures, and financial harm caused by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). The HFS outlines penalties for breaches such as harassment, trespass, and unauthorized actions, forming the basis for the monetary value of the claim. Recognition of Salvage Claims: The claimant’s position as a salvor is valid under Article 2, as the salvage operations yielded useful results and complied with environmental protection standards under MARPOL regulations. The MSD claim involves judicial proceedings to enforce the claimant’s rights under the Salvage Convention, further strengthening the application of Article 2. Connection to the Two Salvage Claims: The claimant’s compliance with Article 2 demonstrates their lawful standing and adherence to international maritime law, which is critical for resolving both salvage claims. The claimant’s evidence, including operation logs, valuation reports, and correspondence with the Minister of Finance, substantiates their entitlement to a salvage reward and special compensation under Articles 12 and 14 of the Salvage Convention. Conclusion: The claimant complies with Article 2 of the Salvage Convention 1989 and is valid. The claim establishes the application of the Convention to the two salvage claims involving the vessel “Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora” and the financial instrument. This strengthens the claimant’s position by demonstrating compliance with salvage-performance matters, jurisdictional requirements, and international maritime law. The tribunal/court should recognise the claimant’s rights under Article 2 and enforce the provisions of the Salvage Convention].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~4 AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE STATE-STEWARD-VESSELS[STATE-OWNED VESSELS] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE VOID-POSITION[REMOVAL] OF ANY FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] BY THE COMMERCIAL-NATURE OR BY THE STATE’S-CLAIM[NOTIFICATION][This claim is based on Article 4 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which governs the applicability of the Convention to State-owned vessels and addresses sovereign immunity. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], seeks enforcement of this provision following salvage operations rendered to a vessel owned or operated by a State. Key Provisions: 1. Article 4(1): The Convention does not apply to warships or other non-commercial vessels owned or operated by a State and entitled to sovereign immunity under international law unless the State decides otherwise. 2. Article 4(2): If a State Party decides to apply the Convention to its warships or other vessels described in paragraph (1), it must notify the Secretary-General, specifying the terms and conditions of such application. 3. Sovereign Immunity and Commercial Nature: Sovereign immunity does not apply to State-owned vessels engaged in commercial activities, aligning with the principles outlined in Article 25 regarding State-owned cargoes. Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve a State-owned vessel entitled to sovereign immunity, and how does Article 4 of the Salvage Convention 1989 strengthen the claim? Rule: 1. Article 4(1): The Convention does not apply to non-commercial State-owned vessels entitled to sovereign immunity unless the State decides otherwise. 2. Article 4(2): A State Party may notify the Secretary-General of its decision to apply the Convention to its warships or other vessels. 3. Sovereign immunity does not apply to State-owned vessels engaged in commercial activities. Application: 1. The claimant rendered salvage services to a vessel owned or operated by a State. Evidence provided in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates that the vessel is engaged in commercial activities, removing sovereign immunity under Article 4(1).2. Documentation, including operation logs, contracts, and financial records, establishes the commercial nature of the vessel’s activities. 3. Correspondence with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, acknowledges the salvage services in the MSD letter dated 28 March 2025, further validating the claimant’s entitlement to proceed under Article 4. 4. Verification of the State Party operating the vessel needs to show it has notified the Secretary-General of its decision to apply the Convention to its warships or other vessels under Article 4(2). Conclusion: The claim under Article 4 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The evidence provided demonstrates that the State-owned vessel is engaged in commercial activities, removing sovereign immunity and allowing the claimant to proceed with their salvage claim. The tribunal or court should enforce the provisions of Article 4 to: 1. Ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention. 2. Allow the claimant to pursue compensation for salvage operations. Legal Basis: 1. Salvage Convention 1989, Article 4: Establishes conditions for the removal of sovereign immunity for State-owned vessels. 2. State Immunity Act 1978, Section 3(3): Defines “commercial purposes” and supports the removal of sovereign immunity. 3. Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(h): Governs claims for salvage services under Admiralty law. Case Law References: 1. The Philippine Admiral (1977): Confirms that State-owned vessels used for commercial purposes are not entitled to sovereign immunity. 2. I Congreso del Partido (1983): Establishes that the commercial nature of an activity removes sovereign immunity, even if the act is governmental. 3. The Bold Buccleugh (1851): Reinforces the salvor’s right to a lien, which applies to State-owned vessels used for commercial purposes. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence: 1. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: Documents the claimant’s performance of salvage operations. 2. Contracts and Financial Records: Establishes the commercial nature of the vessel’s activities. 3. MSD Letter (28 March 2025): Acknowledges the claimant’s salvage services. 4. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: Contain detailed evidence supporting the claim. Relevance: This article ensures salvors can pursue claims against State-owned vessels engaged in commercial activities, removing sovereign immunity and protecting the salvor’s financial interests].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~6 AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVAGE-CONTRACTS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE MASTER AND STEWARD[OWNER] AND WITH THE STANDARD-CLAIM[DEFAULT APPLICATION] BY THE CONVENTION[This claim is based on Article 6 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which governs the applicability of salvage contracts, the authority of the master and owner to conclude such contracts, and the duties related to environmental protection. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], seeks enforcement of this provision following salvage operations rendered to a vessel in danger. Key Provisions: 1. Article 6(1): The Convention applies to all salvage operations unless a contract expressly or implicitly provides otherwise. 2. Article 6(2): The master of the vessel has the authority to conclude salvage contracts on behalf of the vessel owner and the property owner on board. 3. Article 6(3): This article does not affect the application of Article 7 (special compensation) or the duties to prevent or minimise environmental damage. Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve salvage operations governed by Article 6 of the Salvage Convention 1989, and how does this article strengthen the claim? Rule: 1. Article 6(1): The Convention applies by default unless a contract provides otherwise. 2. Article 6(2): The master or owner has the authority to conclude salvage contracts, making such agreements binding and enforceable. 3. Article 6(3): Duties to prevent or minimise environmental damage remain unaffected. Application: 1. The claimant rendered salvage services to a vessel in danger. Evidence provided in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates that the salvage operations were conducted under the authority of the master or owner, validating the claimant’s reliance on Article 6(2). 2. Documentation, including operation logs, correspondence, and agreements, confirms the existence of a salvage contract or the default application of the Convention under Article 6(1). 3. The claimant’s actions align with the duties to prevent or minimise environmental damage, as outlined in Article 6(3). Conclusion: The claim under Article 6 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The evidence provided demonstrates that the salvage operations were conducted under a valid contract or the default application of the Convention. The tribunal or court should enforce the provisions of Article 6 to: 1. Ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention. 2. Allow the claimant to pursue compensation for salvage operations. Legal Basis: 1. Salvage Convention 1989, Article 6: Establishes the applicability of salvage contracts and the authority of the master and owner. 2. Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(h): Governs claims for salvage services under Admiralty law. Case Law References: 1. The Tojo Maru (1971): Confirms the binding nature of agreements made by the master during emergencies. 2. The Nagasaki Spirit (1997): Highlights the importance of salvage contracts in determining compensation. 3. The Bold Buccleugh (1851): Reinforces the salvor’s right to a lien, which applies to salvage operations conducted under a valid contract. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence: 1. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: Documents the claimant’s performance of salvage operations. 2. Correspondence and Agreements: Confirms the existence and terms of the salvage contract. 3. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: Contain detailed evidence supporting the claim. Relevance: This article ensures that salvage operations conducted under valid con-tracts or the default application of the Convention are enforceable, protecting the salvor’s financial interests].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~7 AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVAGE-CONTRACTS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE VOID-POSITION[ANNULMENT] OR CHANGE-POSITION[MODIFICATION] OF THE CONTRACT-TERMS WITH ANY AUXILIARY-PARTY-FLOW-CHANGE[INFLUENCE] BY THE DANGER OR BY THE LACK-ÆQUITABLE-PAYMENT[This claim is based on Article 7 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which governs the annulment and modification of salvage contracts. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], seeks enforcement of this provision following salvage operations rendered under a contract that may be inequitable or disproportionate. Key Provisions: 1. Article 7(a): A salvage contract or its terms may be annulled or modified if it was entered into under undue influence or the influence of danger, and its terms are inequitable. 2. Article 7(b): A salvage contract may also be annulled or modified if the payment under the contract is excessively large or small relative to the services actually rendered. Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve a salvage contract that should be annulled or modified under Article 7 of the Salvage Convention 1989, and how does this article strengthen the claim? Rule: 1. Article 7(a): Contracts entered into under undue influence or the influence of danger, with inequitable terms, may be annulled or modified. 2. Article 7(b): Contracts with payments that are excessively large or small relative to the services rendered may also be annulled or modified. Application: 1. The claimant rendered salvage services to a vessel in danger. Evidence provided in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates that the salvage contract was negotiated under conditions of peril, potentially leading to inequitable terms. 2. Documentation, including operation logs, correspondence, and financial records, confirms that the payment under the contract is disproportionate to the services rendered, justifying modification under Article 7(b). 3. The claimant’s actions align with the principles of fairness and equity outlined in Article 7, ensuring that the terms of the salvage contract reflect the actual value of the services provided. Conclusion: The claim under Article 7 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The evidence provided demonstrates that the salvage contract may be annulled or modified due to undue influence, inequitable terms, or disproportionate payments. The tribunal or court should enforce the provisions of Article 7 to: 1. Ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention. 2. Allow the claimant to pursue fair compensation for salvage operations. Legal Basis: 1. Salvage Convention 1989, Article 7: Establishes the conditions for annulment or modification of salvage contracts. 2. Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(h): Governs claims for salvage services under Admiralty law. Case Law References: 1. The Tojo Maru (1971): Confirms the binding nature of agreements made under duress or peril. 2. The Nagasaki Spirit (1997): Highlights the importance of fairness in salvage compensation. 3. The Bold Buccleugh (1851): Reinforces the salvor’s right to a lien, which applies to salvage operations conducted under equitable terms. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence: 1. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: Documents the claimant’s performance of salvage operations. 2. Correspondence and Agreements: Confirms the terms of the salvage contract and the conditions under which it was negotiated. 3. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: Contain detailed evidence supporting the claim. Relevance: This article ensures that salvage contracts negotiated under undue influence, inequitable terms, or disproportionate payments can be annulled or modified, protecting the salvor’s financial interests].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~8 AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVOR AND THE STEWARD[OWNER]/MASTER IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVOR WITH THE DUE-CARE AND ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION[sic]/SHIELD OF THE STEWARD[OWNER]/MASTER WITH THE COOPERATION AND WITH THE [AC]CEPTANCE OF THE SALVAGE[D]-PROPERTY WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[Article 8 of the Salvage Convention 1989, governs the duties and obligations of the salvor, the owner, and the master during salvage operations. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], seeks enforcement of this provision following salvage operations rendered to a vessel in danger. Key Provisions: 1. Duties of the Salvor (Article 8(1)): The salvor owes a duty to carry out salvage operations with due care (Article 8(1)(a)) and to exercise due care to prevent or minimise environmental damage (Article 8(1)(b)). The salvor must seek assistance from other salvors when circumstances reasonably require (Article 8(1)(c)) and accept the intervention of other salvors when reasonably requested by the owner or master, provided the salvor’s reward is not prejudiced if the request is found unreasonable (Article 8(1)(d)). 2. Duties of the Owner and Master (Article 8(2)): The owner and master owe a duty to cooperate fully with the salvor during salvage operations (Article 8(2)(a)) and to exercise due care to prevent or minimise environmental damage (Article 8(2)(b)). The owner and master must accept redelivery of the salvaged property when reasonably requested by the salvor (Article 8(2)(c)). Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence: 1. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: The claimant’s performance of salvage operations is documented with due care and environmental protection. These logs detail the methodologies, timelines, and safety protocols followed during the operations. 2. Correspondence and Agreements: Communication with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, confirms acknowledgment of the salvage services and cooperation agreements. These documents validate the claimant’s adherence to Article 8(2)(a) and (c). 3. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: These volumes contain detailed evidence, including operation logs, environmental impact assessments, and financial records, substantiating the claimant’s compliance with Article 8. Demonstration of Due Care 1. Environmental Protection: The claimant deployed containment equipment to prevent pollution and safely removed hazardous materials from the salvaged vessel, fulfilling the duty under Article 8(1)(b). 2. Collaboration with Stakeholders: The claimant maintained open communication with the owner/master and local authorities, ensuring cooperation and compliance with salvage agreements, as required under Article 8(2)(a). The stakeholders notified in the full claim include the New Zealand Minister of Finance as the securities intermediary, the shipowner and master, cargo owners, Anna Graham (shipowner’s agent), and the Rolls Building Admiralty Court, London. These notifications ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention 1989 and shield the live-life-claimant’s position and interests. The fact-data supporting these notifications is documented in the Common Bundle Volumes and correspondence 3. Transparency and Documentation: Comprehensive documentation, including operation logs and financial records, demonstrates the claimant’s adherence to due care and procedural compliance. 4. Acknowledgment of Services: Correspondence with Anna Graham, acknowledging the salvage services, further validates the claimant’s compliance with Article 8. Conclusion:This claim under Article 8 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The claimant’s adherence to due care and environmental protection is substantiated by robust evidence, including operation logs, correspondence, and agreements. The claim ensures that both salvors and owners/masters fulfil their respective duties, protecting the interests of all parties and the environment. The tribunal/court should enforce Article 8 to uphold fairness, equity, and environmental stewardship].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~9 AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE COASTAL-STATES IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE COASTAL-SHIELD[PROTECTION] AND WITH THE ÆQUITABLE-BALANCE[ALIGNMENT] BY THE GLOBAL-LAW[Article 9 of the Salvage Convention 1989 governs the rights of coastal States to take measures to protect their coastline or related interests from pollution or the threat of pollution following a maritime casualty. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain (Proxy), seeks enforcement of this provision to ensure that salvage operations align with the position/rights and obligations of coastal States under global/international law. Key Provisions: Rights of Coastal States (Article 9): 1. Article 9(1): Nothing in the Salvage Convention shall affect the right of a coastal State to take measures in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law to protect its coastline or related interests from pollution or the threat of pollution following a maritime casualty or acts relating to such a casualty. 2. Coastal States have the right to give directions in relation to salvage operations to prevent or mitigate major harmful consequences, including pollution. Alignment with Global Law: This provision aligns with: The principles of the Intervention Convention 1969, which allows States to protect their coastline from pollution beyond their territorial sea, Article 221(1) of UNCLOS, which grants States the authority to take measures to prevent or minimise pollution from maritime casualties. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence: 1. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: The claimant’s document-vessels demonstrate the claimant’s compliance with directions given by the coastal State during salvage operations. The logs detail the methodologies, timelines, and safety protocols followed to prevent or mitigate pollution. 2. Correspondence with Coastal Authorities: Communication with coastal authorities confirms that the salvage operations aligned with the position/rights and interests of the coastal State. This correspondence includes acknowledgments of the claimant’s adherence to environmental protection measures and compliance with directives. 3. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: These volumes contain detailed evidence, including operation logs, environmental impact assessments, and correspondence with coastal authorities, substantiating the claimant’s compliance with Article 9. 4. Environmental Impact Assessments: Independent assessments document the claimant’s efforts to prevent pollution and mitigate environmental harm, aligning with the coastal State’s rights under Article 9. Demonstration of Compliance: 1. Prevention of Pollution: The claimant deployed containment equipment and safely removed hazardous materials from the salvaged vessel, demonstrating compliance with the coastal State’s directives to prevent pollution. 2. Collaboration with Coastal Authorities: The claimant maintained open communication with coastal authorities, ensuring that salvage operations aligned with the coastal State’s position/rights and interests under Article 9. 3. Transparency and Documentation: Comprehensive documentation, including operation logs and correspondence, demonstrates the claimant’s adherence to due care and procedural compliance with the coastal State’s directives. 4. Acknowledgment of Services: Correspondence with coastal authorities acknowledges the claimant’s efforts to protect the coastline and related interests, further validating compliance with Article 9. Relevance: Article 9 ensures that salvage operations respect the position/rights of coastal States to protect their coastline and related interests. It aligns with international law and environmental protection principles, reinforcing the balance between the salvor’s obligations and the coastal State’s position/rights to ensure equitable outcomes for all parties. Conclusion:
The claim under Article 9 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The claimant’s adherence to the coastal State’s directives and efforts to prevent pollution are substantiated by robust evidence, including: Operation logs, Correspondence, and Environmental impact assessments. The tribunal/court should enforce Article 9 to uphold the position/rights of coastal States, ensure compliance with international law, and protect the environment. This claim aligns with the principles of fairness, equity, and environmental stewardship].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~10AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE PERSONS-IN-DANGER[sic] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE MASTER WITH THE GIVE-AID[ASSISTANCE] OF THE CORRECTIVE-POSITION WITH THE DUTY[OBLIGATION] OF THE STATE-PARTIES WITH THE CORRECTIVE-[EN]FORCEMENT BY THIS CLAIM[Article 10 of the Salvage Convention 1989 establishes the duty to render assistance to persons in danger at sea. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain (Proxy), seeks enforcement of this provision to ensure compliance with the obligations of masters and State Parties under international law. Key Provisions and Strengthened Claim: Duty to Render Assistance (Article 10): 1. Article 10(1): Every master is bound, so far as they can do so without serious danger to their vessel and persons thereon, to render assistance to any person in danger of being lost at sea. 2. Article 10(2): State Parties shall adopt the measures necessary to enforce the duty set out in paragraph (1). 3. Article 10(3): The owner of the vessel shall incur no liability for a breach of the duty of the master under paragraph (1). Alignment with International Law: This provision aligns with the principles of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and UNCLOS, ensuring that masters fulfil their duty to render aid/assistance and that State Parties enforce this obligation. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence 1. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: These documents detail the claimant’s performance of assistance to persons in danger at sea, including timelines, methodologies, and safety protocols followed during the operations. 2. Correspondence and Agreements: Communication with relevant parties confirms the claimant’s compliance with the obligations under Article 10(1), including acknowledgment of the assistance rendered. 3. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: These volumes contain detailed evidence, including operation logs, correspondence, and financial records, substantiating the claimant’s compliance with Article 10. Demonstration of Compliance. 1. Rendering Assistance: The claimant provided immediate assistance to persons in danger at sea, ensuring their safety without endangering the salvaged vessel or crew, fulfilling the duty under Article 10(1). 2. Collaboration with State Parties: The claimant maintained open communication with State Parties to ensure enforcement of the duty to render assistance, as required under Article 10(2). 3. Transparency and Documentation: Comprehensive documentation, including operation logs and correspondence, demonstrates the claimant’s adherence to due care and procedural compliance with Article 10. Relevance: Article 10 ensures that masters fulfil their duty to render assistance to persons in danger at sea, while State Parties enforce this obligation, protecting lives and upholding maritime safety. Conclusion: The claim under Article 10 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The claimant’s adherence to the duty to render assistance is substantiated by robust evidence, ensuring compliance with international law and protecting lives at sea. The tribunal/court should enforce Article 10 to uphold fairness, equity, and maritime safety].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~11AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS AND OF THE PUBLIC-AUTHORITIES IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE COOPERATION WITH THE SUCCESSFUL-SALVAGE AND WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION[sic] BY THIS CLAIM[Article 11 of the Salvage Convention 1989 establishes the duty of cooperation between salvors, other interested parties, and public authorities. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], seeks enforcement of this provision to ensure compliance with cooperative measures for the efficient and successful performance of salvage operations. Key Provisions: Duty of Cooperation (Article 11):1. Article 11: A State Party shall, whenever regulating or deciding upon matters relating to salvage operations (such as admittance to ports of vessels in distress or the provision of facilities to salvors), take into account the need for cooperation between salvors, other interested parties, and public authorities. 2. The purpose of this cooperation is to ensure the efficient and successful performance of salvage operations for saving life or property in danger and preventing damage to the environment.. Alignment with International Law: This provision aligns with the principles of the IMO and UNCLOS, ensuring that State Parties facilitate cooperation between salvors, interested parties, and public authorities. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence: 1. Correspondence with Public Authorities: Communication with public authorities confirms the claimant’s compliance with cooperative measures during salvage operations, including acknowledgment of the claimant’s adherence to environmental protection protocols. 2. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: These documents detail the claimant’s efforts to ensure efficient and successful salvage operations, including methodologies, timelines, and safety protocols followed. 3. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: These volumes contain detailed evidence, including operation logs, correspondence, and environmental impact assessments, substantiating the claimant’s compliance with Article 11. Demonstration of the Compliance: 1. Facilitating Cooperation: The claimant worked closely with public authorities, salvors, and other interested parties to ensure the efficient and successful performance of salvage operations, fulfilling the duty under Article 11. 2. Environmental Protection: The claimant implemented measures to prevent or mitigate environmental damage during salvage operations, aligning with the purpose of Article 11. 3. Transparency and Documentation: Comprehensive documentation, including operation logs and correspondence, demonstrates the claimant’s adherence to cooperative measures and procedural compliance with Article 11. Relevance:Article 11 ensures that State Parties facilitate cooperation between salvors, interested parties, and public authorities, promoting the success of salvage operations and the protection of the environment. Conclusion: The claim under Article 11 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The claimant’s adherence to cooperative measures and efforts to protect the environment are substantiated by robust evidence, ensuring compliance with international law and promoting the success of salvage operations. The tribunal/court should enforce Article 11 to uphold fairness, equity, and environmental stewardship].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~12 OF THE PRIZE-POSITION[RIGHT TO REWARD] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS AND: SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CONSUMMATION/SETTLEMENT[DETERMINATION] BY THE SALVAGE-PRIZE[REWARD][Salvage operations which have had a useful result give right to a reward. Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve the right to a salvage reward, and how does Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989 strengthen the claim with the evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, along with Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of salvage services? Rule: “Salvage operations which have had a useful result give right to a reward” (Article 12). Application: The MSD claim addresses the claimant’s entitlement to a salvage reward under Article 12. Evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates the claimant’s successful salvage operations, which yielded useful results, including the recovery of property and the prevention of environmental damage. Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of the claimant’s “part-time salvaging work” in the MSD letter dated 28 March 2025 further validates the claimant’s role as a salvor entitled to a reward. Article 12 establishes that salvors are entitled to a reward for salvage operations that produce a useful result, regardless of ownership of the salved vessel or property. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates compliance with this provision, further strengthening their claim for a salvage reward. Conclusion: The claim under ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~12 is valid as the defendant’s facts-data/evidence supports the claimant’s entitlement to a reward for salvage operations that yielded useful results. The claimant’s documentation, Anna Graham’s letter, and the MSD’s acknowledgment of salvage services further strengthen the claim. Relevance: This article governs the right to a salvage reward, which is critical for ensuring that salvors are fairly compensated for their efforts in recovering property and preventing environmental damage. Support: The Salvage Convention 1989, Article 12, establishes the right to a reward for salvage operations. The claimant’s evidence supports the claim. Cross-Reference: This article aligns with Section 187 of the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which governs salvage operations and the determination of salvage rewards. It also supports claims under Section 20(1)(h) of the UK Senior Courts Act 1981, which pertains to claims for salvage services].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~12-SUPPLEMENTARY AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE SALVAGE-PRIZE-CALCULATION[REWARD] BY THE SALVAGE[D]-PROPERTY-VALUE AND BY THE [UNDERTAKEN]RISK-PERFORMANCE. FOR THE CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PRIZE-~1[REWARD] IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE SALVOR WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE AND WITH THE GOLD-VALUE/~976.96-TROY-OUNCES OF THE SALVAGED-PROPERTY[sic] AND WITH THE RISK-PERFORMANCE BY THIS CLAIMANT/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/CALCULATION/CONSUMMATION/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[This supplementary claim provides a detailed calculation of the salvage reward under Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], lodges the following: Issue: The claimant identifies the issue of compliance with Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989, specifically addressing: 1. Entitlement to a salvage reward for operations that yielded a useful result. 2. Determination of the reward based on: The value of the salvaged property and the risks undertaken by the claimant during salvage operations. Rule: Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989 establishes the following principles: 1. Salvage operations that yield a useful result entitle the salvor to a reward. 2. The reward is determined based on: The value of the salvaged property, the risks undertaken during the salvage operation. 3. The reward must encourage salvage operations while ensuring fairness and proportionality. 4. The reward cannot exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property. Application: The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], demonstrates compliance with Article 12 through the following: 1. Value of the Salvaged Property: The total value of the salvaged property is assessed at £2,608,671.11 GBP, equivalent to approximately 976.96 troy ounces of gold (based on the spot value exchange rate of £2,670.64 per ounce on 18th September 2025). This valuation is supported by independent valuation reports and financial records, as documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. 2. Risks Undertaken: The claimant faced significant risks during salvage operations, including: a. Adverse Weather Conditions: High winds and rough seas endangered the claimant and salvage equipment. b. Hazardous Cargo: The salvaged vessel carried hazardous materials, increasing the risk of environmental damage and personal injury. c. Environmental Threats: The claimant’s actions prevented potential pollution and mitigated environmental harm. These risks are documented in risk assessments and operation logs, as recorded in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. 3. Proportionality of Reward: The reward is calculated based on the value of the salvaged property and the degree of danger mitigated. The claimant’s efforts to recover valuable property and prevent environmental damage justify a proportional reward that reflects the risks undertaken and the success achieved. Conclusion: The supplementary claim under Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The claimant’s compliance with the obligations to conduct salvage operations that yielded a useful result is substantiated by: 1. Valuation reports. 2. Risk assessments. 3. Operation logs, as documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. This supplementary entry ensures transparency and fairness in determining the salvage reward, aligning with the principles of equity and proportionality. The claimant’s entitlement to a reward reflects the value of the salvaged property and the significant risks undertaken during the salvage operations.
For the admiralty-court/tribunal of this lodgement:
Issue: Does the claimant comply with Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which entitles salvors to a reward for useful salvage operations, calculated based on the value of the salvaged property and risks undertaken?
Rule: Article 12 establishes that: 1. Salvors are entitled to a reward for useful salvage operations. 2. The reward is based on the value of the salvaged property and risks undertaken but cannot exceed the property’s total value.
Application: The claimant has: 1. Valued the salvaged property at £2,608,671.11 GBP (equivalent to 976.96 troy ounces of gold). 2. Documented risks, such as adverse weather, hazardous cargo, and environmental threats, during salvage operations. 3. Provided detailed operation logs, valuation reports, and risk assessments.
Conclusion: The claimant has complied with Article 12, and the fact-data/evidence/proof supports the entitlement to a fair salvage reward, ensuring equity and proportionality].
FOR THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PRIZE-~2[REWARD] IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE SALVOR WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE AND WITH THE GOLD-VALUE/~37,453.18-TROY-OUNCES OF THE SALVAGED-PROPERTY[sic] AND WITH THE RISK-PERFORMANCE BY THIS CLAIMANT/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/CALCULATION/CONSUMMATION/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[This claim for the Salvage Reward ~2 is based on the position/right of the salvor and the obligations of the salvors to perform the salvage operations. This claim involves the gold value of ~37,453.18 troy ounces of the salvaged property and the risks undertaken by the claimant, acting as the salvage captain [proxy]. The claim is supported by the performance, facts, conveyance, calculations, consummation, and knowledge documented in relation to the salvage operations].
FOR THE VALIDATION OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THE AUXILIARY-CONFIRMATION OF THE TE-MANATU-WHAKAHIATO-ORA/MSD-PARTY-AGENT/ANNA-GRAHAM WITH THE LETTER OF THE DATE/~MARCH-2025 AND WITH HER PAST-POSITION[ROLE] OF THE GENERAL-MANAGER/NEW-ZEALAND-MINISTRY-OF-JUSTICE[sic] AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE-FACTS WITH THE DOCUMENT-CONFIRMATION OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE ~COMMON-BUNDLE-VOLUMES/~2 AND: ~COMMON-BUNDLE-VOLUME-~3/~PART-~5 AND WITH THE FACT-DATA OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE-LOGS AND WITH THE RISK-ASSESSMENTS AND WITH THE SALVAGE-PRIZE-CALCULATION[REWARD] BY THE SALVAGED-PROPERTY-VALUE[sic]/~100,000,000-NZD AND BY THE GOLD-VALUE/~37,453.18-TROY-OUNCES[The validation of the salvage operations is confirmed by the auxiliary statement from Anna Graham, acting as the party agent for Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora (MSD) in March 2025. Anna Graham’s role as a former General Manager for the New Zealand Ministry of Justice provides weight to her confirmation of the salvage performance. Her statement is with the acknowledgement of the facts and of the salvage operations. Conclusive evidence is with the Common Bundle Volumes, specifically Common Bundle Volume 3, Part 5, and the supporting documentation such as salvage logs, risk assessments, and the calculation of the salvage reward, based on the salvaged property value of ~100,000,000 NZD and its equivalent in gold value of ~37,453.18 troy ounces].
FOR THE VALIDATION OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE SALVOR WITH THE SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~12-COMPLIANCE AND WITH THE FAIRNESS/EQUITY/PROPORTIONALITY[sic] OF THE SALVAGE-PRIZE-CALCULATION[REWARD] AND OF THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/CALCULATION/CONSUMMATION/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[The validation of the salvage operations is based on the rights of the salvor under Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989, ensuring that the calculation of the salvage prize [reward] adheres to principles of fairness, equity, and proportionality. The claim is supported by the actions of the live-life-claimant/salvage captain [proxy], with the performance, facts, conveyance, calculations, consummation, and knowledge substantiating the claim.Salvaged Property Value: The financial instrument is valued at 100,000,000 NZD, registered under PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596/4, with a gold equivalent of ~37,453.18 troy ounces (based on the Bank of England spot rate of 2,670.64 GBP per ounce on 18th September 2025). Risks Undertaken: The claimant faced adverse weather conditions, hazardous cargo, and environmental threats during salvage operations, as detailed in operation logs and risk assessments in Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 5. Supporting Evidence: Independent valuation reports and financial records substantiate the claim, as documented in Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 4. High-Value Salvage Reward: Financial Instrument and PPSR Registration. IRAC Analysis: Issue: Does the live-life-claimant/salvor, Jonathan-Simon: Bell (acting as Salvage-Captain Proxy), comply with Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989, entitling them to a salvage reward for operations yielding a useful result, based on the value of the salvaged property and risks undertaken? Rule: Article 12 establishes that: Salvors are entitled to a reward for salvage operations that yield a useful result. The reward is determined based on: a. The value of the salvaged property. b. The risks undertaken during the salvage operation. The reward cannot exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property. Application: Salvaged Property Value: The financial instrument is valued at 100,000,000 NZD, registered under PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596/4, with a gold equivalent of ~37,453.18 troy ounces (based on the Bank of England spot rate of 2,670.64 GBP per ounce on 18th September 2025). Independent valuation reports and financial records substantiate this value, as documented within the Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 4. Risks Undertaken: The claimant faced adverse weather conditions, hazardous cargo, and environmental threats during salvage operations. These risks are detailed in operation logs and risk assessments in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 5. Salvage Performance Claim by the Auxiliary-Validation/Confirmation: The salvage performance is confirmed by the MSD Party Agent, ANNA-GRAHAM (previous role= general manager of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice). Conclusion: The salvage claim is valid and the claimant is entitled to a salvage reward under Article 12, calculated based on the 100,000,000 NZD financial instrument and the significant risks undertaken. The tribunal/court should enforce Article 12 to ensure fairness and proportionality].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~13 OF THE PRIZE-CRITERIA[CRITERIA FOR REWARD] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CONSUMMATION/SETTLEMENT [DETERMINATION] BY THE SALVAGE-PRIZE[REWARD][The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account the following criteria… Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve the criteria for determining a salvage reward, and how does Article 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989 strengthen the claim with the evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, along with Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of salvage services? Rule: “The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account the following criteria…” (Article 13). Application: The MSD claim addresses the criteria for determining the salvage reward under Article 13. Evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates the claimant’s compliance with the criteria, including the value of the salvaged property, the skill and efforts of the salvors, the risks undertaken, and the promptness of the services rendered. Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of the claimant’s salvage services further supports their entitlement to a reward based on these criteria. Article 13 ensures that salvage rewards are determined fairly, taking into account the efforts and risks of the salvors. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates their significant contribution to the success of the salvage operations, further strengthening their claim for a reward. Conclusion: The claim under ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~13 is valid as evidence supports the claimant’s compliance with the criteria for determining a salvage reward. The claimant’s documentation, Anna Graham’s letter, and the MSD’s acknowledgment of salvage services further strengthen the claim. Relevance: This article governs the criteria for determining salvage rewards, ensuring that salvors are fairly compensated for their efforts and risks. Support: The Salvage Convention 1989, Article 13, establishes the criteria for determining salvage rewards. The claimant’s evidence supports the claim. Cross-Reference: This article aligns with Section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which governs salvage operations and the determination of salvage rewards. It also supports claims under Section 20(1)(h) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which pertains to claims for salvage services].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~14 OF THE SPECIAL-COMPENSATION IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CONSUMMATION/SETTLEMENT[DETERMINATION] BY THE SPECIAL-COMPENSATION[If the salvor has carried out salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment… he shall be entitled to special compensation. Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve special compensation for salvage operations, and how does Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989 strengthen the claim with the evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, along with Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of salvage services? Rule: “If the salvor has carried out salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment… he shall be entitled to special compensation” (Article 14). Application: The MSD claim addresses the claimant’s entitlement to special compensation under Article 14. Evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates the claimant’s efforts to prevent or minimise environmental damage during salvage operations. Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of the claimant’s salvage services further validates their entitlement to special compensation for their environmental protection efforts. Article 14 ensures that salvors are entitled to special compensation when their efforts prevent or minimise environmental harm, even if the salvage operations do not yield a reward under Article 13. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates their significant contribution to environmental protection, further strengthening their claim for special compensation. Conclusion: The claim under ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~14 is valid as evidence supports the claimant’s entitlement to special compensation for their efforts to prevent environmental damage. The claimant’s documentation, Anna Graham’s letter, and the MSD’s acknowledgment of salvage services further strengthen the claim. Relevance: This article governs special compensation for salvage operations, ensuring that salvors are fairly compensated for their efforts to protect the environment. Support:The Salvage Convention 1989, Article 14, establishes the right to special compensation for salvage operations that prevent environmental harm. The claimant’s evidence supports the claim. Cross-Reference: This article aligns with Section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which governs salvage operations and the determination of salvage rewards. It also supports claims under Section 20(1)(h) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which pertains to claims for salvage services].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~14-SUPPLEMENTARYAND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-FACT-DATA[sic]/PROOF[EVIDENCE] AND WITH THE SPECIAL-COMPENSATION-CALCULATION BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[This supplementary claim provides evidence of compliance with Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which addresses the entitlement to special compensation for salvage operations that prevent or minimise environmental damage. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], lodges the following: Issue: The claimant identifies the issue of compliance with Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989, specifically addressing: 1. The entitlement to special compensation for salvage operations conducted to prevent or minimize environmental damage. 2. Demonstrating adherence to international environmental standards, including compliance with MARPOL regulations. Rule: Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989 establishes the following principles: 1. Salvors are entitled to special compensation for operations conducted to protect the environment from damage caused by a vessel or its cargo. 2. Compensation is calculated based on the expenses incurred in preventing or minimising harm to the marine environment. 3. National law may supplement Article 14, provided it does not conflict with the Convention. 4. Adherence to international environmental standards (e.g., MARPOL regulations) reinforces the salvor’s obligations under Article 14. Application: The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], demonstrates compliance with Article 14 through the following: 1. Environmental Impact Assessments: Independent assessments confirm that the claimant’s actions prevented significant pollution and mitigated environmental harm. These assessments are documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, providing evidence of proactive measures to protect the marine environment. 2. Expert Testimony: Environmental experts validate the claimant’s compliance with MARPOL regulations, including: a. Annex I (Oil Pollution Prevention): Measures to prevent oil spills, including the deployment of containment booms and skimmers. b. Annex II (Noxious Liquid Substances): Safe handling and removal of hazardous liquid substances to prevent contamination. c. Annex V (Garbage Management): Proper collection, storage, and disposal of waste generated during salvage operations. d. Annex VI (Air Pollution): Use of low-sulphur fuel and adherence to permissible emissions limits. 3. Compensation Calculation: Special compensation is calculated based on the expenses incurred in environmental protection efforts. These expenses include the costs of equipment, personnel, and operational measures, as detailed in financial records and cost breakdowns in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. 4. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence:Environmental Impact Assessments: Document the claimant’s efforts to prevent pollution. Expert Testimony: Validate compliance with MARPOL regulations and international standards. Cost Breakdown: Provide a detailed account of expenses incurred during salvage operations. Conclusion: The supplementary claim under Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The claimant’s compliance with the obligations to prevent or minimise environmental damage is substantiated by: 1. Environmental impact assessments,2. Expert testimony, and 3. Cost breakdowns, as documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. This supplementary entry reinforces the claimant’s entitlement to special compensation, ensuring compliance with Article 14 and adherence to international environmental protection principles. MARPOL Regulations and Compliance within the MSD Claim: The claimant’s compliance with MARPOL regulations is demonstrated as follows: 1. MARPOL Annex I (Oil Pollution Prevention): The claimant deployed oil containment booms and skimmers to prevent oil pollution from the salvaged vessel. Operation logs and environmental impact assessments document these efforts. 2. MARPOL Annex II (Noxious Liquid Substances): The claimant safely handled and removed hazardous liquid substances to prevent marine contamination. Risk assessments and operation logs detail the procedures followed. 3. MARPOL Annex V (Garbage Management): Waste generated during salvage operations was collected, stored, and disposed of properly, in accordance with garbage management protocols. Documentation in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 provides evidence of compliance. 4. MARPOL Annex VI (Air Pollution): The claimant minimised air pollution by using low-sulphur fuel and ensuring emissions were within permissible limits. Environmental impact assessments confirm adherence to Annex VI standards. Relevance to the MSD Claim: The claimant’s adherence to MARPOL regulations demonstrates a commitment to international environmental protection standards. This compliance reinforces the validity of the MSD claim and supports the request for special compensation under Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989.
For the admiralty-court/tribunal of this lodgement:
Issue: Does the claimant comply with Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which entitles salvors to special compensation for preventing or minimizing environmental damage?
Rule: Article 14 establishes: 1. Salvors’ right to compensation for environmental protection efforts. 2. Compensation is calculated based on the salvor’s expenses, including equipment, personnel, and operational costs. 3. Compliance with MARPOL regulations supports adherence to international environmental standards.
Application: The claimant has: 1. Prevented pollution and mitigated environmental harm (documented in environmental impact assessments). 2. Followed international standards, including MARPOL Annexes I, II, V, and VI. 3. Provided detailed cost breakdowns for salvage operations and environmental protection efforts.
Conclusion: The claimant has fully complied with Article 14 and is entitled to special compensation for preventing environmental damage, as demonstrated by the evidence in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3].
FOR THE CLAIM OF THE SPECIAL-COMPENSATION IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE SALVOR WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION[sic] AND WITH THE COSTS[EXPENSES] OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] WITH THIS CLAIM[Environmental Protection Efforts: The claimant deployed containment equipment, safely removed hazardous materials, and adhered to MARPOL regulations (Annexes I, II, V, and VI), as documented in environmental impact assessments and operation logs in the Confidential Common Bundle Volumes and Volume 3, Section 6. Expenses Incurred: The claimant incurred significant costs for equipment, personnel, and operational measures, as detailed in financial records and cost breakdowns in Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7. Supporting Evidence: The claimant’s compliance with MARPOL regulations and environmental protection measures justifies the special compensation claim. Environmental Protection and Special Compensation. IRAC Analysis: Issue: Does the claimant comply with Article 14 of the Salvage Convention 1989, entitling them to special compensation for salvage operations conducted to prevent or minimise environmental damage? Rule: Article 14 establishes that: 1. Salvors are entitled to special compensation for operations conducted to protect the environment from damage caused by a vessel or its cargo. 2. Compensation is calculated based on the expenses incurred in preventing or minimising harm to the marine environment. Application: Environmental Protection Efforts: The claimant deployed containment equipment, safely removed hazardous materials, and adhered to MARPOL regulations (Annexes I, II, V, and VI). These efforts are documented in environmental impact assessments and operation logs in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 6. Expenses Incurred: The claimant incurred significant costs for equipment, personnel, and operational measures, as detailed in financial records and cost breakdowns in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7. Conclusion: The claim is valid and the claimant is entitled to special compensation under Article 14 for their environmental protection efforts. The tribunal/court should enforce Article 14 to uphold international environmental standards].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~20 OF THE MARITIME-LIEN IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE KEEP-GOOD[PRESERVATION] OF THE SALVOR’S-MARITIME-LIEN AND WITH THE LIMITATION OF THE [EN]FORCEMENT AND: MARITIME-LIEN WITH THE SATISFACTORY-SECURITY OF THE CORRECT-GAIN[PROVIDED] WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVOR/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SHIP-STEWARD[OWNER] AND OF OTHER QUALIFY-PARTIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[Article 20: Claim of the Maritime-Lien: 1. Preservation of the Maritime-Lien: The salvor retains their maritime lien under any international convention or national law, ensuring their privileged claim against the salvaged vessel or property for services rendered. This lien is unaffected by the provisions of the Salvage Convention 2. Limitation of Enforcement: The salvor may not enforce their maritime lien when satisfactory security for their claim, including interest and costs, has been duly tendered or provided. This limitation ensures fairness and prevents unnecessary vessel arrests, balancing the rights of the salvor and the shipowner.
1. Key Provisions of Article 20. 1 Preservation of the Maritime Lien (Article 20(1)): 1.1. The salvor retains their maritime lien under any international convention or national law, ensuring their privileged claim against the salvaged vessel or property for services rendered. This lien remains unaffected by the provisions of the Salvage Convention, safeguarding the salvor’s rights. 1.2 Limitation of Enforcement (Article 20(2)): The salvor may not enforce their maritime lien when satisfactory security for their claim, including interest and costs, has been duly tendered or provided. This limitation ensures fairness and prevents unnecessary vessel arrests, balancing the rights of the salvor and the shipowner.
2. Total Value of the Claim in Gold (Troy) Ounces: Calculation of the Claim: 2.1. Total Value in NZD: The total value of the MSD claim, based on the four commercial bills, is 5,869,510 NZD.2.2. Exchange Rate (NZD to GBP): The exchange rate on 18th September 2025 is 2.25 NZD to 1 GBP. 2.3. Total Value in GBP= Total in NZD/Exchange Rate= 5,869,510/2.25= 2,608,671.11 GBP. 2.4. Gold Value per Troy Ounce in GBP: The value of a single gold (troy) ounce on 18th September 2025 is 2,670.64 GBP, as determined by the Bank of England spot exchange rate and the global gold market value. 2.5. Total Value in Gold (Troy) Ounces: Total in Gold (Ounces)= Total in GBP/Gold Value per Ounce. Total in Gold (Ounces)= 2,608,671.11/2,670.64= ~976.96 (troy) Ounces (approx). 2.6. Conversion to Kilograms: Total in Kilograms = 976.96×0.0311035= ~30.39kg. 2.7 Final-Sum-Total-Value: The total value of the claim is approximately 976.96 troy ounces of gold or 30.39 kilograms of gold.
3. Supporting Evidence: Bills and PPSR Registration. 3.1 Commercial Bills: Bill 1: 250305-001, amounting to 1,511,910 NZD. Bill 2: 250305-002, amounting to 1,703,400 NZD. Bill 3: 250305-003, amounting to 1,454,200 NZD. Bill 4: 250305-004, amounting to 1,200,000 NZD. Total Value of the Commercial-Bills: ~5,869,510 NZD= ~976.96 (troy) Gold-Ounces. 3.2 PPSR Registration Details: Primary Registration Number: ~F87BKR95C9H3Z7V4(MSD Claim). Maritime Lien Certification: ~RN-8419-2204-5GB. ~Perpetual Case Number: ~LW-126-490-485-NZ. Secondary Registration Number: FS6TX7DX6W52U596(Confidential Common Bundle 3 Claim). Maritime Lien Certification for the Salvage Captain security instrument: ~LW-126-490-471-NZ. Registration Context: The PPSR registration secures the claimant’s rights under Admiralty law and ensures enforcement for breaches of fiduciary duty, procedural failures, and non-payment of the four commercial bills and for the Confidential Common Bundle 3 Claim. The lien is perpetual and remains valid until the debt is fully settled. Collateral Description: The collateral includes the salvaged vessel and associated property, as detailed in the PPSR registration. Acknowledgment of Services: The shipowner’s agent, Anna-Graham, acknowledged the salvage services in the MSD letter dated 28 March 2025.
4. Confidentiality and Integrity: The PPSR registration details are sensitive and pertain to the claimant’s security interests. Disclosure of this information is limited to ensure the integrity of the trust and the privacy of its beneficiaries. Conclusion: The lien details and PPSR registration confirm the claimant’s privileged claim under Admiralty law. The maritime lien is supported by the Salvage Convention and national laws, while the PPSR registration secures the claimant’s rights and ensures enforcement for breaches related to the four commercial bills. These details form a critical part of the evidence/fact-data section for the claim.
5. Analysis of the Claim: Issue: Does the claimant have the right to enforce their maritime lien under Article 20 of the Salvage Convention, and is the enforcement limited when satisfactory security is provided? Rule: 1. Article 20(1): The salvor’s maritime lien is preserved under any international convention or national law. 2. Article 20(2): The salvor may not enforce their lien when satisfactory security, including interest and costs, has been duly tendered or provided. Application: 1. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], has rendered salvage services to a vessel in danger, creating a maritime lien under the Salvage Convention and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. 2. The claimant’s lien is preserved under Article 20(1), ensuring their privileged claim against the salvaged vessel or property. 3. The claimant acknowledges that enforcement of the lien is limited under Article 20(2) if satisfactory security, including interest and costs, is provided. However, no satisfactory security has been made to date. Conclusion: The claimant’s maritime lien is preserved under Article 20(1), and enforcement is limited under Article 20(2) when satisfactory security is provided. The tribunal should recognise the lien, that no security has been given and ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention. Relevance to the Claim. 1. Preservation of the Position/Rights: Article 20(1) ensures the claimant’s maritime lien remains unaffected by the Salvage Convention, safeguarding their privileged claim for salvage services rendered. 2. Limitation of Enforcement: Article 20(2) prevents unnecessary vessel arrests when satisfactory security is provided, balancing the interests of the salvor and the shipowner. However, no satisfactory security has been provided in this case. 3. Procedural Compliance: The claimant’s actions align with the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 61, and the Admiralty Practice Direction, ensuring procedural integrity in enforcing the maritime lien.
6. Historical Precedence. 1. The Bold Buccleugh (1851): Principle: Established the maritime lien as a secured claim that travels with the vessel, regardless of ownership changes as per Article 20(1). Relevance: Reinforces the salvor’s right to a lien under Article 20(1). 2. The Halcyon Isle (1980): Principle: Confirmed the international recognition of maritime liens and their priority over other claims. Relevance: Highlights the importance of preserving the salvor’s lien under Article 20(1) ensuring the lien is not subordinated to other claims. 3. The Tojo Maru (1971): Principle: Emphasised the need for fairness in balancing the rights of salvors and shipowners. Relevance: Supports the enforcement limitation under Article 20(2), ensuring fairness when satisfactory security is provided.
Consummation: The claimant’s maritime lien is preserved under Article 20(1) of the Salvage Convention, ensuring their privileged claim for salvage services rendered. Enforcement of the lien is limited under Article 20(2) when satisfactory security is provided, promoting fairness and procedural integrity.
The tribunal/court should cognise/recognise the lien and ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention to uphold the principles of fairness, equity, and corrective justice].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~21 AND FOR THE GIVE-DUTY OF THE SECURITY-PROVISION[sic][DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CONSUMMATION/SETTLEMENT[DETERMINATION] BY THE SECURITY-PROVISION[sic][If the salvor has carried out salvage operations, the liable party must provide satisfactory security for the claim, including interest and costs. The salved vessel and property cannot be removed without the salvor’s consent until security is provided: Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve the duty to provide security for salvage operations, and how does Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989 strengthen the claim with the evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, along with Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of salvage services? Rule:1. Article 21(1): Upon the salvor’s request, a person liable for payment under the Salvage Convention must provide satisfactory security for the claim, including interest and costs. 2. Article 21(2): The owner of the salved vessel must use their best efforts to ensure that cargo owners provide satisfactory security for claims against them, including interest and costs, before the cargo is released. 3. Article 21(3): The salved vessel and property cannot be removed from the port or place of arrival without the salvor’s consent until satisfactory security has been provided. Application:1. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], has rendered salvage services to a vessel in danger, creating a maritime lien under the Salvage Convention and the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Article 21 strengthens the claimant’s position by imposing a duty on the liable parties to provide security for the claim. 2. Evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates that no satisfactory security has been provided to date. This non-compliance with Article 21 highlights the need for the court’s intervention to enforce the provision. 3. The claimant’s evidence includes operation logs, salvage reports, and correspondence with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, who acknowledged the salvage services in the MSD letter dated 28 March 2025. This acknowledgment further validates the claimant’s entitlement to security under Article 21. 4. The restriction on the removal of the salved vessel or property without the salvor’s consent ensures that the claimant’s rights are preserved during the resolution of the claim. This aligns with the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 61, and the Admiralty Practice Direction. Case Law References:
The Bold Buccleugh (1851): Reinforces the salvor’s right to a lien under Article 21(1). The Halcyon Isle (1980): Highlights the priority of maritime liens and the need for security. The Tojo Maru (1971): Supports fairness in enforcing Article 21(3). The Ion (1980): Emphasises procedural compliance in salvage claims. The Stolt Loyalty (1995): Aligns with the claimant’s entitlement to security under Article 21. Conclusion: The claim under ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~21 is valid as fact-data/evidence supports the claimant’s entitlement to satisfactory security for their salvage operations. The claimant’s documentation, Anna Graham’s letter, and the MSD’s acknowledgment of salvage services further strengthen the claim. The tribunal/court should enforce the provisions of Article 21 to ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention and protect the claimant’s financial interests. Relevance: This article governs the duty to provide security for salvage claims, ensuring that salvors are fairly compensated and their financial interests are protected. Support: The Salvage Convention 1989, Article 21, establishes the duty to provide security for salvage claims. The claimant’s evidence supports the claim. Cross-Reference: This article aligns with Section 187 of the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which governs salvage operations and the determination of salvage rewards. It also supports claims under Section 20(1)(h) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which pertains to claims for salvage services].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~21-SUPPLEMENTARY AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THIS FORMAL-[RE]QUEST-CLAIM OF THE SECURITY-PROVISION[sic] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[This supplementary claim provides evidence of compliance with Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which governs the duty to provide security for salvage operations. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, whom which performs as the grant-authority of the Salvage-Captain(Proxy) “IN REM”, lodges the following:
Issue: The claimant identifies the issue of compliance with Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989, specifically addressing: 1. The duty of the liable party to provide satisfactory security for salvage claims, including interest and costs. 2. The restriction on removing the salved vessel or property without the salvor’s consent until security is provided.
Rule: Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989 establishes the following principles: 1. Article 21(1): Upon the salvor’s request, a person liable for payment under the Salvage Convention must provide satisfactory security for the claim, including interest and costs. 2. Article 21(2): The owner of the salved vessel must make best efforts to ensure that cargo owners provide satisfactory security for claims against them, including interest and costs, before the cargo is released. 3. Article 21(3): The salved vessel and property cannot be removed from the port or place of arrival without the salvor’s consent until satisfactory security has been provided.
Application: The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as the SALVAGE CAPTAIN(Proxy), demonstrates compliance with Article 21 through the following: 1. Salvage Services Rendered: The claimant rendered salvage services to a vessel in danger, creating a maritime lien under the Salvage Convention and the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Article 21 strengthens the claimant’s position by imposing a duty on the liable parties to provide security for the claim. 2. Evidence of Non-Compliance: Evidence presented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates that no satisfactory security has been provided to date. This lack of compliance highlights the need for court intervention to enforce the security provisions under Article 21. 3. Acknowledgment of Salvage Services: Correspondence with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, acknowledges the salvage services rendered by the claimant. The MSD letter dated 28 March 2025 further validates the claimant’s entitlement to security under Article 21. 4. Restriction on Removal of Salved Property: The restriction under Article 21(3) ensures that the salved vessel or property cannot be removed from the port or place of arrival without the claimant’s consent. This provision preserves the claimant’s rights and aligns with the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 61, and the Admiralty Practice Direction.
Case Law References:
1. The Bold Buccleugh (1851): Reinforces the salvor’s right to a maritime lien under Article 21(1).
2. The Halcyon Isle (1980): Highlights the priority of maritime liens and the need for security.
3. The Tojo Maru (1971): Supports fairness in enforcing Article 21(3).
4. The Ion (1980): Emphasises procedural compliance in salvage claims.
5. The Stolt Loyalty (1995): Aligns with the claimant’s entitlement to security under Article 21.
Conclusion: This supplementary claim under Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The claimant’s entitlement to satisfactory security for their salvage operations is substantiated by: 1.Operation logs, 2. Salvage reports, and 3.Correspondence with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, as documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. The tribunal or court should enforce the provisions of Article 21 to: 1. Ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention. 2. Protect the claimant’s financial interests and right to compensation.
Relevance: This article governs the duty to provide security for salvage claims, ensuring that salvors are fairly compensated and their financial interests are protected.
Support: 1. Salvage Convention 1989, Article 21: Establishes the duty to provide security for salvage claims. 2. UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Section 187: Governs salvage operations and the determination of salvage rewards. 3. Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(h): Pertains to claims for salvage services.
For the admiralty-court/tribunal of this lodgement:
Issue: Does the claimant comply with Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which imposes a duty on liable parties to provide satisfactory security for salvage claims?
Rule: Article 21 establishes: 1. Salvors are entitled to satisfactory security for their claims, including interest and costs. 2. The salved vessel or property cannot be removed without the salvor’s consent until security is provided.
Application: The claimant has: 1. Rendered salvage services, creating a maritime lien under the Salvage Convention. 2. Provided evidence (in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3) and certifies now that no satisfactory security has been provided. 3. Corresponded with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, who acknowledged the salvage services.
Conclusion: The claimant is entitled to satisfactory security for their salvage operations, and the court should enforce Article 21 to ensure compliance and protect the claimant’s financial interests].
FOR THE SECONDARY-SALVAGE-CLAIM AND GOLD-VALUE/~37,453.18-TROY-OUNCES OF THE SECURITY-PROVISION[sic] IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE SALVOR WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE LIABLE-PARTIES WITH THE SATISFACTORY-SECURITY[sic] OF THE SALVAGE-CLAIM AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR THE ROLE OF THE NEW-ZEALAND-FINANCE-MINISTER IS WITH THE POSITION[SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY] AND WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE MINISTER WITH THE SECURITY-PROVISION[sic] OF THE ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~21 AND WITH THE COMPLIANCE OF THE NATIONAL/GLOBAL-LAWS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM. FOR THE VALIDATION OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THE AUXILIARY-CONFIRMATION OF THE MSD-PARTY[ANNA-GRAHAM] WITH THE SIGNIFICANT-PAST-POSITION[ROLE] OF THE GENERAL-MANAGER/NEW-ZEALAND-MINISTRY-OF-JUSTICE[sic] AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE-FACTS WITH THE DOCUMENT-CONFIRMATION OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE FACT-DATA/PROOF/~COMMON-BUNDLE-VOLUMES AND: ~VOLUME-~3/~PART-~5 BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR THE FACT-DATA OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL-COMMON-BUNDLE-VOLUME-~3/SECTION-~8 AND WITH THE KULEANA[CORRESPONDENCE] OF THE MINISTER-OF-FINANCE AND WITH THE P.-P.-S.-R.-REGISTRATION[sic]/~FS6TX7DX6W52U596-KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C. FOR THE COMMERCIAL-NATURE OF THE SALVAGE-CLAIM IS WITH THE VOID[REMOVE] OF ANY SOVEREIGN-IMMUNITY-CLAIM[sic] AND WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVOR WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~21 AND BY THE ~UK-MERCHANT-SHIPPING-ACT-1995[sic] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[PPSR Registration: The financial instrument of the secondary salvage claim is registered under PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596/4, securing the claimant’s rights under Admiralty law. Role of the Minister of Finance: The Minister of Finance/Treasury acts as the securities intermediary, ensuring compliance with Article 21. Correspondence with the Minister is with the documentation within the Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 8. Supporting Evidence: The claimant’s entitlement to satisfactory security is substantiated by the PPSR registration and correspondence with the Minister of Finance. Role of the Minister of Finance in Relation to Satisfactory Security Provision for the Salvage Claim: The Minister of Finance plays a pivotal role in ensuring compliance with Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989 and the Admiralty Procedural Rules. This role is particularly significant in the context of high-value salvage claims, such as the 100,000,000 NZD financial instrument registered under the PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596. A detailed explanation of the Minister’s responsibilities and functions: 1. Duty to Provide Satisfactory Security: Under Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989, the Minister of Finance, acting as the securities intermediary, is responsible for ensuring that satisfactory security is provided for the salvage claim. This includes: (a) Ensuring Compliance: The Minister must ensure that the liable parties provide security for the claim, including interest and costs, as required under Article 21(1). (b) Cargo Security: The Minister must also ensure that the owners of the cargo provide satisfactory security before the cargo is released, as stipulated in Article 21(2). (c) Preventing Removal Without Consent: The Minister ensures that the salved vessel and property are not removed from the port or place of arrival without the salvor’s consent until satisfactory security has been provided, as outlined in Article 21(3). 2. Role as Securities Intermediary: The Minister of Finance acts as the fiduciary agent and securities intermediary for the financial instrument, ensuring that the claimant’s rights are protected. This role includes: (a) PPSR Registration Oversight: The financial instrument is registered under the PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596/4, securing the claimant’s rights under Admiralty law, (b)Facilitating Security Provision: The Minister facilitates the provision of satisfactory security by coordinating with the liable parties and ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and (c) Maintaining Financial System Soundness: As per the regulatory framework under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021 and the Deposit Takers Act 2023, the Minister ensures that the financial system remains sound and that the security provision aligns with these regulations 3. Notification and Reporting Obligations: The Minister of Finance is also responsible for ensuring compliance with UNCLOS Article 231, which requires prompt notification to the flag State and other concerned States regarding measures taken against foreign vessels. This includes: (a) Submitting Official Reports: The Minister ensures that official reports concerning the salvage claim and security provision are submitted to the relevant authorities and (b) Transparency and Accountability: The Minister’s role includes maintaining transparency and accountability in the security provision process, ensuring that all parties are informed of the measures taken. 4. Supporting Evidence and Documentation: The Minister of Finance’s role is substantiated by the following evidence: (a) PPSR Registration: The financial instrument is registered under PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596/4, securing the claimant’s rights, (b) Correspondence: Communication between the claimant and the Minister, as documented in Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 8, highlights the Minister’s involvement in facilitating the security provision and (c) Regulatory Compliance: The Minister ensures compliance with the Salvage Convention 1989, UNCLOS, and national and global laws, including the UK Senior Courts Act 1981 and UK CPR Part 61. The commercial nature of the claim is with the remove of any Sovereign Immunity claim made. 5. Conclusion: The Minister of Finance plays a critical role in ensuring that satisfactory security is provided for the salvage claim under Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989. This includes acting as the securities intermediary, facilitating compliance with international and national laws, and maintaining transparency and accountability. The claimant’s rights are secured through the PPSR registration and the Minister’s oversight, ensuring that the salvage claim is resolved fairly and equitably. Security Provision for High-Value Salvage Claims: IRAC Analysis: Issue: Does the claimant comply with Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which imposes a duty on liable parties to provide satisfactory security for salvage claims? Rule: Article 21 establishes that: 1. Liable parties must provide satisfactory security for salvage claims, including interest and costs. 2. The salved vessel and property cannot be removed without the salvor’s consent until security is provided. Application: PPSR Registration: The financial instrument is registered under PPSR number FS6TX7DX6W52U596/4, securing the live-life-claimant’s position and proxy’s rights under Admiralty law by the registration performance of the security agreement and lodgement by the SALVAGE CAPTAIN Proxy of the Unlimited New Zealand Company. Role of the Minister of Finance: The Minister of Finance/Treasury acts as the securities intermediary, ensuring compliance with Article 21. Correspondence with the Minister is documented in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 8. Conclusion: The Claim is valid and the claimant is entitled to satisfactory security under Article 21. The tribunal/court should enforce Article 21 to protect the claimant’s financial interests].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~22OF THE ÆQUITABLE-PAYMENT[INTERIM PAYMENT] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE CORRECTIVE-SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE OF THE ÆQUITABLE-PAYMENT[INTERIM] WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE GRANT-AUTHORITY/Jonathan-Simon: Bell AND OF THE SALVOR/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SHIP-STEWARD[OWNER] AND OF OTHER QUALIFY-PARTIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[Article 22:Interim payment. (1) The tribunal having jurisdiction over the claim of the salvor may, by interim decision, order that the salvor shall be paid on account such amount as seems fair and just, and on such terms including terms as to security where appropriate, as may be fair and just according to the circumstances of the case. (2) In the event of an interim payment under this article the security provided under article 21 shall be reduced accordingly. :Scrutiny/Analysis of the Claim, Æquitable/Interim-Payment.Issue: Does the claimant have the position/right with re-quest-claim of an interim payment for the salvage-services of the render with the Article 22 of the Salvage Convention? Rule=Article 22(1): The tribunal may order an interim payment if it deems the amount fair and just under the circumstances. Article 22(2): Any interim payment reduces the security provision of the Article 21 terms. Application: 1. The live-life-creature/claimant/Jonathan-Simon: Bell, grant-authority of the “in rem” Salvage-Captain[Proxy], has rendered salvage services with a vessel in danger, as evidenced by operation logs, salvage reports, and acknowledgment of the salvage-services as evidenced by the shipowner’s agent, ANNA-GRAHAM that which is: “part-time salvaging work” in the MSD letter dated 28 March 2025. 2. The claimant is with correct-performance of the rules and entitlement with a reward under the Salvage Convention, as the services provided were voluntary, necessary, and successful in mitigating danger to the vessel and the marine environment. 3. The interim payment requested is reasonable, addressing financial hardship caused by procedural delays and ensuring the claimant’s ability to continue operations. Evidence includes financial statements, affidavits, and procedural records. Conclusion: The claimant is entitled to request an interim payment under Article 22, as the conditions of entitlement and reasonableness are satisfied. The tribunal/court should grant the request to ensure fairness and compliance with the Salvage Convention. Relevance to the Claim: 1. :Criticality of the Æquitable/Interim-Payment: Article 22 is directly relevant to the claimant’s request for an interim payment of ~1,703,400 NZD with the Rolls Building Admiralty Court, as detailed in the skeleton claim (argument) and N244 claim (application). 2. :Financial-Hardship: The claimant has demonstrated financial hardship caused by procedural delays, making the interim payment essential for maintaining operations and live-life that performs with these document-vessels. 3. Procedural Compliance: The claimant’s request aligns with the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 61, and the Admiralty Practice Direction that which govern the cures= interim-remedies by such Admiralty-claims. Fact-Data/Evidence: 1. Evidence of Services Rendered: Operation logs and salvage reports confirm the claimant’s role in rendering salvage services. Acknowledgment letters from the shipowner validate the claimant’s contribution. 2. Reasonableness of Payment: Financial statements and affidavits demonstrate the reasonableness of the interim payment requested. Procedural records highlight delays that necessitate the interim payment. 3. Procedural Integrity: The claimant’s compliance with procedural requirements under the Salvage Convention and Admiralty jurisdiction strengthens the claim. Historical Precedence. 1. The Blackwall (1869): Principle: Established the right of salvors to fair compensation based on the value of the property saved, the degree of danger, and the skill and effort involved. Relevance: Supports the claimant’s entitlement to an interim payment as a fair and just remedy for salvage services rendered. 2. The Tojo Maru (1971): Principle: Emphasised the importance of rewarding salvors for voluntary efforts in preventing loss or damage to property. Relevance: Reinforces the claimant’s right to an interim payment for mitigating danger to the vessel and the marine environment. 3. The Ion (1980): Principle: Invalidated reliance on procedural technicalities when clear evidence of salvage services was presented. Relevance: Highlights the importance of fairness and equity in granting interim payments. 4. The Stolt Loyalty (1995): Principle: Reinforced the rights of salvors in maritime salvage operations, emphasising the corrective legal framework supporting salvage rewards. Relevance: Aligns with the claimant’s request for an interim payment under Article 22. Consummation: A tribunal should grant the request to ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention and uphold the principles of fairness, equity and corrective-justice].
:~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~25 AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE STATE-STEWARD-CARGOES[STATE OWNED CARGOES] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE VOID-POSITION[REMOVAL] OF THE FREE-PASS[IMMUNITY] WITH THE DUE-PERFORMANCE BY THE COMMERCIAL-NATURE[This claim is based on Article 25 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which removes sovereign immunity for State-owned cargoes when they are used for commercial purposes. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], seeks enforcement of this provision following salvage operations rendered to a vessel carrying State-owned cargo. Key Provisions: 1. Article 25 of the Salvage Convention 1989: Sovereign immunity applies to non-commercial State-owned cargoes unless the State owner consents. If the cargo is of a commercial nature, immunity is removed, and the cargo may be subject to seizure, arrest, or detention by legal process. 2. State Immunity Act 1978, Section 3(3): Defines “commercial purposes” as any con-tract for the supply of goods or services, loans, or other financial transactions. This aligns with the removal of immunity for commercial State-owned cargoes. 3. Brussels Convention 1926: Equates claims against State-owned ships or cargoes to those of privately owned ships when the cargo is used for commercial purposes. Analysis: Issue: Does the MSD claim involve the removal of sovereign immunity for State-owned cargoes due to their commercial nature, and how does Article 25 strengthen the claim? Rule: 1. Sovereign immunity is removed under Article 25 if the State-owned cargo is used for commercial purposes. 2.The UK State Immunity Act 1978, Section 3(3) defines commercial purposes as con-tracts for goods or services, loans, or financial transactions. 3. Under the Brussels Convention 1926, State-owned cargoes used for commercial purposes are treated similarly to privately owned cargoes.Application: 1. The claimant rendered salvage services to a vessel carrying State-owned cargo. Evidence provided in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates that the cargo is of a commercial nature. Documentation includes bills of lading, con-tracts, and financial records, which demonstrate that the cargo is involved in the supply of goods or services, satisfying the definition of “commercial purposes” under the State Immunity Act 1978. 2. Correspondence with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, acknowledges the salvage services in the MSD letter dated 28 March 2025, further validating the claimant’s entitlement to proceed against the State-owned cargo under Article 25. 3. Historical precedents, such as The Philippine Admiral (1977) and I Congreso del Partido (1983), confirm that State-owned cargoes used for commercial purposes are not entitled to sovereign immunity. Conclusion: The claim under Article 25 of the Salvage Convention 1989 is valid. The evidence provided demonstrates that the State-owned cargo is of a commercial nature, removing sovereign immunity and allowing the claimant to proceed with their salvage claim. The tribunal or court should enforce the provisions of Article 25 to: 1. Ensure compliance with the Salvage Convention. 2. Allow the claimant to pursue compensation for salvage operations. Legal Basis: 1. Salvage Convention 1989, Article 25: Establishes conditions for the removal of sovereign immunity for State-owned cargoes. 2. State Immunity Act 1978, Section 3(3): Defines “commercial purposes” and supports the removal of sovereign immunity. 3. Brussels Convention 1926: Aligns State-owned commercial cargoes with privately owned cargoes in salvage claims. 4. UK Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(h): Governs claims for salvage services under Admiralty law. Case Law References: 1. The Philippine Admiral (1977): Confirms that State-owned cargoes used for commercial purposes are not entitled to sovereign immunity. 2. I Congreso del Partido (1983): Establishes that the commercial nature of an activity removes sovereign immunity, even if the act is governmental. 3. The Bold Buccleugh (1851): Reinforces the salvor’s right to a lien, which applies to State-owned cargoes used for commercial purposes. Supporting Fact-Data/Evidence. 1. Bills of Lading: Demonstrates the commercial nature of the cargo. 2. Contracts and Financial Records: Establishes that the cargo was involved in commercial transactions. 3. MSD Letter (28 March 2025): Acknowledges the claimant’s salvage services. 4. Operation Logs and Salvage Reports: Documents the claimant’s performance of salvage operations. 5. Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3: Contain detailed evidence supporting the claim. Relevance: This article ensures salvors can pursue claims against State-owned cargoes that are used for commercial purposes, removing sovereign immunity and protecting the salvor’s financial interests].
:~HISTORICAL-SALVAGE-CONVENTION-PRECEDENT[sic]/~1 OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-CLAIM IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CASE OF THE CLIFFORD-MAERSK/~1982 AND WITH THE WIDEN[EXTENSION] OF THE [TIME]DROGUE-LIMITATION WITH THE CONGRUENT-POSITION OF THE PARTIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[The Clifford Maersk (1982) case is noted for addressing disputes related to salvage claims, particularly emphasising the agreement between the parties regarding time limitations and the extension of certain obligations under the salvage contract].
:~HISTORICAL-SALVAGE-CONVENTION-PRECEDENT[sic]/~2 OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-CLAIM IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CASE OF THE STRATHNEWTON/~1983 AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE[EFFECT] OF THE LODGEMENT[SUBMISSION] WITH THE INTER-CLUB-TYPE[sic]/NEW-YORK-PRODUCE-EXCHANGE[sic]/N.-Y.-P.-E-AGREEMENT[sic] AND WITH THE [IN]CORPORATION OF THE HAGUE-RULES AND: SAME-CHARTER-PARTY WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[The Strathnewton (1983) case examined the incorporation of the Hague Rules into a charterparty agreement, highlighting the importance of clear contractual terms in disputes between shipowners and charterers].
:~HISTORICAL-SALVAGE-CONVENTION-PRECEDENT[sic]/~3 OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-CLAIM IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CASE OF THE ION/~1980 AND WITH THE SHOW-FACTS OF THE DOCUMENT/LETTER WITH THE VOID-RELIANCE OF THE TIME-BAR[sic] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[The Ion (1980) case addressed the invalidation of reliance on a time-bar defence when clear documentary evidence was presented, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in maritime disputes].
:~HISTORICAL-SALVAGE-CONVENTION-PRECEDENT[sic]/~4 OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-CLAIM IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CASE OF THE HENRIK-SIF/~1982 AND WITH THE ESTOPPEL[sic] OF THE COUNTER-CLAIMANT[DEFENDANT] WITH THE HALT[DENIAL] OF THE PARTY-POSITION AND: BILL OF THE LAD[ING] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[The Henrik Sif (1982) case established the application of estoppel to prevent a party from denying obligations under a bill of lading, reinforcing the binding nature of such documents in maritime trade].
:~HISTORICAL-SALVAGE-CONVENTION-PRECEDENT[sic]/~5 OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-CLAIM IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CASE OF THE AUGUST-LEONHARDT/~1984 AND WITH THE CONJECTURE[ASSUMPTION] OF THE CONDITION AND: WIDEN-GRANT[EXTENSION] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[The August Leonhardt (1984) case examined the extension of time limits for salvage claims under specific conditions, emphasising the importance of mutual agreement in salvage operations].
:~HISTORICAL-SALVAGE-CONVENTION-PRECEDENT[sic]/~6 OF THIS SALVAGE-CONVENTION-CLAIM IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE SALVORS WITH THE CASE OF THE STOLT-LOYALTY/~1995 AND THE POSITION OF THE SALVORS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[The Stolt Loyalty (1995) case reinforced the rights of salvors in maritime salvage operations, particularly emphasising the corrective/legal framework supporting salvage rewards for successful efforts].:~2007-NAIROBI-INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-ON-THE-REMOVAL-OF-WRECKS[sic]/WRECK-CLEARANCE-CONVENTION/W.-C.-C.
:C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-RULE-VERSIONS OF THE W.-C.-C. ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS BY THE D.-C.-T.-C.
:~W.-C.-C.-~1.4 AND FOR THE W.-C.-C.-FINITE-MEANS OF THE HAZARD.
:HAZARD OF THIS FINITE-MEAN IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE DANGER-CONDITION OR THREAT-CONDITION AND WITH THE BLOCK/HALT/SHACKLE/MEDDLE OF THE NAVIGATION AND REASONABLENESS/FAIRNESS-CONJECTURE OF THE OUTCOME AND: MARITIME-HARM-CONSEQUENCE/COASTLINE-DAMAGE WITH THE CONDITIONAL-PERFORMANCE OF THE ~1/OEN-STATE OR OF THE MORE-STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THESE ~W.-C.-C.-~1.4-FACTS AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.[Article 1(4): “Definition of a Hazard”(4) “Hazard” means any condition or threat that: (a) poses a danger or impediment to navigation; or (b) may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences to the marine environment, or damage to the coastline or related interests of one or more States].
:~W.-C.-C.-~1.4/~1 OF A HAZARD IS WITH THIS CLAIM-PERFORMANCE OF THE DANGER/SHACKLE[IMPEDIMENT] WITH THE NAVIGATION BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 1.4/1: Danger or Impediment to Navigation.Issue: Does the claim involve a condition or threat that poses a danger or impediment to navigation? Rule: “Any condition or threat that poses a danger or impediment to navigation” (Article 1(4)(a)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant identifies a wreck that constitutes a hazard by obstructing safe navigation in a designated maritime zone. Evidence includes navigational charts, photographs, and reports from maritime authorities confirming the obstruction. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~1.4/~1 is valid as it involves a condition that poses a danger to navigation. Relevance: This subsection is critical as it addresses the claimant’s responsibility to ensure safe navigation in the affected area. The wreck’s obstruction directly impacts maritime safety, necessitating immediate action. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 1(4)(a), defines hazards as conditions that pose a danger to navigation. The claimant’s evidence aligns with this definition, supporting their entitlement to address the hazard. Cross Reference: The definition of “hazard” aligns with the procedural requirements under Article 1(4)(a) of the Convention, which is recognized under the UK Admiralty jurisdiction as per Section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The claimant’s evidence, such as navigational charts and maritime authority reports, aligns with the Admiralty Court’s evidentiary standards].
:~W.-C.-C.-~1.4/~2 OF A HAZARD IS WITH THIS CONFIDENT-CONDITION[EXPECTATION]/REASONABLENESS AND WITH THE FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF OF THE MAJOR-HARMFUL-CONSEQUENCES WITH THE MARINE-LOCATION[ENVIRONMENT]-DAMAGE OF THE COASTLINE/RELATED-INTERESTS[sic] WITH ONE STATE OR WITH MORE STATES AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 1.4/~2: Harmful Consequences to the Marine Environment. Issue: Does the claim involve a condition or threat that may result in major harmful consequences to the marine environment or damage to the coastline? Rule: “Any condition or threat that may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences to the marine environment, or damage to the coastline or related interests of one or more States” (Article 1(4)(b)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant identifies a wreck leaking hazardous substances into the marine environment, threatening the coastline and marine biodiversity. Evidence includes environmental impact assessments, water quality reports, and expert testimony. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~1.4/~2 is valid as it involves a condition that may result in major harmful consequences to the marine environment. Relevance: It is the claimant’s duty to protect the marine environment and related interests. The wreck’s harmful consequences necessitate immediate mitigation measures. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 1(4)(b), defines hazards as conditions that may harm the marine environment or coastline. The claimant’s evidence supports their entitlement to address the hazard. Cross Reference: The claimant’s duty to address harmful consequences to the marine environment is supported by Article 1(4)(b) of the Convention and the principles of environmental protection under international maritime law. The evidence provided, including environmental impact assessments, aligns with the Admiralty Court’s requirements for claims involving environmental hazards].
:~W.-C.-C.-~7 OF THE WRECK-LOCATION[Article 7 – Locating Wrecks. 7.1: Upon becoming aware of a wreck in its Convention area, a State Party shall ensure that all practicable steps are taken to locate the wreck. 7.2: The State Party concerned may request the cooperation of other States Parties in locating the wreck. States Parties so requested shall use their best endeavours to comply with these requests. 7.3: When a wreck has been determined to constitute a hazard, the State Party concerned shall promptly inform the State of the ship’s registry and other States affected by the wreck].
:~W.-C.-C.-~7.1OF THE WRECK-LOCATE[LOCATING OF THE WRECK] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE-PARTY WITH THE [PRACTICABLE]CAPABLE-PERFORMANCE-STEPS AND: CAUTION[AWARENESS] OF THE WRECK WITH THE CONVENTION-ZONE[AREA] BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 7.1: Practicable Steps to Locate Wrecks. Issue: Does the claim involve the State Party’s obligation to take practicable steps to locate a wreck? Rule: “Upon becoming aware of a wreck in its Convention area, a State Party shall ensure that all practicable steps are taken to locate the wreck” (Article 7(1)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant, acting as proxy for the State Party, has undertaken efforts to locate a wreck within the Convention area. Evidence includes search operation logs, sonar imaging, and coordination with maritime authorities. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~7.1 is valid as it involves the State Party’s obligation to locate the wreck. Relevance: This subsection is crucial as it ensures the claimant’s compliance with the Convention’s requirements for locating wrecks. The claimant’s actions demonstrate due diligence in fulfilling this obligation. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 7(1), mandates practicable steps to locate wrecks. The claimant’s evidence supports their compliance with this requirement. Cross Reference: The obligation to take practicable steps to locate wrecks under Article 7(1) is consistent with the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction over maritime hazards as outlined in Section 20(1)(i) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The claimant’s actions, such as search operations and sonar imaging, align with the procedural requirements for locating wrecks].
:~W.-C.-C.-~7.2OF THE STATE-PARTY IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE QUEST-CLAIM[REQUEST] WITH THE WORK-MAINTENANCE[COOPERATION] OF OTHER AUXILIARY-STATE-PARTIES WITH THE WRECK-LOCATE BY THIS CLAIM. FOR A [FOREIGN]QUEST-CLAIM OF THE STATE-PARTIES IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS AND: [BEST ENDEAVOURS= ]QUALITY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE [FOREIGN REQUEST]QUEST-CLAIM-COMPLIANCE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 7.2: Cooperation Between State Parties. Issue: Does the claim involve the State Party’s request for cooperation from other States in locating a wreck? Rule: “The State Party concerned may request the cooperation of other States Parties in locating the wreck. States Parties so requested shall use their best endeavours to comply with these requests” (Article 7(2)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant, acting as proxy for the State Party, has formally requested cooperation from other States Parties to locate a wreck within the Convention area. Evidence includes official correspondence, cooperation agreements, and records of joint search operations. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~7.2 is valid as it involves the State Party’s request for cooperation and the obligation of other States to use their best endeavours to comply. Relevance: This subsection ensures international cooperation in locating wrecks, which is critical for maritime safety and environmental protection. The claimant’s actions align with the Convention’s principles of mutual assistance. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 7(2), mandates cooperation between States Parties. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates compliance with this requirement. Cross Reference: The claimant’s request for cooperation from other States aligns with Article 7(2) of the Convention and the principles of international cooperation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The evidence of formal correspondence and agreements demonstrates compliance with the Admiralty Court’s standards for international claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~7.3OF THE STATE-PARTY IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE QUICKNESS[PROMPTNESS] AND: PROOF/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE/FACT-DATA[INFORMATION] WITH THE STATE OF THE SHIP’S-CERTIFY-HEADQUARTERS[REGISTRY] AND OF OTHER QUALIFY-STATES WITH THE CONSUMMATION[DETERMINATION] OF THE WRECK AND: HAZARD WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 7.3: Prompt Notification of Affected States. Issue: Does the claim involve the State Party’s obligation to promptly inform affected States about a wreck? Rule: “When a wreck has been determined to constitute a hazard, the State Party concerned shall promptly inform the State of the ship’s registry and other States affected by the wreck” (Article 7(3)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has notified the State of the ship’s registry and other affected States about the wreck’s hazardous condition. Evidence includes official correspondence, notification logs, and acknowledgment receipts. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~7.3 is valid as it involves the State Party’s obligation to notify affected States. Relevance: This subsection is significant as it ensures transparency and cooperation among States in addressing the wreck’s hazards. The claimant’s actions align with the Convention’s principles of prompt notification. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 7(3), requires prompt notification of affected States. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates compliance with this obligation. Cross Reference: The obligation to promptly notify affected States under Article 7(3) is consistent with the Admiralty Court’s requirements for transparency and cooperation in maritime claims. The claimant’s notification logs and acknowledgment receipts align with the evidentiary standards for such claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~8: WRECK-MARKS[Article 8 – Marking of Wrecks. 8.1: If the wreck is determined to constitute a hazard, the affected State shall ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to mark the wreck. 8.2: The State concerned shall promulgate the particulars of the marking of the wreck by use of all appropriate means, including the appropriate nautical publications].
:~W.-C.-C.-~8.1OF THE [AFFECTED]CHARACTER-STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE REASONABLE-STEPS WITH THE MARK OF THE WRECK WITH THE CONSUMMATION[DETERMINATION] OF THE WRECK AND: HAZARD-PERFORMANCE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 8.1: Marking of Wrecks. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s obligation to take reasonable steps to mark a wreck determined to constitute a hazard? Rule: “If the wreck is determined to constitute a hazard, the affected State shall ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to mark the wreck” (Article 8(1)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has undertaken actions to mark a wreck determined to be a hazard, using buoys, lights, and other navigational aids. Evidence includes photographs, installation logs, and reports from maritime authorities. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~8.1 is valid as it involves the affected State’s obligation to mark the wreck. Relevance: This subsection is critical for ensuring maritime safety by alerting vessels to the presence of a hazardous wreck. The claimant’s actions demonstrate compliance with the Convention’s requirements. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 8(1), mandates the marking of hazardous wrecks. The claimant’s evidence supports their compliance with this obligation. Cross Reference: The obligation to mark hazardous wrecks under Article 8(1) aligns with the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction over maritime safety as outlined in Section 20(1)(i) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The claimant’s use of buoys, drogues, lights, and other navigational aids complies with the Admiralty Court’s standards for ensuring maritime safety].
:~W.-C.-C.-~8.2OF THE STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE PUBLIC-CLAIM/GIVE-KNOWLEDGE[PROMULGATION] WITH THE PARTICULARS OF THE SHOW-WRECK-MARKS[MARKING OF THE WRECK] WITH THE MAINTENANCE-PERFORMANCE OF ALL [APPROPRIATE]SUITABLE-MEANS WITH THE NAUTICAL-DOCUMENT-VESSEL-PUBLICATIONS BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 8.2: Promulgation of Wreck Marking. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s obligation to promulgate the particulars of the marking of a wreck? Rule: “The State concerned shall promulgate the particulars of the marking of the wreck by use of all appropriate means, including the appropriate nautical publications” (Article 8(2)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has disseminated information about the wreck’s marking through nautical charts, notices to mariners, and other publications. Evidence includes copies of the publications and distribution records. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~8.2 is valid as it involves the affected State’s obligation to promulgate the particulars of the marking. Relevance: This subsection ensures that mariners are informed about the location and marking of hazardous wrecks, enhancing navigational safety. The claimant’s actions align with the Convention’s principles of transparency and communication. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 8(2), requires the promulgation of wreck marking particulars. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates compliance with this requirement. Cross Reference: The obligation to promulgate the particulars of wreck marking under Article 8(2) is consistent with the Admiralty Court’s requirements for transparency and communication in maritime claims. The claimant’s dissemination of information through nautical charts and notices to mariners aligns with the evidentiary standards for such claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9: WRECK-CLEARANCE-MEASURES[Article 9 – Measures to Remove Wrecks. 9.1: If the wreck is determined to constitute a hazard, the affected State shall immediately: (a) Inform the shipowner and require the shipowner to remove the wreck within a reasonable timeframe established by the affected State; and (b) Inform the State of the ship’s registry and consult with that State and other States affected by the wreck. 9.2: The shipowner shall remove the wreck, and the affected State shall grant the necessary permissions for such removal. 9.3: The affected State may set conditions for the removal of the wreck, considering safety, environmental protection, and other relevant factors. 9.4: If the shipowner does not remove the wreck within the timeframe established, the affected State may: (a) Remove the wreck or take measures to remove it; and (b) Recover the costs of such measures from the shipowner in accordance with this Convention].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9 OF THE MEASURES-TO-FACILITATE-THE-REMOVAL-OF-WRECKS[sic] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE WRECK-CLEARANCE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE VESSEL-STEWARD[SHIPOWNER] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~W.-C.-C.-~9-CLAIM[Issue: Does the MSD claim involve measures to facilitate the removal of wrecks, and how does Article 9 of the Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007 strengthen the claim with the evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, along with Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of the claimant’s salvage services? Rule: “The affected State may take measures to facilitate the removal of wrecks, including rights and obligations of the shipowner to remove hazardous wrecks” (Article 9). Application: The MSD claim addresses the claimant’s compliance with obligations under Article 9 to facilitate the removal of wrecks. Evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates the claimant’s active role in removing hazardous wrecks, including operation logs, environmental assessments, and correspondence with the affected State. Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of the claimant’s salvage services further validates their adherence to the obligations under Article 9. Article 9 establishes that shipowners are responsible for removing wrecks that pose a hazard to navigation or the marine environment. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates their significant contribution to fulfilling this obligation, further strengthening their claim. Conclusion: The claim under ~W.-C.-C.-~9 is valid as evidence supports the claimant’s compliance with the obligations to facilitate the removal of wrecks under the Convention. The claimant’s documentation, Anna Graham’s letter, and the MSD’s acknowledgment of salvage services further strengthen the claim. Relevance: This article governs measures to facilitate the removal of wrecks, ensuring that hazardous wrecks are promptly removed to protect navigation and the marine environment. Support: The Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007, Article 9, establishes the obligations of shipowners and affected States to facilitate the removal of wrecks. The claimant’s evidence supports the claim. Cross-Reference: This article aligns with Section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which governs salvage operations and the removal of wrecks. It also supports claims under Section 20(1)(h) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which pertains to claims for salvage services].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.1OF THE [AFFECTED]CHARACTER-STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FOLLOW[ING]-MEASURES WITH THE CONSUMMATION[DETERMINATION] OF THE WRECK-HAZARD WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~W.-C.-C.-~9.1/~1 AND BY THE ~W.-C.-C.-~9.1/~2[ARTICLE 9.1. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s obligation to take measures following the determination of a wreck as a hazard? Rule: “If the wreck is determined to constitute a hazard, the affected State shall immediately: (a) Inform the shipowner and require the shipowner to remove the wreck within a reasonable timeframe; and (b) Inform the State of the ship’s registry and consult with that State and other States affected by the wreck” (Article 9(1)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant, acting as proxy for the affected State, has determined that the wreck constitutes a hazard. The claimant has informed the shipowner and required removal within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the claimant has consulted with the State of the ship’s registry and other affected States to coordinate measures for wreck removal. Evidence includes hazard assessment reports, formal notices to the shipowner, and consultation records. Conclusion: The claim under :~W.-C.-C.-~9.1 is valid as it involves the affected State’s obligation to take immediate measures following the determination of a wreck as a hazard. Relevance: This subsection is critical as it ensures prompt action to address wreck hazards, protecting navigation safety and the marine environment. The claimant’s actions align with the Convention’s principles of hazard mitigation and international cooperation. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(1), mandates immediate measures by the affected State upon determining a wreck as a hazard. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates compliance with these obligations. Cross Reference: The obligation to take immediate measures under Article 9(1) aligns with the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction over maritime hazards as outlined in Section 20(1)(i) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The claimant’s actions, such as informing the shipowner and consulting with affected States, comply with the procedural requirements for such claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.1/~1 OF THE STATE IS WITH THIS FACT-DATA[INFORMATION] AND WITH THE SHIP/VESSEL-STEWARD[OWNER] AND NEED[REQUIREMENT] OF THE FACTS/PROOF WITH THE CLEARANCE[REMOVAL] OF THE WRECK WITH THE REASONABLENESS/FAIRNESS OF THE DROGUE-PERFORMANCE[TIMEFRAME] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 9.1/~1: Shipowner’s Obligation to Remove Wrecks. Issue: Does the claim involve the shipowner’s obligation to remove a wreck within a reasonable timeframe? Rule: “The affected State shall inform the shipowner and require the shipowner to remove the wreck within a reasonable timeframe” (Article 9(1)(a)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has issued a formal notice to the shipowner, requiring the removal of the wreck within a specified timeframe. Evidence includes the notice, proof of delivery, and the shipowner’s acknowledgment. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~9.1/~1 is valid as it involves the shipowner’s obligation to remove the wreck. Relevance: This subsection is vital as it enforces the shipowner’s responsibility to address the wreck’s hazards. The claimant’s actions ensure accountability and compliance with the Convention. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(1)(a), mandates the shipowner’s obligation to remove wrecks. The claimant’s evidence supports their enforcement of this requirement].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.1/~2 OF THE STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS/FACT-DATA[INFORMATION] WITH THE CONSULTATION OF THE STATE AND: SHIP’S-CERTIFY-HEADQUARTERS[REGISTRY] AND OF OTHER [AFFECTED]QUALIFY-STATES WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 9.1/~2: Consultation with Affected States. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s obligation to consult with the State of the ship’s registry and other affected States regarding the wreck? Rule: “The affected State shall inform the State of the ship’s registry and consult with that State and other States affected by the wreck” (Article 9(1)(b)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has initiated consultations with the State of the ship’s registry and other affected States to determine the appropriate measures for wreck removal. Evidence includes meeting minutes, correspondence, and agreements reached during consultations. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~9.1/~2 is valid as it involves the affected State’s obligation to consult with relevant parties. Relevance: This subsection ensures collaborative decision-making in addressing wreck hazards, fostering international cooperation. The claimant’s actions align with the Convention’s principles of consultation and coordination. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(1)(b), mandates consultation with affected States. The claimant’s evidence supports their compliance with this requirement].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.2 OF THE SHIP/VESSEL-STEWARD[OWNER] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE WRECK-CLEARANCE[REMOVAL OF THE WRECK] WITH THE [NECESSARY]CORRECT-PERMISSIONS BY THE [AFFECTED]QUALIFY-STATE AND BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 9.2: Shipowner’s Obligation to Remove Wrecks. Issue: Does the claim involve the shipowner’s obligation to remove a wreck with the necessary permissions from the affected State? Rule: “The shipowner shall remove the wreck, and the affected State shall grant the necessary permissions for such removal” (Article 9(2)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has issued a formal notice to the shipowner, granting the necessary permissions for wreck removal. Evidence includes the notice, proof of delivery, and the shipowner’s acknowledgment. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~9.2 is valid as it involves the shipowner’s obligation to remove the wreck. Relevance: This subsection enforces the shipowner’s responsibility to address wreck hazards, ensuring accountability. The claimant’s actions demonstrate compliance with the Convention’s requirements. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(2), mandates the shipowner’s obligation to remove wrecks. The claimant’s evidence supports their enforcement of this requirement. Cross Reference: The shipowner’s obligation to remove wrecks under Article 9(2) is consistent with the Admiralty Court’s requirements for enforcing shipowner responsibilities. The claimant’s evidence, including formal notices and permissions, aligns with the evidentiary standards for such claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.3 OF THE [AFFECTED]QUALIFY-STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SET-CONDITIONS WITH THE CLEARANCE[REMOVAL] OF THE WRECK WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAFETY, LOCATION-SHIELD[ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SAFE HARBOUR] AND OF ALL/OTHER [RELEVANT]PERTINENT-FACTORS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 9.3: Conditions for Wreck Removal. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s right to set conditions for wreck removal? Rule: “The affected State may set conditions for the removal of the wreck, considering safety, environmental protection, and other relevant factors” (Article 9(3)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has established conditions for wreck removal, including safety protocols, environmental safeguards, and operational timelines. Evidence includes the conditions document, approval records, and compliance reports. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~9.3 is valid as it involves the affected State’s right to set conditions for wreck removal. Relevance: This subsection ensures that wreck removal is conducted safely and responsibly, minimising risks to the environment and maritime operations. The claimant’s actions align with the Convention’s principles of safety and environmental protection. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(3), allows affected States to set conditions for wreck removal. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates compliance with this provision. Cross Reference: The affected State’s right to set conditions for wreck removal under Article 9(3) aligns with the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction over maritime safety and environmental protection. The claimant’s conditions document and compliance reports demonstrate adherence to the procedural requirements for such claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.4 OF THE [AFFECTED]QUALIFY-STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FOLLOW[ING]-MEASURES WITH THE FAILURE-SITUATION/WRONG-PERFORMANCE OF THE SHIP/VESSEL-STEWARD[SHIPOWNER] WITH THE CLEARANCE[REMOVAL] OF THE WRECK AND/OR WITH THE BREACH OF THE DROGUE-PERFORMANCE[TIMEFRAME] WITH THE MAINTENANCE/PERFORMANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~W.-C.-C.-~9.4/~1 AND BY THE ~W.-C.-C.-~9.1/~2[ARTICLE 9.4. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s right to take measures in the event of the shipowner’s failure to remove the wreck or breach of the established timeframe? Rule: “If the shipowner does not remove the wreck within the timeframe established, the affected State may: (a) Remove the wreck or take measures to remove it; and (b) Recover the costs of such measures from the shipowner in accordance with this Convention” (Article 9(4)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has acted on behalf of the affected State to remove the wreck after the shipowner failed to comply with the removal timeframe. The claimant has also initiated cost recovery measures against the shipowner. Evidence includes operation logs of the wreck removal, cost breakdowns, and formal notices issued to the shipowner regarding cost recovery. Conclusion: The claim under :~W.-C.-C.-~9.4 is valid as it involves the affected State’s right to take measures following the shipowner’s failure to perform their obligations. Relevance: This subsection ensures that wreck hazards are addressed promptly, even in cases of shipowner non-compliance. The claimant’s actions demonstrate adherence to the Convention’s principles of safety, responsibility, and cost recovery. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(4), grants affected States the right to remove wrecks and recover costs in cases of shipowner non-compliance. The claimant’s evidence supports their entitlement to take such measures. Cross Reference: The affected State’s right to take measures in the event of shipowner non-compliance under Article 9(4) is consistent with the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction over maritime hazards. The claimant’s evidence, including operation logs and cost recovery documentation, aligns with the procedural requirements for such claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.4/~1 OF THE STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE WRECK-CLEARANCE[REMOVAL OF THE WRECK] AND/OR OF THE WRECK-CLEARANCE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE WRECK-CLEARANCE-MEASURES AND KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 9.4/~1: State’s Right to Remove Wrecks. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s right to remove a wreck if the shipowner fails to do so? Rule: “If the shipowner does not remove the wreck within the timeframe established, the affected State may remove the wreck or take measures to remove it” (Article 9(4)(a)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has undertaken wreck removal operations after the shipowner failed to comply with the established timeframe. Evidence includes operation logs, removal reports, and cost breakdowns. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~9.4/~1 is valid as it involves the affected State’s right to remove the wreck. Relevance: This subsection ensures that wreck hazards are addressed promptly, even in cases of shipowner non-compliance. The claimant’s actions demonstrate adherence to the Convention’s principles of safety and responsibility. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(4)(a), grants affected States the right to remove wrecks in cases of shipowner non-compliance. The claimant’s evidence supports their entitlement to take such measures. Cross Reference: This Article is supported by related provisions such as Articles 7(3), 9(1), and 9(3). These articles collectively establish the affected State’s right to remove a wreck in cases of shipowner non-compliance, ensuring adherence to safety, environmental protection, and procedural requirements].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9.4/~2 OF THE STATE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE COST-[RE]COVERY WITH THE CLEARANCE-MEASURES AND: LIABILITY OF THE SHIP/VESSEL-STEWARD[SHIPOWNER] WITH THE WRECK-CLEARANCE-CONVENTION/W.-C.-C. BY THIS CLAIM[ARTICLE 9.4/~2: Cost Recovery for Wreck Removal. Issue: Does the claim involve the affected State’s right to recover costs for wreck removal from the shipowner? Rule: “The affected State may recover the costs of such measures from the shipowner in accordance with this Convention” (Article 9(4)(b)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant seeks reimbursement for costs incurred in removing the wreck. Evidence includes invoices, receipts, and detailed accounting records of the removal operation. Conclusion: The claim under W.-C.-C.-~9.4/~2 is valid as it involves cost recovery for wreck removal. Relevance: This subsection is critical as it ensures the claimant’s financial recovery for actions taken to remove the wreck. The claimant’s evidence substantiates their entitlement to reimbursement. Support: The 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, Article 9(4)(b), provides for cost recovery from the shipowner. The claimant’s evidence aligns with this provision. Cross Reference: The affected State’s right to recover costs under Article 9(4)(b) aligns with the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction over financial claims related to maritime hazards. The claimant’s detailed accounting records and invoices comply with the evidentiary standards for such claims].
:~W.-C.-C.-~9-SUPPLEMENTARY AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE [AFFECTED]CONCERN-STATES IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE WRECK-CLEARANCE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE [DETAILED]COMPLETE-RECORDS BY THE WRECK-REMOVAL AND BY THE CLAIMANT’S-BREAK-BAULK-CHOICE[MORE THAT THREE CHANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND HAVE PASSED FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S ACCOUNTABILITY AND FIX OF THE RAPE/TRESPASS/VIOLATIONS][This supplementary claim provides additional evidence of compliance with Article 9 of the Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], lodges the following: Issue: The claimant identifies the issue of compliance with Article 9 of the Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007, specifically addressing the obligations of: 1. Shipowners to remove hazardous wrecks that pose risks to navigation or the marine environment. 2. Affected States to ensure the removal of such wrecks by notifying the shipowner, consulting with the State of the ship’s registry, and setting conditions for wreck removal. 3. Affected States to recover costs from shipowners when they fail to remove hazardous wrecks. Rule: Article 9 of the Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007 establishes the following obligations: 1. Shipowners must promptly remove wrecks that pose a hazard to navigation or the marine environment. 2. Affected States must take measures to ensure wreck removal, including: Informing the shipowner, Consulting with the State of the ship’s registry, Setting conditions for wreck removal. 3 If the shipowner fails to comply, the affected State may remove the wreck and recover costs from the shipowner. Application: The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain [Proxy], demonstrates compliance with Article 9 through the following: 1. Operation Logs: Detailed records in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 document the claimant’s wreck removal efforts, including: Timelines of operations, Methodologies used in wreck removal, Safety protocols followed during operations. 2. Cost Assessments: The claimant provides a detailed breakdown of expenses incurred during wreck removal, which is supported by financial records and the chain of custody. These cost assessments are included in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. 3. Correspondence with Affected States: The claimant coordinated with affected States, as evidenced by: Official correspondence, Acknowledgment receipts from affected States, confirming compliance with notification and consultation obligations under Article 9. Conclusion: This supplementary claim under Article 9 of the Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007 is valid. The claimant has complied with the obligations to: 1. Remove hazardous wrecks. 2. Notify and consult with affected States. 3. Provide detailed records of operations and costs. The fact-data/proof/evidence, including operation logs, cost assessments, and correspondence with affected States, is documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3. This supplementary entry reinforces the claimant’s entitlement to recover costs and ensures adherence to international standards for maritime safety and environmental protection.
For the admiralty-court/tribunal of this lodgement:
Issue: Does the claimant comply with Article 9 of the Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007, which requires shipowners and affected States to remove hazardous wrecks to protect navigation and the marine environment?
Rule: Article 9 obligates: Shipowners to remove hazardous wrecks, Affected States to notify and consult with the shipowner and the ship’s registry, Affected States to remove the wreck and recover costs if the shipowner fails to act.
Application: The claimant has: Documented wreck removal operations (timelines, methods, safety protocols), Provided detailed cost assessments for the wreck removal, Coordinated with affected States, as shown by correspondence and acknowledgment receipts.
Conclusion: The claimant has fully complied with Article 9, as evidenced by the records in the Common Bundle, and is entitled to recover costs for the wreck removal].
:~W.-C.-C.-~10 AND FOR THE LIABILITY OF THE STEWARD[OWNER] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE LIABILITY-PERFORMANCE OF THE VESSEL-STEWARD[SHIPOWNER] WITH THE [A]RISE-OUT OF THE WRECK-CLEARANCE[REMOVAL] AND OF THE HAZARD WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] AND POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE STEWARD[OWNER] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~W.-C.-C.-~10-CLAIM[Issue: Does the MSD claim involve the liability of the shipowner for wreck removal, and how does Article 10 of the Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007 strengthen the claim with the evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, along with Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of the claimant’s salvage services? Rule: “The shipowner shall be liable for the costs of locating, marking, and removing the wreck unless they can prove that the incident was caused by an act of war, hostilities, or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character” (Article 10). Application: The MSD claim addresses the shipowner’s liability for wreck removal under Article 10. Evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates the claimant’s efforts to locate, mark, and remove hazardous wrecks, including operation logs, cost assessments, and correspondence with the affected State. Anna Graham’s acknowledgment of the claimant’s salvage services further validates their role in fulfilling the shipowner’s liability under Article 10. Article 10 establishes that shipowners are liable for the costs of wreck removal unless they can prove that the incident was caused by exceptional circumstances beyond their control. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates that the shipowner’s actions or omissions contributed to the hazard, further strengthening the claim. Conclusion: The claim under the ~W.-C.-C.-~10 is valid as evidence supports the claimant’s position that the shipowner is liable for the costs of wreck removal under the Convention. The claimant’s documentation, Anna Graham’s letter, and the MSD’s acknowledgment of salvage services further strengthen the claim. Relevance: This article governs the liability of shipowners for wreck removal, ensuring that they are held accountable for the costs of locating, marking, and removing hazardous wrecks. Support: The Nairobi Wrecks Convention 2007, Article 10, establishes the liability of shipowners for wreck removal. The claimant’s evidence supports the claim. Cross-Reference: This article aligns with Section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which governs salvage operations and the removal of wrecks. It also supports claims under Section 20(1)(h) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which pertains to claims for salvage services].
:~MARITIME-RULES OF THE U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S./UNCLOS[sic][UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA] AND CONVENTION-NATIVITY-LOCATION/~MONTEGO-BAY/~JAMAICA AND DATE/~10-~DECEMBER-~1982 ARE WITH THESE U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-PART-CLAIMS[UNCLOS ARTICLES] BY THE ~D.-C.-T.-C.
:STATE/STATES-PARTY AND/OR STATE/STATES-PARTIES OF THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-FINITE-MEAN ARE WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE MEMBER-STATES[INCLUDING NEW ZEALAND AND UNITED KINGDOM] OF THE CONSENT/COMPLIANCE WITH THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-CONVENTION OF THE [IN]FORCE WITH THE BIND BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-CONVENTION[State/States-Parties means States which have consented to be bound by the UNCLOS Convention and for which this Convention is in force= New Zealand, United Kingdom].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~2– FOR THE STATUS OF THE TERRITORIAL-SEA/AIR-SPACE/BED/SUBSOIL IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~2-CLAIMS. :~2.1: TERRITORIAL-SEA-SOVEREIGNTY IS: CLAIM: SOVEREIGNTY-REACH[EXTENSION]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION/AUTHORITY[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS]/P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE-FURTHER[BEYOND] AND OF ITS LAND-TERRITORY/[INTERNAL]LAND-ZONE-WATERS/[ARCHIPELAGIC]OUTER-CHAIN-WATERS WITH A CONTIGUOUS-BELT OF THE SEA/TERRITORIAL-SEA WITH THE FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~2.2: TERRITORIAL-SEA-SOVEREIGNTY-REACH IS: CLAIM: SOVEREIGNTY-REACH-PERFORMANCE WITH THE AIR-SPACE OF[OVER] THE TERRITORIAL-SEA/BED/SUBSOIL WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~2.3: TERRITORIAL-SEA-SOVEREIGNTY-HOLD[EXERCISE] IS: CLAIM: SOVEREIGNTY-HOLD-PERFORMANCE AND: SUBJECT WITH THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-CONVENTION AND WITH OTHER RULES OF THE GLOBAL-LAWS WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 2. Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space over the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil. 1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea. 2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil. 3. The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~5– FOR THE STANDARD-BASELINE AND FOR THE BREADTH-MEASUREMENT OF THE TERRITORIAL-SEA IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THESE FACTS WITH THE STANDARD-BASELINE OF THE LOW-WATER-LINE-PERFORMANCE AND: COAST WITH THE LARGE-SCALE-CHARTS AND: MARKS OF THE COASTAL-STATE-FACTS[OFFICIAL] WITH THE POSITION/AUTHORITY[RIGHTS] AND P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE AND: MEASUREMENT BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 5. Normal baseline Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~7OF THE STRAIGHT-BASELINES IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~7-CLAIMS. :~7.1: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-LOCALITY-OETI[USE] IS: CLAIM: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-JOIN[ING]-POINTS-PERFORMANCE AND: LOCALITIES WITH THE CORRECT-VOLITION/CUT-WITHIN-COASTLINES OR WITH A FRINGE OF THE OUTER-[IS]LANDS AND OF THE CLOSE-VICINITY-COAST WITH THE DRAW[ING]-MARKS OF THE BASELINE AND WITH THE TERRITORIAL-SEA-BREADTH-MEASUREMENT AND P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~7.2: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-DELTA[sic]/LACK-STABLE-COASTLINE IS: CLAIM: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-SELECTION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE FURTHEST-SEAWARD-SPREAD OF THE LOW-WATER-LINE WITH THE DELTA[sic]/LACK-STABLE-COASTLINE-CONDITIONS AND: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-VALIDITY AND WITH THE LACK-PASS-BACK OF THE LOW-WATER-LINE[NOTWITHSTANDING LOW-WATER-LINE REGRESSION] WITH THE CHANGE OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-CONVENTION OF THE LODGEMENT/KNOWLEDGE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~7.3: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-DI-RECTION/LINKAGE IS: CLAIM: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-DRAW[ING]-PERFORMANCE[NOT DEPARTING] WITH A WORTHY-SPREAD AND WITH THE GENERAL-DI-RECTION OF THE COAST AND: SEA-AREAS WITH[WITHIN] THE SUFFICIENT-CLOSE-LINE-LINKS OF THE LAND-DOMAIN WITH THE REGIME[sic]/[GOVERNANCE-RULE OF THE [INTERNAL]LAND-ZONE-WATERS WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~7.5: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-LOCAL-BUSINESS[ECONOMIC INTERESTS] IS: CLAIM: STRAIGHT-BASELINES-SETTLEMENT-PERFORMANCE WITH THE [AC]COUNTS OF THE LOCAL-BUSINESS-PECULIARITIES WITH THE TERRITORY OF THE CONCERN AND: REALITY/LONG-OETI[USE]-FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 7. Straight baselines. 1. In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. 2. Where because of the presence of a delta and other natural conditions the coastline is highly unstable, the appropriate points may be selected along the furthest seaward extent of the low-water line and, notwithstanding subsequent regression of the low-water line, the straight baselines shall remain effective until changed by the coastal State in accordance with this Convention. 3. The drawing of straight baselines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast, and the sea areas lying within the lines must be sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters. 5. Where the method of straight baselines is applicable under paragraph 1, account may be taken, in determining particular baselines, of economic interests peculiar to the region concerned, the reality and the importance of which are clearly evidenced by long usage. ‘Area’ means the sea-bed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~8– FOR THE [INTERNAL]LAND-ZONE-WATERS IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~8-CLAIMS. :~8.1 AND FOR THE [INTERNAL WATERS]LAND-ZONE-WATERS OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-FINITE-MEANS ARE WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE [INTERNAL WATERS]LAND-ZONE-WATERS-FORMATION-PERFORMANCE-FACTS WITH THE WATERS OF THE WITHIN WITH THE LANDWARD-SIDE OF THE BASELINE AND OF THE TERRITORIAL-SEA AND WITH THE VOID-PERFORMANCE OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-PART-~4[IV]-RULES WITH THE POSITION/AUTHORITY[RIGHTS] AND P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~8.1-FINITE-MEANS-CLAIM. :~8.2: [INTERNAL WATERS]LAND-ZONE-WATERS-HARMLESS-PASSAGE IS: CLAIM: HARM-FREE-PASSAGE-POSITION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE ZONES OF THE [INTERNAL WATERS]LAND-ZONE-WATERS AND OF THE VALID-STRAIGHT-BASELINES WITH THE CORRECT-POSITION OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~7 WITH THE LACK-PAST-CONSIDERATION OF THE [INTERNAL WATERS]LAND-ZONE-WATERS-NATURE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~8.2-CLAIM[Article 8. Internal waters 1. Except as provided in Part IV, waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the state. 2. Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such, a right of innocent passage as provided in this Convention shall exist in those waters].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~11 OF THE PORTS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THESE FACTS WITH THE SEA-BOUNDARY-LIMIT OF THE PORTS-TERRITORY WITH THE OUTERMOST-POSITION-PERFORMANCE OF THE PERMANENT-HARBOUR-WORKS WITH THE [INTEGRAL]CORE-PART OF THE HARBOUR-SYSTEM AND: COAST-FORMATION-PART WITH THE SEA-BOUNDARY-LIMIT OF THE TERRITORIAL-SEA WITH THE POSITION/AUTHORITY[RIGHTS] AND P.-A.-P.-T.-B. BY THE COASTAL-STATE. FOR THE VOID-PERFORMANCE OF THE [OFF]LACK-SHORE-CONSTRUCTS/FALSE-[IS]LANDS ARE WITH THE LACK-CONSIDERATION OF THE PERMANENT-HARBOUR-WORKS-POSITION WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~11-CLAIM[Article 11. Ports. For the purpose of delimiting the territorial sea, the outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour system are regarded as forming part of the coast. Off-shore installations and artificial islands shall not be considered as permanent harbour works].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~13– FOR THE RISE[ELEVATIONS] OF THE LOW-TIDE IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~13-CLAIMS. :~13.1– FOR THE LOW-TIDE-RISE[ELEVATION] OF THIS FINITE-MEAN/BASELINE-OETI[USE] IS: CLAIM: LOW-TIDE-RISE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE NATURAL-FORMATION BY THE LAND. FOR THE SURROUND OF THE HIGHER-PLACE-WATER AND OF[AT] THE LOW-TIDE IS WITH THE POSITION-SUBMERGE OF[AT] THE HIGH-TIDE AND: LOW-WATER-LINE WITH THE OETI[USE] OF THE BASELINE WITH THE TERRITORIAL-SEA BY THE BREADTH-MEASUREMENT. FOR THE RISE OF THE LOW-TIDE[ELEVATION] IS WITH[WITHIN] THE BREADTH OF THE TERRITORIAL-SEA WITH THE MAINLAND/[IS]LAND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE AND: RISE BY THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~13.1-CLAIM. :~13.2– FOR THE VOID-POSITION OF THE TERRITORIAL-SEA-ZONE IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE [BEYOND]TERRITORIAL-SEA WITH THE LOW-TIDE-RISE[ELEVATION]-WHOLE OF THE BEYOND-BREADTH AND OF THE TERRITORIAL-SEA WITH THE MAINLAND/[IS]LAND BY THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~13.2-CLAIM[Article 13. Low-tide elevations. 1. A low-tide elevation is a naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide. Where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or an island, the low-water line on that elevation may be used as the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea. 2. Where a low-tide elevation is wholly situated at a distance exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or an island, it has no territorial sea of its own].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~60– FOR THE ARTIFICIAL-ISLANDS[sic]/INSTALLATIONS[sic]/STRUCTURES/A.-I.-I.-S. OF THE EXCLUSIVE-ECONOMIC-ZONE[sic]/E.-E.-Z. IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~60-CLAIMS. :~60.1: A.-I.-I.-S.-POSITION[RIGHTS] IS: CLAIM: [EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS]MONOPOLY-POSITION-PERFORMANCE OF THE COASTAL-STATE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION/AUTHORISATION/RULES[REGULATION] OF THE A.-I.-I.-S. WITH THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~56-PURPOSES/DI-FFERENT-BUSINESS-PURPOSES AND: A.-I.-I.-S. OF THE CONFLICT-CREATION[INTERFERING] WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] BY THE COASTAL-STATE. :~60.2: A.-I.-I.-S.-JURISDICTION IS: CLAIM: MONOPOLY-JURISDICTION-POSITION-PERFORMANCE OF THE A.-I.-I.-S. WITH THE CUSTOMS/FISCAL/HEALTH/SAFETY/MIGRATION-LAWS-AND-RULES[REGULATIONS] BY THE COASTAL-STATE. :~60.3: A.-I.-I.-S.-CLAIM/TAKE-DOWN[REMOVAL] IS: CLAIM: DUE-CLAIM-POSITION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND: PERMANENT-WARN-MEANS-MAINTENANCE AND: TAKE-DOWN[REMOVAL] OF THE LOST/LEFT[ABANDONED]/LACK-OETI-BUILDS[DISUSED INSTALLATIONS]/STRUCTURES WITH THE NAVIGATION-SAFETY OF THE DUE-FOCUS WITH THE FISHING/MARINE-ZONE-SHIELD/POSITION[RIGHTS] AND DUTIES OF OTHER STATES WITH THE DEPTH/POSITION/DIMENSIONS OF THE LACK-TAKE-DOWN-BUILDS/STRUCTURES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY A PUBLIC-SHARE. :~60.4: A.-I.-I.-S.-SAFETY-ZONES IS: CLAIM: NAVIGATION-SAFETY AND A.-I.-I.-S.-SAFETY WITH THE GAIN-SAFE-POSITION-PERFORMANCE AND: SAFETY-ZONES BY THE COASTAL-STATE. :~60.7: A.-I.-I.-S.-NAVIGATION-TROUBLE/CONFLICT[INTERFERENCE] IS: CLAIM: CORRECT-CONSIDERATION-PERFORMANCE AND: A.-I.-I.-S./SURROUND[ING]-SAFETY-ZONES WITH THE BLOCK/CONFLICT/HARASSMENT OF THE SEA-LANES AND GLOBAL-NAVIGATION WITH THE LACK-BUILD-PERFORMANCE BY THE COASTAL-STATE.
[Article 60. Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone. 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of: (a) artificial islands; (b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes; (c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone. 2. The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such artificial islands, installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration laws and regulations. 3. Due notice must be given of the construction of such artificial islands, installations or structures, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation, taking into account any generally accepted international standards established in this regard by the competent international organisation. Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other States. Appropriate publicity shall be given to the depth, position and dimensions of any installations or structures not entirely removed. 4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such artificial islands, installations and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of the artificial islands, installations and structures. 5. The breadth of the safety zones shall be determined by the coastal State, taking into account applicable international standards. Such zones shall be designed to ensure that they are reasonably related to the nature and function of the artificial islands, installations or structures, and shall not exceed a distance of 500 metres around, them, measured from each point of their outer edge, except an authorized by generally accepted international standards or a recommended by the competent international organisation. Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones. 6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones. 7. Artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zone round them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation. 8. Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~80– FOR THE [ARTIFICIAL]FALSE-[IS]LANDS/BUILD-PERFORMANCE/STRUCTURES OF THE CONTINENTAL-SHELF ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THESE FACTS WITH THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~60-CLAIM OF THE MUTATIS-MUTANDIS AND: CHANGE-NEED-THINGS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~80-CLAIM[Article 80. Artificial islands, installations and structures on the continental shelf. Article 60 applies mutatis mutandis to artificial islands, installations and structures on the continental shelf].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~87– FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE HIGH-SEASIS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~87-CLAIMS. :~87.1: HIGH-SEAS-FREEDOM/H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: CLEAR-WAY[OPEN ACCESS]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE POSITION/AUTHORITY[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS]/P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~87.1a: H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: NAVIGATION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~87.1b: H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: AIR-SPACE[OVERFLIGHT]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~87.1c: H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: SUBMARINE-CABLES/PIPELINES-LAY[ING]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-PART-~6-CONDITIONS AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~87.1d: H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: NATURAL-PLACE-FALSIFICATIONS[ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS]/LAND-PLATFORMS/SET-PLACE[INSTALLATIONS]-CONSTRUCTION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-PART-~6-CONDITIONS AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~87.1e: H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: FISH[ING]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~87.2-CONDITIONS AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~87.1f: H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: SCIENTIFIC-[RE]SEARCH-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-PARTS-~6/~13-CONDITIONS AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~87.2: H.-S.-F. IS: CLAIM: DUE-CONSIDER-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE LOOK[RESPECT] OF THE [OTHER]AUXILIARY-STATES’-POSITION[INTERESTS AND RIGHTS UNDER THE UNCLOS] WITH THE LOCATION-PERFORMANCES[ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA] AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 87. Freedom of the high seas. 1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States: (a) freedom of navigation; (b) freedom of overflight; (c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; (d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI; (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; (f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII. 2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area. ‘Area’ means the sea-bed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction]
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~88– FOR THE PEACEFUL-PURPOSES-HOLD[RESERVATION] OF THE HIGH-SEAS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE PEACEFUL-OETI[USE]-PERFORMANCE AND: HIGH-SEAS WITH THE BALANCE OF THE HONOUR/GRACEFUL-VOLITION[DO NO HARM] WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ~1/OEN-RULE AND SAME-ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE POSITION OF THE PEACE/NEUTRALITY WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 88. Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes. The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~89– FOR THE VOID-VALIDITY-CLAIMS OF THE HIGH-SEAS-SOVEREIGNTY[SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE HIGH-SEAS] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE VOID[NON]-SOVEREIGNTY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 89. Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas. No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~90– FOR THE POSITION/AUTHORITY[RIGHT] OF THE NAVIGATION IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE NAVIGATION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 90. Right of navigation. Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~91OF THE SHIP-TERRITORY/STATE[NATIONALITY] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE NATIONALITY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES AND SHIPS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THESE D.-C.-T.-C.-~91-CLAIMS. :~91.1: SHIP-NATIONALITY IS: CLAIM: FLAG-STATE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE GENUINE-LINK OF THE STATE AND OF THE SHIP WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~91.2: SHIP-NATIONALITY IS: CLAIM: FLAG-DOCUMENTATION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CORRECT SHIP’S-PAPERS/LOGBOOKS/JOURNALS/VESSEL-KNOWLEDGE WITH THE MEET-COMPLIANCE OF THE SEA-LAWS AND: SALVAGE-RULES WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 91. Nationality of ships. 1. Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship. 2. Every State shall issue to ships to which it has granted the right to fly its flag documents to that effect.
:CSSCPSG-Flag(Title 4 Flag with the 1 x 1.9 ratio) gains the “genuine link” needs by UNCLOS in compliance with Article 91 by the make sure of the effective jurisdiction and control over vessels flying its flag, as mandated under Article 94 of UNCLOS. This genuine link is demonstrated through the maintenance of correct ship’s papers, logbooks, and journals, as well as adherence to international sea laws and salvage rules, ensuring compliance with the duties of the flag State. The CSSCPSG-Flag is with correct-balance and alignment of the principles and clarification in the M/V “SAIGA” (No. 2) Case and the M/V “Virginia G” Case, which shares that the genuine link is not a pre-requisite for the validity of ship registration but a mechanism to secure the correct implementation of the flag State’s responsibilities and accountability. These responsibilities include the make sure that vessels comply with global standards regarding design, construction, equipment, and manning, as well as monitor and halt of lack authorise performances in other States’ maritime zones. The CSSCPSG-Flag is compliant with SOLAS 1974, MARPOL, and other IMO instruments, which fulfil the “generally accepted international regulations” need under UNCLOS Article 94. This compliance extends to the shield of the marine territories, environment and safety of navigation with that need under Articles 94(3) and 217(2) of UNCLOS. Conclusion: the CSSCPSG-Flag and the Live-Life-Claimant’s performances are genuine and compliant with UNCLOS Article 91, as they maintain the genuine link through effective jurisdiction, adherence to international standards, and correct documentation and vessel-performances under their flag to safely traverse upon the high-seas of this continuum moment now-space].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~92OF THE SHIPS-STATUS IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FLAG-STATE-JURISDICTION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES AND SHIPS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THESE D.-C.-T.-C.-~92-CLAIMS. :~92.1: SHIPS-STATUS IS: CLAIM: [EXCLUSIVE]SHUT-OUT-JURISDICTION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~92.2: SHIPS-STATUS IS: CLAIM: LACK[NON]-NATIONALITY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES AND SHIPS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 92. Status of ships. 1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas. A ship may not change its flag during a voyage or while in a port of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry. 2. A ship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using them according to convenience, may not claim any of the nationalities in question with respect to any other State, and may be assimilated to a ship without nationality].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~94– FOR THE DUTIES OF THE FLAG-STATE ARE WITH THESE FACTS AND: P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~94-CLAIMS. :~94.1: FLAG-STATE-JURISDICTION/GUIDANCE[CONTROL] IS: CLAIM: [EFFECTIVE]CORRECT-JURISDICTION/GUIDANCE[CONTROL]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE MINISTRATIVE/TECHNICAL/SOCIAL-MATTERS OF THE SHIPS WITH THE FLY[ING] OF THE STATE-FLAG WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~94.1-CLAIM[This establishes the obligation of every State to exercise effective jurisdiction and control over ships flying its flag in administrative, technical, and social matters]. :~94.2: FLAG-STATE-SPECIFIC-DUTIES ARE: SPECIFIC-DUTIES-PERFORMANCE BY THE FLAG-STATE AND BY THE ~94.2a/~94.2b[This outlines specific duties of the flag State, including maintaining a ship register and assuming jurisdiction over ships and their personnel in administrative, technical, and social matters]. :~94.2a: SHIP-REGISTRATION[sic] IS: CLAIM: REGISTER-MAINTENANCE-PERFORMANCE[sic] WITH THE NAMES/PARTICULARS OF THE FLAG-FLY[ING]-SHIPS WITH THE LEAVE-OUT OF THE SMALL-SIZE-SHIP WITH THE SHUT-OUT[EXCLUDE] BY THE GLOBAL-RULE-STANDARDS. :~94.2b: [INTERNAL]LOCAL-LAW-JURISDICTION IS: CLAIM: LOCAL-LAW-JURISDICTION-PERFORMANCE WITH THEIR FLAG-FLY[ING]-SHIPS AND WITH THEIR MASTERS/OFFICERS[sic]/CREW OF THEIR [AD]MINISTRATIVE/TECHNICAL/SOCIAL-MATTERS WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. BY THE STATE. :~94.3: FLAG-STATE-SAFETY-MEASURES IS: CLAIM: SAFETY-MEASURES-PERFORMANCE BY THE FLAG-FLY[ING]-SHIPS AND BY THE ~94.3a/~94.3b /~94.3c[This requires the flag State to ensure safety at sea, addressing ship construction, manning, labour conditions, crew training, and collision prevention]. :~94.3a: SHIP-CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT/SEAWORTHINESS IS: CLAIM: SAFETY-MEASURES-PERFORMANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION/FURNITURE[EQUIPMENT]/SEAWORTHINESS OF THE SHIPS WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. BY THE STATE. :~94.3b: SHIP-MAN[NING]/LABOUR-CONDITIONS/CREW-TRAIN[ING] IS: CLAIM: SAFETY-MEASURES-PERFORMANCE AND: SHIP-MAN[NING]/LABOUR-CONDITIONS/CREW-TRAIN[ING] AND WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE GLOBAL-RULES[International instruments= SOLAS (1974) for safety standards. MARPOL (1973/78) for pollution prevention. COLREGs (1972) for navigation rules. STCW (1978) for crew training and certification. Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention (2007) for wreck removal. London Convention (1972) for pollution by dumping. Civil Liability Conventions (1992) for oil pollution damage] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. BY THE STATE. :~94.3c: SIGNALS/COMMUNICATIONS/COLLISION-HALT-MEASURES[PREVENTION] IS WITH THE SAFETY-MEASURES-PERFORMANCE OF THE SIGNALS/COMMUNICATIONS/COLLISION-HALT-MEASURES[PREVENTION] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. BY THE STATE. :~94.4: FLAG-STATE-SURVEY/QUALIFICATION-MEASURES IS: CLAIM BY THESE SURVEY/QUALIFICATION-MEASURES-PERFORMANCES AND BY THE ~94.4a/~94.4b/~94.4c[This mandates measures such as ship surveys, ensuring appropriate qualifications for masters and crew, and observance of international safety regulations]. :~94.4a: SHIP-SURVEY/NAUTICAL-FURNITURE[EQUIPMENT] IS: CLAIM: SURVEY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE REGISTRATION OF THE EARLIER[BEFORE] AND OF[AT] OTHER MOMENTS[INTERVALS] WITH THE CHARTS/NAUTICAL-PUBLICATIONS/VESSEL-NAVIGATIONAL-FURNITURE[ON BOARD] BY THE SAFE-NAVIGATION-PERFORMANCE. :~94.4b: MASTER/OFFICERS/CREW-QUALIFICATIONS IS: CLAIM: QUALIFICATION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE MASTERS/OFFICERS[sic]/CREW OF THE SEAMANSHIP/NAVIGATION/COMMUNICATIONS/MARINE-ENGINEER[ING] WITH THE CREW-NUMBERS/CORRECT-QUALIFICATIONS[APPROPRIATE] BY THE SHIP-TYPE/SIZE/FURNITURE[EQUIPMENT]. :~94.4c: GLOBAL-SAFETY-RULES-WATCH[OBSERVANCE] IS: CLAIM: WATCH-PERFORMANCE AND: GLOBAL-SAFETY-RULES WITH THE LIFE-SAFETY/COLLISION-HALT-MEASURES/MARINE-POLLUTION-GUIDANCE[CONTROL]/RADIO-COMMUNICATIONS BY THE MASTERS/OFFICERS[sic]/CREW. :~94.5: GLOBAL-RULES-CONFORMITY IS: CLAIM: CONFORMITY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE GLOBAL-RULES/METHOD-CONDUCT/LEADERSHIP AND: MANDATORY-STEPS BY THE GAIN-CORRECT-WATCH[OBSERVANCE][This emphasises conformity with international regulations and the necessity of securing their observance]. :~94.6: FLAG-STATE-SCRUTINY-DUTY[INVESTIGATION OBLIGATION] IS: CLAIM: SCRUTINY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE GIVE-KNOWLEDGE[REPORT] OF THE WRONG-JURISDICTION/GUIDANCE[CONTROL] AND: WITH THE CORRECTIVE-PERFORMANCE[NECESSARY ACTION] AND: CURE[REMEDY] BY THE SITUATION[This obligates the flag State to investigate reports of improper jurisdiction or control and take necessary remedial action]. :~94.7: MARINE-CASUALTY-FACT-SCRUTINY[INQUIRY] IS: CLAIM: FACT-SCRUTINY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE MARINE-CASUALTIES/FALL[INCIDENTS] OF THE NAVIGATION WITH THE FLAG-FLY[ING]-SHIPS OF THE MARINE-CASUALTIES/FALL[INCIDENTS] WITH OTHER STATES-COOPERATION BY THE FACT-SCRUTINY-PERFORMANCE[This requires the flag State to conduct inquiries into marine casualties or incidents involving its ships and cooperate with other States in such inquiries][Article 94. Duties of the flag State. 1. Every State shall effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag. 2. In particular every State shall: (a) maintain a register of ships containing the names and particulars of ships flying its flag, except those which are excluded from generally accepted international regulations on account of their small size; and (b) assume jurisdiction under its internal law over each ship flying its flag and its master, officers and crew in respect of administrative, technical and social matters concerning the ship. 3. Every State shall take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard, inter alia, to: (a) the construction, equipment and seaworthiness of ships; (b) the manning of ships, labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable international instruments; (c) the use of signals, the maintenance of communications and the prevention of collisions. 4. Such measures shall include those necessary to ensure: (a) that each ship, before registration and thereafter at appropriate intervals, is surveyed by a qualified surveyor of ships, and has on board such charts, nautical publications and navigational equipment and instruments as are appropriate for the safe navigation of the ship (b) that each ship is in the charge of a master and officers who possess appropriate qualifications, in particular in seamanship, navigation, communications and marine engineering, and that the crew is appropriate in qualification and numbers for the type, size, machinery and equipment of the ship; (c) that the master, officers and, to the extent appropriate, the crew are fully conversant with and required to observe the applicable international regulations concerning the safety of life at sea, the prevention of collisions, the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution, and the maintenance of communications by radio. 5. In taking the measures called for in paragraphs 3 and 4 each State is required to conform to generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices and to take any steps which may be necessary to secure their observance. 6. A State which has clear grounds to believe that proper jurisdiction and control with respect to a ship have not been exercised may report the facts to the flag State. Upon receiving such a report, the flag State shall investigate the matter and, if appropriate, take any action necessary to remedy the situation. 7. Each State shall cause an inquiry to be held by or before a suitably qualified person or persons into every marine casualty or incident of navigation on the high seas involving a ship flying its flag and causing loss of life or serious injury to nationals of another State or serious damage to ships or installations of another State or to the marine environment. The flag State and the other State shall co-operate in the conduct of any inquiry held by that other State into any such marine casualty or incident of navigation. ‘Dumping’ of the UNCLOS-finite-means: (a) (i) any deliberate disposal of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea; (ii) any deliberate disposal of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea. (b) ‘dumping’ does not include: (i) the disposal of wastes or other matter incidental to, or derived from the normal operations of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea and their equipment, other than wastes or other matter transported by or to vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea, operating for the purpose of disposal of such matter or derived from the treatment of such wastes or other matter on such vessels, aircraft, platforms or structures; (ii) placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of this Convention].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~95-CLAIMOF THE WARSHIP-FREE-PASS[WARSHIP IMMUNITY] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE WARSHIP-FREE-PASS-PERFORMANCE AND: FLAG-STATE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR THE VOID-CLAIM OF A WARSHIP-FREE-PASS[WARSHIP IMMUNITY] IS WITH THE COERCION-POSITION/HIDE-PERFORMANCE OF A STATE AND: [NOT LIMITED TO]MARTIAL-LAW-SYMBOLISM, FLAG-SPIRE/SPEARHEAD-FINIALS[~ARMY-REGULATIONS-~840–10-MANUAL, ~CHAPTER-~8.2] OR OF OTHER SYMBOLIC-PERFORMANCE WITH THE FAIL OF THE FORMAL-CLAIM[DECLARATION AND SUBSTANTIATED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW] AND: COMPLIANCE WITH THE PEACEFUL-PURPOSES OF THE HIGH-SEAS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~88-CLAIM[RESERVATION] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 95. Immunity of warships on the high seas. Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. The Void of the Warship immunity is with that position claimed and act of coercion claiming the immunity position as an act of war or martial law status such as using Marshal Law state by way of hiding that status which fails compliance with the UNCLOS 88].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~96OF THE GOVERNMENT-SHIPS-FREE-PASS[GOVERNMENT SHIP IMMUNITY] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT-SHIP-FREE-PASS-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR THE VOID-CLAIM OF A GOVERNMENT-SHIPS-FREE-PASS[GOVERNMENT SHIP IMMUNITY] IS WITH THE COERCION-POSITION/HIDE-PERFORMANCE OF A STATE AND WITH THE COMMERCE-PERFORMANCES OF THE FLAG-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~88-CLAIM[RESERVATION] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 96. Immunity of ships used only on government noncommercial service. Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. The void of the government ship immunity is with that position claimed and act of coercion claiming the position when that government is performing commerce and commerce activities and by way of hiding that status which fails compliance with the UNCLOS 88].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~97– FOR THE PENAL-JURISDICTION OF THE COLLISION-MATTERS AND OF ANY/OTHER NAVIGATE-INCIDENTS[sic] IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~97-CLAIMS. :~97.1– FOR THE SHIP-COLLISION/NAVIGATION–INCIDENT[sic] OF THE HIGH-SEAS IS: CLAIM: PENAL/CORRECTIONS-DUTY WITH THE MASTER/SHIP-AUTHORITY-PERSONS AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL/MINISTRATIVE-AUTHORITIES AND: FLAG-STATE OR WITH THE NATIONAL-STATE OF THE PERSONS WITH THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER STATE-AUTHORITIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM. :~97.2 OF THE CORRECTION-MATTERS AND: MASTER’S-CERTIFICATE/COMPETENCE-CERTIFICATE[LICENCE] IS WITH THIS CLAIM: WITHDRAWAL-COMPETENCE AND OF THE CERTIFICATE-STATE WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DUE-PERFORMANCE[LEGAL PROCESS] WITH THE SHUT-OUT[EXCLUSION] OF THE NATIONAL-STATE AND: HOLDER WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIM. :~97.3 AND FOR THE STOP/CATCH-HOLD[ARREST/DETENTION] OF THE SHIP IS: CLAIM: WITH THE [INVESTIGATION]FACTS-SCRUTINY-MEASURE AND: SOLE-TASK OF THE FLAG-STATE-AUTHORITIES[ONLY] WITH THE SHUT-OUT[EXCLUSION] OF THE STOP/CATCH-HOLD[ARREST/DETENTION] WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF THE LACK-FLAG-STATE-AUTHORITIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 97. Penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation. 1. In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national. 2. In disciplinary matters, the State which has issued a master’s certificate or a certificate of competence or licence shall alone be competent after due legal process, to pronounce the withdrawal of such certificates, even if the holder is not a national of the State which issued them. 3. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by any authorities other than those of the flag State].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~98– FOR THE DUTY OF THE GIVE-AID[DUTY TO RENDER ASSISTANCE] IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~98-CLAIMS. :~98.1: GIVE-AID-DUTY[DUTY TO RENDER ASSISTANCE] IS: CLAIM: GIVE-AID-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~98.1a: GIVE-AID-DUTY IS: CLAIM: PERSON/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE AND: [IN]DANGER-GIVE-AID-DUTY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE AND THE WITH THE MASTER OF THE SHIP WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~98.1b: GIVE-AID-DUTY IS: CLAIM: SAVE[RESCUE]-PERSONS/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES OF THE IN-DISTRESS-PERFORMANCE[sic] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE AND WITH THE MASTER OF THE SHIP WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~98.1c: GIVE-AID-DUTY IS: CLAIM: COLLISION-GIVE-AID-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE FLAG-STATE AND WITH THE MASTER OF THE SHIP WITH THE GIVE-KNOWLEDGE OF THE COLLISION WITH THE CLOSE-PORTS OF THE CALL WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~98.2: GIVE-AID-DUTY IS: CLAIM: SEARCH-AND-SAVE-PERFORMANCE[RESCUE SERVICE PROMOTION] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE COASTAL-STATE AND: LOCAL-COASTAL-STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 98. Duty to render assistance. 1. Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers; (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him; (c) after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it will call. 2. Every coastal State shall promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate with neighbouring States for this purpose].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~100– FOR THE CO-OPERATE/MAINTENANCE-DUTY OF THE PIRACY-SUBDUE[REPRESSION] IS CLAIM: PIRACY-SUBDUE-CO-OPERATION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF ALL STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 100. Duty to co-operate in the repression of piracy. All States shall co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~101– FOR THE PIRACY OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-FINITE-MEANS IS WITH THE CONSIST OF ANY/THE FOLLOW[ING]-PIRACY-PERFORMANCES WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~101-CLAIMS. :~101a: PIRACY-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THIS FINITE-MEANS-CLAIM: VIOLATION-POSITION AND: VIOLENCE/HOLD-BACK/CONFINEMENT[DETENTION]/PLUNDER/PILLAGE[DEPREDATION]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW/PASSENGERS/VASSALEES AND: [PRIVATE/COMMERCIAL ENTITY]SHIP/AIRCRAFT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~101a-i: PIRACY-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THIS FINITE-MEANS-CLAIM: HIGH-SEAS-PERFORMANCE[ACT] AND OF[AGAINST] ANOTHER AUXILIARY-SHIP/AIRCRAFT/PERSONS/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/THINGS[PROPERTY] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW/PASSENGERS/VASSALEES AND: [PRIVATE]SHIP/AIRCRAFT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~101a-ii: PIRACY-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THIS FINITE-MEANS-CLAIM: OUTSIDE-JURISDICTION/TRESPASS-PERFORMANCE[ACT] OF[AGAINST] A SHIP/AIRCRAFT/PERSONS/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/THINGS[PROPERTY] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW/PASSENGERS/VASSALEES AND: [PRIVATE]SHIP/AIRCRAFT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~101b: PIRACY-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THIS FINITE-MEANS-CLAIM: VOLUNTARY-PARTICIPATION AND: PIRATE-SHIP/AIRCRAFT-MAINTENANCE[OPERATION]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW/PASSENGERS/VASSALEES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~101c: PIRACY-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THIS FINITE-MEANS-CLAIM: MOTION/FACILITATE-PIRACY-PERFORMANCE[ACT] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW/PASSENGERS/VASSALEES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 101. Definition of piracy. Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or air-craft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b)].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~102– FOR THE WARSHIP/GOVERNMENT-SHIP/GOVERNMENT-AIRCRAFT AND MUTINY-CREW-PERFORMANCE OF THE PIRACY IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~102-CLAIMS. :~102.1: WARSHIP/GOVERNMENT-SHIP/GOVERNMENT-AIRCRAFT-PIRACY AND: CREW-MUTINY IS: CLAIM: PIRACY-PERFORMANCE[ACT] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW AND OF A WARSHIP/GOVERNMENT-SHIP/GOVERNMENT-AIRCRAFT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~102.1a: WARSHIP/GOVERNMENT-SHIP/GOVERNMENT-AIRCRAFT-PIRACY AND: CREW-MUTINY IS: CLAIM: MUTINY-PERFORMANCE[ACT] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW AND OF A WARSHIP/GOVERNMENT-SHIP/GOVERNMENT-AIRCRAFT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. :~102.1b: WARSHIP/GOVERNMENT-SHIP/GOVERNMENT-AIRCRAFT-PIRACY AND: CREW-MUTINY IS: CLAIM: [PRIVATE]CONFIDENTIALITY-SHIP/AIRCRAFT-JUXTAPOSITION-PERFORMANCE[ASSIMILATION TO PRIVATE ACTS] AND: ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~101-POSITION WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B./PARTICIPATION OF THE CREW AND OF A WARSHIP/GOVERNMENT-SHIP/GOVERNMENT-AIRCRAFT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 102. Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied. The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~103– FOR THE PIRATE-SHIP/AIRCRAFT OF THIS FINITE-MEAN IS WITH THIS FACT-CLAIM: PIRATE-SHIP/AIRCRAFT AND: VOLITION[INTENT]/OETI[USE]-PERFORMANCE WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE DOMINANT-GUIDANCE[CONTROL]-PERSONS WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMIT OR OF THE EALIER-OETI[PRIOR USE] WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~101 AND WITH THE CONTINUITY OF THE GUIDANCE[CONTROL] AND: PERSONS-GUILTY WITH THE SHIP/AIRCRAFT-STAY-PERFORMANCE[REMAINS] OF THE SAME-GUIDANCE[CONTROL] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 103. Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft. A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~105– FOR THE SEIZURE OF A PIRATE-SHIP/AIRCRAFT IS: CLAIM: PIRATE-SHIP/AIRCRAFT-SEIZURE-PERFORMANCE[ACTION] WITH THE LOCATION OF THE HIGH-SEAS/OUTSIDE-STATE-JURISDICTION WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF EVERY STATE WITH THE STOP/CATCH-HOLD[ARREST] OF THE PERSONS AND WITH THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY-ON-BOARD[sic] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM.
FOR THE COURT-PERFORMANCE OF THE SEIZURE IS: CLAIM: PENALTY-CHOICE/[ACTION]DETERMINATION-PERFORMANCE WITH THE COURTS OF THE STATE WITH THE CARRY-OUT OF THE THE SEIZURE WITH THE GOOD-FAITH OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES/AUTHORITY-POSITIONS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 105. Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft. On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~192 OF THE GENERAL-DUTY[OBLIGATION] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THESE FACTS WITH THE SHIELD/CONSERVATION-DUTY OF THE MARINE-LOCATIONS WITH THE POSITION/AUTHORITY[RIGHTS] AND P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~192-CLAIM[Article 192. General obligation. States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~218 AND FORCEMENT: PORT-STATES[ENFORCEMENT BY PORT STATES]
:~218.1– FOR THE VOLUNTARY-POSITION OF THE PORT-VESSEL/[OFF]OUTER-SHORE-TERMINAL AND OF THE STATE IS: CLAIM: [INVESTIGATION]FACT-SCRUTINY-PERFORMANCE AND: CONDUCT/MEASURE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE [DISCHARGE]DROP-LOAD-VIOLATION OF THE VESSEL WITH THE OUTSIDE OF THE [INTERNAL]LAND-ZONE-WATERS/TERRITORIAL-SEA/E.-E.-Z. AND OF THE STATE WITH THE VIOLATION OF THE GLOBAL-RULES-STANDARDS OF THE COMPETENT-GLOBAL-ORGANISATION/GENERAL-DIPLOMATIC-CONFERENCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~218.1-CLAIM. :~218.3– FOR THE VOLUNTARY-POSITION OF THE PORT-VESSEL/[OFF]OUTER-SHORE-TERMINAL AND OF THE STATE IS: CLAIM: [INVESTIGATION]FACT-SCRUTINY WITH THE QUEST-CLAIM[REQUEST] AND: COMPLIANCE-PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE WITH THE QUEST-CLAIM OF THE AUXILIARY-STATE WITH THE [DISCHARGE]DROP-LOAD-VIOLATION OF THE VESSEL WITH THE DAMAGE/THREAT AND: [INTERNAL]LAND-ZONE-WATERS/TERRITORIAL-SEA/E.-E.-Z. BY THE QUEST-CLAIM[REQUEST]-STATE. FOR THE QUEST-CLAIM[REQUEST] OF THE FLAG-STATE IS WITH THE [INVESTIGATION]FACT-SCRUTINY-COMPLIANCE-PERFORMANCE OF THE VIOLATION WITH THE VIOLATION-LOCATION BY THIS ~218.3-CLAIM[Article 218. Enforcement by port States. 1. When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State may undertake investigations and, where the evidence so warrants, institute proceedings in respect of any discharge from that vessel outside the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of that State in violation of applicable international rules and standards established through the competent international organisation or general diplomatic conference. 3. When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State shall, as far as practicable, comply with requests from any State for investigation of a discharge violation referred to in paragraph 1, believed to have occurred in, caused, or threatened damage to the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of the requesting State. It shall likewise, as far as practicable comply with requests from the nag State for investigation of such a violation, irrespective of where the violation occurred].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~220AND FORCEMENT: COASTAL-STATES[ENFORCEMENT BY COASTAL STATES]
:~220.1– FOR THE VOLUNTARY-POSITION OF THE PORT-VESSEL/[OFF]OUTER-SHORE-TERMINAL AND OF THE STATE IS: CLAIM: CONDUCT/MEASURE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE VIOLATION OF THE STATE-LAWS/RULES AND STANDARDS WITH THE GLOBAL-RULES-STANDARDS OF THE POLLUTION-HALT/LESSEN/GUIDANCE[CONTROL] WITH THE POSITION OF THE VIOLATION WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL-SEA/E.-E.-Z. OF THE STATE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~220.1-CLAIM. :~220.2– FOR THE CLEAR-GROUNDS OF THE VIOLATION ARE WITH THE VESSEL OF[WITHIN] THE TERRITORIAL-SEA AND WITH THE STATE OF THE PHYSICAL-INSPECTION-PERFORMANCE [sic] AND: CONDUCT/MEASURE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE HOLD[DETENTION] OF THE VESSEL WITH THE VIOLATION OF THE STATE-LAWS/RULES AND STANDARDS WITH THE GLOBAL-RULES-STANDARDS OF THE POLLUTION-HALT/LESSEN/GUIDANCE[CONTROL] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~220.2-CLAIM. :~220.3- FOR THE CLEAR-GROUNDS OF THE VIOLATION ARE WITH THE VESSEL OF[WITHIN] THE E.-E.-Z./TERRITORIAL-SEA AND WITH THE QUEST-CLAIM-STATE OF THE FACT-DATA-PERFORMANCE[INFORMATION] WITH THE IDENTITY[sic]/PORT-OF-REGISTRY[sic] OF THE VESSEL, LAST/NEXT-PORT OF THE CALL AND OF OTHER PERTINENT-FACT-DATA AND: VIOLATION-CONCLUSIONS WITH THE GLOBAL-RULES-STANDARDS OF THE POLLUTION-HALT/LESSEN/GUIDANCE[CONTROL] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~220.3-CLAIM[Article 220. Enforcement by coastal States. 1. When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State may, subject to section 7, institute proceedings in respect of any violation of its laws and regulations adopted in accordance with this Convention or applicable international rules and standards for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels when the violation has occurred within the territorial sea or the exclusive economic zone of that State. 2. Where there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel navigating in the territorial sea of a State has, during its passage therein, violated laws and regulations of that State adopted in accordance with this Convention or applicable international rules and standards for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels, that State, without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of Part 11, section 3, may undertake physical inspection of the vessel relating to the violation and may, where the evidence so warrants, institute proceedings, including detention of the vessel, in accordance with its laws, subject to the provisions of section 7. 3. Where there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel navigating in the exclusive economic zone or the territorial sea of a State has, in the exclusive economic zone, committed a violation of applicable international rules and standards for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels or laws and regulations of that State conforming and giving effect to such rules and standards, that State may require the vessel to give information regarding its identity and port of registry, its last and its next port of call and other relevant information required to establish whether a violation has occurred].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~223– FOR THE MEASURES OF THE [PROCEEDINGS]CORRECTIVE-PERFORMANCE-FACILITATION ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THE FACTS WITH THE HEAR[ING] OF THE WITNESSES AND WITH THE PERMIT[ADMISSION] OF THE FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] BY THE STATE-AUTHORITIES[ANOTHER] OR BY THE COMPETENT-GLOBAL-AUTHORITY-PARTY[INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION]. FOR THE DI-RECT-PERFORMANCE[ATTENDANCE] OF THE CORRECTIVE-PARTIES[OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES] AND OF THE COMPETENT-GLOBAL-AUTHORITY-PARTY, FLAG-STATE AND OF ANY POLLUTION-VIOLATE[D]-STATE IS WITH THE FACILITATION BY THIS CLAIM. FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND DUTIES OF THE CORRECTIVE-PARTIES ARE WITH THE COMPLIANCE BY THE NATIONAL-LAWS[REGULATIONS] OR BY THE GLOBAL-LAW[Article 223. Measures to facilitate proceedings. In proceedings instituted pursuant to this Part, States shall take measures to facilitate the hearing of witnesses and the admission of evidence submitted by authorities of another State, or by the competent international organisation, and shall facilitate the attendance at such proceedings of official representatives of the competent international organisation, the flag State and any State affected by pollution arising out of any violation. The official representatives attending such proceedings shall have such rights and duties as may be provided under national laws and regulations or international law].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~231– FOR THE QUICK-PERFORMANCE[PROMPT NOTIFICATION] OF THE FLAG-STATE AND OF ANY/OTHER CONCERN[ED]-STATE IS WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THESE FACTS WITH THE TAKE-MEASURES OF THE FOREIGN-VESSELS[sic] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE[PURSUANT] BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~SECTION-~6[sic]. FOR THE LODGEMENT[SUBMISSION] OF THE FLAG-STATE-FACT-DATA/PROOF[OFFICIAL REPORTS] IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THIS CLAIM. FOR THE CONTINUUM-MOMENT[NOW]-SPACE-FACT-DATA[IMMEDIATE INFORMATION] OF THE FLAG-STATE AND OF THE DIPLOMATIC-AGENTS[sic], CONSULAR-OFFICERS[sic] AND MARITIME-AUTHORITY IS WITH THE COMPLIANCE BY THIS CLAIM[Article 231. Notification to the flag State and other States concerned. States shall promptly notify the flag State and any other State concerned of any measures taken pursuant to section 6 against foreign vessels, and shall submit to the flag State all official reports concerning such measures. However, with respect to violations committed in the territorial sea, the foregoing obligations of the coastal State apply only to such measures as are taken in proceedings. The diplomatic agents or consular officers and where possible the maritime authority of the flag State, shall be immediately informed of any such measures taken pursuant to section 6 against foreign vessels].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~231-SUPPLEMENTARY AND FOR THE POSITION[RIGHTS] OF THE FLAG-STATES IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE[ACKNOWLEDGMENT] BY THE FLAG-STATE-CLAIM[NOTIFICATION][This supplementary claim provides additional evidence of compliance with Article 231 of UNCLOS. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], lodges the following: Issue: The claimant identifies the issue of compliance with Article 231 of UNCLOS, specifically addressing the obligation to promptly notify the flag State and other concerned States of measures taken against foreign vessels, ensuring transparency and adherence to international law. Rule: Article 231 of UNCLOS establishes that: 1. States must promptly notify the flag State and any other concerned States of measures taken against foreign vessels. 2. Official reports concerning such measures must be submitted to the flag State. 3. Diplomatic agents, consular officers, and maritime authorities of the flag State must be immediately informed of such measures. Application: The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage-Captain[Proxy], demonstrates compliance with Article 231 through the following: 1. Notification Logs: Detailed records in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 document the claimant’s prompt notification to the flag State and other concerned States. These logs include: Dates and times of notifications. Methods of communication (e.g., electronic mail, registered post). 2. Acknowledgment Receipts:
Evidence of acknowledgment receipts from the flag State and other concerned States confirms that notifications were received. 3. Official Reports: The claimant has submitted official reports to the flag State, detailing the measures taken against the foreign vessel. These reports are included in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, providing a comprehensive account of compliance. Conclusion: The supplementary claim under Article 231 of UNCLOS is valid. The supplementary claim under Article 231 of UNCLOS is valid. The claimant’s compliance with the obligations to: 1. Promptly notify the flag State and other concerned States, 2. Submit official reports, and
3. Provide immediate information to diplomatic agents and maritime authorities is substantiated by: Notification logs, Acknowledgment receipts, and Official reports, as documented in Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3.
This supplementary entry reinforces the claimant’s adherence to international law, ensuring transparency and alignment with the principles of fairness and equity under Article 231 of UNCLOS.
For the admiralty-court/tribunal of this lodgement:
Issue: Does the claimant comply with Article 231 of UNCLOS, which requires prompt notification and reporting to the flag State and other concerned States about measures taken against foreign vessels?
Rule: Article 231 obligates States to notify the flag State, provide reports, and inform relevant diplomatic or maritime authorities.
Application: The claimant has: 1. Sent timely notifications to the flag State and other concerned States (evidenced by logs). 2. Received acknowledgment receipts confirming notification. 3. Submitted detailed reports to the flag State about the measures taken.
Conclusion: The claimant has fully complied with Article 231, as shown by the provided logs, receipts, and reports in the Common Bundle].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~235 OF THE COUNTABILITY AND LIABILITY[RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY]
:~235.1– FOR THE COUNTABILITY[RESPONSIBILITY] OF THE STATE IS: CLAIM: DUTY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE GLOBAL-PLEDGES[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE MARINE-ZONE-SHIELD/KEEP-GOOD[PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION] AND: LIABILITY-POSITION WITH THE GLOBAL-LAW[INTERNATIONAL LAW] BY THIS ~235.1-CLAIM. :~235.2- FOR THE GUARANTEE OF THE STATE IS: CLAIM: READINESS[PROMPT]/FAIR-COMPENSATION-POSITION WITH THE DAMAGE OF THE MARINE-ZONE-POLLUTION WITH[WITHIN] THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE-JURISDICTION WITH THE PLACE-BACK-PERFORMANCE OF THE AUTHORITY/POSITION WITH THE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE NATURAL/JURIDICAL-PERSONS AND BY THIS ~235.2-CLAIM. :~235.3– FOR THE CO-OPERATION OF THE STATE IS: CLAIM: READINESS[PROMPT]/FAIR-COMPENSATION-POSITION WITH THE MARINE-ZONE-POLLUTION-DAMAGE OF THE GLOBAL-LAW-FULFILMENT-PERFORMANCE AND: GLOBAL-LAW-GROWTH-PERFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTABILITY[RESPONSIBILITY]/LIABILITY OF THE DAMAGE-CONSUMMATION/COMPENSATION AND: CONTEND-SETTLEMENT[DISPUTE] WITH THE CRITERIA/METHOD-GROWTH[DEVELOPMENT] OF THE COMPENSATION-PAYMENT WITH THE COMPULSORY-[IN]SURANCE/COMPENSATION-FUNDS BY THIS ~235.3-CLAIM[Article 235. Responsibility and liability. 1. States are responsible for the fulfilment of their international obligations concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment. They shall be liable in accordance with international law. 2. States shall ensure that recourse is available in accordance with their legal systems for prompt and adequate compensation or other relief in respect of damage caused by pollution of the marine environment by natural or juridical persons under their jurisdiction. 3. With the objective of assuring prompt and adequate compensation in respect of all damage caused by pollution of the marine environment, States shall co-operate in the implementation of existing international law and the further development of international law relating to responsibility and liability for the assessment of and compensation for damage and the settlement of related disputes, as well as, where appropriate, development of criteria and procedures for payment of adequate compensation, such as compulsory insurance or compensation funds. ‘Pollution of the marine environment’ of the UNCLOS-Finite-means is with the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the sea, impairment of quality for use of sea water and reduction of amenities;].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~236 OF THE SOVEREIGN-FREE-PASS[SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY].
FOR THE COMMERCIAL-PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENT IS WITH THE VOID-PERFORMANCE BY THE SOVEREIGN-FREE-PASS[SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY]. :~236.1– FOR THE PRUDENCE[PROVISIONS] OF THE CONVENTION IS WITH THE LACK-POSITION[NON APPLICABILITY] OF THE WARSHIP/NAVAL-AUXILIARY OR OF OTHER VESSELS OR AIRCRAFT WITH THE OWNERSHIP OR OPERATION BY THE STATE AND WITH THE SOLE-GOVERNMENT-OETI[USE ONLY] BY A LACK-COMMERCIAL-PERFORMANCE. :~236.2– FOR THE DUTY OF THE STATE IS WITH THE TAKE-STEWARDSHIP[ADOPTION] AND: CHOICE OF THE SUITABLE-MEASURES WITH THE LACK-MAKE-WORSE OF THE OPERATIONAL-CAPABILITIES[sic] AND OF THE VESSELS OR AIRCRAFT WITH THE STEWARDSHIP[OWNERSHIP] OR OPERATION[sic] BY THE STATE. FOR THE DUTY OF SUCH VESSELS OR AIRCRAFT ARE WITH THE CONSISTENT-PERFORMANCE OF THE REASONABLENESS AND: GREATEST-CAPABILITY WITH THE CONVENTION BY THE STATE[Article 236. Sovereign immunity. The provisions of this Convention regarding the protection and preservation of the marine environment do not apply to any warship, naval auxiliary, other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on government non-commercial service. However, each State shall ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing operations or operational capabilities of such vessels or aircraft owned or operated by it, that such vessels or aircraft act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with this Convention].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~287 AND CHOICE OF THE PROCEDURE[sic].
:~287.1– FOR THE SIGN[ING]/RATIFY[ING]/CONGRUENT-POSITION OF THE CONVENTION AND: PERPETUAL-CONTINUATION IS WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE STATE WITH THE WRIT-CLAIM[DECLARATION] AND WITH THE CHOICE OF THE OEN/~1 OR OF THE MORE WITH THE FOLLOW[ING]-METHODS OF THE CONTEND-SETTLEMENT[DISPUTE SETTLEMENT] WITH THE TRANSLATION OR CLAIM[APPLICATION] BY THE CONVENTION[1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention]. :~287.1a– FOR THE CHOICE OF THE STATE IS WITH THE ~INTERNATIONAL-TRIBUNAL-FOR-THE-LAW-OF-THE-SEA[sic]/I.-T.-L.-O.-S. AND WITH THE SETTLEMENT BY THE ~ANNEX-VI[sic]/~ANNEX-~6-METHOD[sic]/~A.~6.-M[(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI]. :~287.1b– FOR THE CHOICE OF THE STATE IS WITH THE INTERNATIONAL-COURT-OF-JUSTICE[sic]/I.-C.-J. BY THIS CLAIM[(b) the International Court of Justice]. :~287.1c– FOR THE CHOICE OF THE STATE IS WITH THE ARBITRAL-TRIBUNAL[sic] AND: CONSTITUTION BY THE ~ANNEX-VII[sic]/~ANNEX-~7-METHOD[sic]/~A.~7.-M[(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII]. :~287.1d– FOR THE CHOICE OF THE STATE IS WITH THE SPECIAL-ARBITRAL-TRIBUNAL[sic] AND: CONSTITUTION OF THE ~A.~7.-M WITH THE OEN/~1 OR WITH THE MORE-CATEGORIES OF THE CONTENDS[DISPUTES] WITH THE SPECIFICATION BY THE CONVENTION[(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein]. :~287.2– FOR THE CLAIMS OF THE ~287.1 ARE WITH THE LACK-SET-STATE OR LACK-POSITION OF THE DUTY AND: STATE-PARTY WITH THE [AC]CEPTANCE OF THE JURISDICTION WITH THE SEA-BED-DISPUTES-CHAMBER[sic] OF THE I.-T.-L.-O.-S. WITH THE SPREAD[EXTENT] AND: MANNER BY THE ~PART-XI/~11, ~SECTION-~5[sic][2. A declaration made under paragraph I shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part Xl, section 5]. :~287.3/~287.3a– FOR THE [DEEMED]AUTOMATIC-ARBITRATION-ACCEPTANCE[sic] OF THE ~ANNEX-VII[sic]/~NEXUS-~7-METHOD IS WITH A STATE-PARTY OF THE CONTEND[DISPUTE] WITH THE LACK-COVERAGE BY A FORCE-CLAIM[DECLARATION IN FORCE]. :~287.3b– FOR A FORCE-CLAIM[DECLARATION IN FORCE] OF THE LACK-COVERAGE IS WITH THE CONTEND[DISPUTE] OF A STATE-PARTY WITH THE ~ANNEX-VII[sic]/~NEXUS-~7-METHOD BY THE [DEEMED]AUTOMATIC-ARBITRATION-ACCEPTANCE[sic][3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII]. :~287.4– FOR THE PARTIES OF THE CONTEND[DISPUTE] AND OF THE LACK-PARTY-CONGRUENT-METHOD ARE WITH THE SAME-METHOD[PROCEDURE]-ACCEPTANCE[sic] OF THE CONTEND WITH THE SETTLEMENT BY THE SAME-METHOD-LODGEMENT[4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree]. :~287.5– FOR THE PARTIES OF THE CONTEND[DISPUTE] AND OF THE LACK-SAME-METHOD[PROCEDURE]-[AC]CEPTANCE AND: CONTEND-SETTLEMENT ARE WITH THE SAME-METHOD-LODGEMENT[SUBMISSION ONLY] WITH THE ARBITRATION[sic] BY THE ~ANNEX-VII[sic]/~7. FOR THE LEAVE-PERFORMANCE OF THIS ~287.5 IS WITH BOTH CONGRUENT-PARTIES BY OTHER JOINT/MUTUAL-CONGRUENCY-PERFORMANCE[AGREEMENT][5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree]. :~287.6– FOR THE CLAIM[DECLARATION] OF THE ~287.1 IS WITH THE FORCE-POSITION OF AFTER ~THREE-MONTHS-PASS[ING] AND: NOTICE-OF-REVOCATION[sic] WITH THE [DE]POSIT BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED-NATIONS[6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations]. :~287.7– FOR THE FRESH-CLAIM[NEW DECLARATION]/NOTICE-OF-REVOCATION[sic]/CLOSE[EXPIRY] OF THE CLAIM[DECLARATION] IS WITH THE LACK-VALID-POSITION OF THE PEND[ING]-METHOD-PERFORMANCES[PROCEEDINGS] OF THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL WITH THE JURISDICTION BY THIS ~287.7-CLAIM. FOR THE LEAVE-PERFORMANCE OF THIS ~287.8 IS WITH BOTH CONGRUENT-PARTIES BY OTHER JOINT/MUTUAL-CONGRUENCY-PERFORMANCE[AGREEMENT][7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree]. :~287.8– FOR THE CLAIMS[DECLARATIONS AND NOTICES] OF THIS ~287.8 ARE WITH THE [DE]POSIT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED-NATIONS AND WITH THE TRANSMISSION/LIVERY OF THE COPIES WITH THE STATES-PARTIES BY THIS ~287.8-MAINTENANCE-RULE[8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~292 OF THE QUICK-LET-GO[RELEASE]/Q.-L.-G. IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THESE FACTS AND: VESSEL AND: CREW WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S. AND WITH THE COMPLIANCE OF THE ~292 AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C. :~292.1 OF THE Q.-L.-G. IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE VESSEL AND: CREW WITH THE SHOW-FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] OF A HOLD[DETENTION] OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES AND WITH THE VOID-PERFORMANCE OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES’-AUTHORITY WITH THE LACK BY THE DOCUMENT-VESSEL-WRIT/KULEANA-BACK[CORRESPONDENCE][1. Where the authorities of a State Party have detained a vessel flying the flag of another State Party and it is alleged that the detaining State has not complied with the provisions of this Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security, the question of release from detention may be submitted to any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or, failing such agreement within 10 days from the time of detention, to a court or tribunal accepted by the detaining State under article 287 or to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, unless the parties otherwise agree]. :~292.2 OF THE Q.-L.-G. IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CLAIM[APPLICATION] WITH THE Q.-L.-G. OF THE VESSEL AND: CREW WITH THE FLAG-STATE AND FLAG-STATE’S-AUTHORISE-PARTY[PROXY] OF THE VESSEL WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[2. The application for release may be made only by or on behalf of the flag State of the vessel]. :~292.3 OF THE Q.-L.-G. IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE SHOW-FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] OF THE HOLD[DETENTION] AND WITH THE VOID-PERFORMANCE OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTIES’-AUTHORITY WITH THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL’S-DUTY OF THE QUICK-OUTCOME[DECISION] WITH THE Q.-L.-G. OF THE VESSEL AND: CREW WITH[WITHOUT] THE CONTEMPT OF THE MERITS AND OF ANY CASE WITH[BEFORE] THE ~DOMESTIC-FORUM OF[AGAINST] THE VESSEL, STEWARD[OWNER] OR CREW WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[3. The court or tribunal shall deal without delay with the application for release and shall deal only with the question of release, without prejudice to the merits of any case before the appropriate domestic forum against the vessel, its owner or its crew. The authorities of the detaining State remain competent to release the vessel or its crew at any time]. :~292.4 Q.-L.-G. IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE POST[ING] AND OF THE BOND OR OF OTHER FINANCIAL-SECURITY[sic] WITH THE CORRECTIVE-MAINTENANCE[DETERMINED] OF THE ~COURT OR ~TRIBUNAL WITH THE SHOW-FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] OF THE [DETAINING]HOLD-STATE’S-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ~COURT OR ~TRIBUNAL’S-CHOICE[DECISION] AND: Q.-L.-G. OF THE VESSEL AND: CREW WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[4. Upon the posting of the bond or other financial security determined by the court or tribunal, the authorities of the detaining State shall comply promptly with the decision of the court or tribunal concerning the release of the vessel or its crew].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~300OF THE GOOD-FAITH/AUTHORITY-POSITION-VIOLATION[ABUSE OF RIGHTS] IS WITH THESE FACTS BY THESE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~300-CLAIMS. :~300.1– FOR THE DUTY OF THE GOOD-FAITH IS WITH THIS CLAIM AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE-DUTY OF THE GOOD-FAITH-FULFILMENT AND WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-CONVENTION-RULES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE AND: MAINTENANCE BY THE STATES-PARTIES. :~300.2– FOR THE HALT-PERFORMANCE[PROHIBITION] OF THE AUTHORITY-POSITION-VIOLATION[ABUSE OF RIGHTS] IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE CORRECT-PERFORMANCE[EXERCISE] OF THE POSITION/AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION/FREEDOMS[RIGHTS] WITH THE LACK-BREACH OF THAT POSITION[ABUSE OF RIGHTS] WITH THE P.-A.-P.-T.-B. OF THE STATES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY BY THE STATES-PARTIES[Article 300. Good faith and abuse of rights. States Parties shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed under this Convention and shall exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognized in this Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~303– FOR THE SEA-LOCATION-FIND OF THE PAST-THINGS
[ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL-OBJECTS].
:~303.1– FOR THE DUTY OF THE STATES IS WITH THE SHIELD/KEEP-GOOD[PROTECTION] OF THE THINGS/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES[OBJECTS AND LIVING BEINGS] AND: PAST-THINGS[ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND: HISTORICAL-NATURE] WITH THE SEA-LOCATION OF THE FINDS WITH THE STATES-CO-OPERATION BY THIS ~303.1-CLAIM-PURPOSE. :~303.2– FOR THE GUIDANCE[CONTROL] OF THE TRAFFIC AND OF SUCH THINGS[OBJECTS] IS WITH THE COASTAL-STATE BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~33-PERFORMANCE[APPLICATION]. FOR THE CONJECTURE OF THE COASTAL-STATE IS WITH THE MOVE-BACK[REMOVAL] OF THE THINGS[OBJECTS] AND: SEA-BED WITH[WITHIN] THE ZONE-LOCATION BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~33. FOR THE LACK-CORRECT-SANCTION-PERFORMANCE OF THE COASTAL-STATE IS WITH THE OUTCOME[RESULT] OF THE BREACH[INFRINGEMENT] WITH THE RULES[REGULATIONS] OF[WITHIN] THE TERRITORY OR TERRITORIAL-SEA WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~33. :~303.3– FOR THE LACK-SET-POSITION OF ALL ~303-CLAIMS IS WITH THE QUANTIFIABLE-STEWARDS[IDENTIFIABLE OWNERS], SALVAGE-LAW OR WITH OTHER ADMIRALTY-RULES AND: LAWS AND: METHODS/POSITION[RIGHTS] BY ANY LIVE-LIFE-HONOUR/CULTURAL-BARTER[EXCHANGES]. :~303.4- FOR THESE CLAIMS OF THESE ~303-CLAIM-FACTS ARE WITH THE LACK-CONTEMPT-POSITION OF[TO] OTHER GLOBAL-COVENANTS[AGREEMENTS] AND: RULES AND OF THE GLOBAL-LAW WITH THE SHIELD/KEEP-GOOD[PROTECTION] OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES AND: THINGS[OBJECTS] WITH THE PAST-THINGS AND: PAST-LIVE-LIFE-NATURE[LOST/FOUND LIVING BEINGS] BY THISE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~303-FACTS/RULE-CLAIMS[Article 303. Archaeological and historical objects found at sea. 1. States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall co-operate for this purpose. 2. In order to control traffic in such objects, the coastal State may, in applying article 33, presume that their removal from the sea-bed in the zone referred to in that article without its approval would result in an infringement within its territory or territorial sea of the laws and regulations referred to in that article. 3. Nothing in this article affects the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty, or laws and practices with respect to cultural exchanges. 4. This article is without prejudice to other international agreements and rules of international law regarding the protection of objects of an archaeological and historical nature].
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~305: SIGNATURE/AUTOGRAPH.
:~305.1OF THE CONVENTION IS WITH THE GIVE OF THE CHOICE AND WITH STATE-SIGNATURES BY THE FOLLOW[ING]-~305-SIGNATURE-CLAIMS. :~305.1a OF ALL STATES.
:~305.1b OF THE TERRITORY, NAMIBIA AND: AUTHORITY-POSITION-PARTY/UNITED-NATIONS-COUNCIL-FOR-NAMIBIA[sic]. :~305.1c OF THE SELF-GOVERN[ING]-COMPANION-STATES. FOR THE STATUS OF THE SELF-CLAIM[DETERMINATION AND: SUPERVISION/APPROVAL BY THE UNITED-NATIONS] IS WITH THE GENERAL-ASSEMBLY-RESOLUTION-~1514-XV[sic]/~25 AND WITH THE COMPETENCE OF[OVER] THE MATTERS AND: TREATIES WITH THE CONVENTION BY THE TAKE-PART[ENTER]-STATE. :~305.1d OF THE SELF-GOVERN[ING]-COMPANION-STATES IS WITH THE COMPETENCE OF[OVER] THE MATTERS AND OF THE CONVENTION WITH THE COMPETENCE OF THE TAKE-PART[ENTER] WITH THE TREATIES OF THE CONVENTION WITH THE JOINDER/COMPANIONSHIP[ASSOCIATION] BY THE DOCUMENT-VESSELS[INSTRUMENTS]. :~305.1e OF THE TERRITORIES IS WITH THE FULL-WITHIN[INTERNAL]-SELF-GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED-NATIONS-KNOWLEDGE[sic][RECOGNITION] WITH THE LACK-GAIN OF THE FULL-SELF-SUPPORT AND: GENERAL-ASSEMBLY-RESOLUTION-~1514-XV[sic]/~25 WITH THE COMPETENCE OF[OVER] THE MATTERS AND: TREATIES WITH THE CONVENTION BY THE TAKE-PART[ENTERING]-STATE. :~305.1f OF THE GLOBAL-CORPORATIONS[ORGANISATIONS] AND: ~ANNEX-IX[sic]/~9. :~305.2-CLAIMOF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-CONVENTION IS WITH THE GIVE OF THE CHOICE AND WITH STATE-SIGNATURES WITH THE BOUY-DATE-BOUNDARIES OF THE DROGUE[TIMELINE] WITH[WITHIN] THE DROGUE-SPACE OF THESE BOUY-BOUNDARY-DATES, ~1-~JULY-~1983 AND ~9-~DECEMBER-~1984 AND WITH THE LOCATION-PERFORMANCE OF THE ~UNITED-NATIONS-HEADQUARTERS[sic], ~405/~EAST-~42ND-STREET,~NEW-YORK[sic], ~NEW-YORK[sic], [NY 10017]~United-States[sic] AND GLOBAL-POSITION, ~40.74891°-N, ~73.96816°-W WITH THIS CONVENTION-SET-DOWN BY THE LOCATION, MINISTRY-OF-FOREIGN-AFFAIRS OF JAMAICA[sic], ~MONTEGO-BAY, ~JAMAICA AND GLOBAL-POSITION, ~17.96468°-N, ~76.78797°-W AND DATE/~10-~DECEMBER-~1982[Article 305. Signature. 1. This Convention shall be open for signature by: (a) all States; (b) Namibia, represented by the United Nations Council for Namibia; (c) all self-governing associated States which have chosen that status in an act of self-determination supervised and approved by the United Nations in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and which have competence over the matters governed by this Convention, including the competence to enter into treaties in respect of those matters; (d) all self-governing associated States which, in accordance with their respective instruments of association, have competence over the matters governed by this Convention, including the competence to enter into treaties in respect of those matters; (e) all territories which enjoy full internal self-government, recognized as such by the United Nations, but have not attained full independence in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and which have competence over the matters governed by this Convention, including the competence to enter into treaties in respect of those matters; (f) international organisations, in accordance with Annex IX. 2. This Convention shall remain open for signature until 9 December 1984 at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jamaica and also, from 1 July 1983 until 9 December 1984, at United Nations Headquarters in New York.
This Convention applies mutatis mutandis to the entities referred to in Article 305, paragraph 1 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), which become Parties to this Convention in accordance with the conditions relevant to each, and to that extent ‘States Parties’ refers to those entities].
:~GENERAL-ASSEMBLY-RESOLUTION-~1514-XV[sic]/~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25 OF THE UNITED-NATIONS-CHARTER-MEMBERS/ASSEMBLY-SIGNATORIES[sic].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25[DECLARATION] OF THE AUTHORITY-GRANT/SELF-GOVERNANCE-POSITION AND: COLONIAL-COUNTRIES/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THESE ~1514-~25-CLAIMS[These factual claims are with the compliance by all members of the United Nations Charter including flag-states of these territories, New Zealand/Aotearoa and United Kingdom/England/Great Britain].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.1– FOR THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES AND FOR THE STRANGER-SUBJUGATION[ALIEN/FOREIGNER]/GAIN-OUTCOMES[EXPLOITATION]/DOMINATION OF THE SUBJECTION ARE WITH THE VOID[DENIAL] OF THE FUNDAMENTAL-LIVE-LIFE-POSITION[RIGHTS] AND WITH THE CONTRARY-POSITION OF THE UNITED-NATIONS-CHARTER WITH THE WORLD-PEACE AND: CO-OPERATION BY THE BLOCKADE[1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.2– FOR THE NATURAL-AUTHORITY/POSITION[RIGHT] OF ALL LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES IS WITH THE GOVERNANCE-CHOICE[DETERMINATION] BY THE SELF. FOR THE DUTY OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES IS WITH THE [FREE]SELF-GOVERNANCE-CHOICE[DETERMINATION] OF THE CIVIL-PERFORMANCE[POLITICAL STATUS] WITH THE BUSINESS[ECONOMIC]/SOCIAL/CULTURAL-BETTERMENTS[DEVELOPMENTS] BY THE SELF-CHOICE AND FREE-PURSUIT[2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.3– FOR THE LACK OF THE POLITICAL/ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/SELF-KNOWLEDGE-POSITION[EDUCATIONAL PREPAREDNESS] IS WITH THE LACK-OETI-POSITION[NON USURY/USE POSITION] OF THE VALIDITY/CONCEALMENT/REASON[PRETEXT*] WITH THE PEOPLES’-SELF-GOVERNANCE[INDEPENDENCE] OF A HOLD-BACK[DELAY] AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE STATE-GUIDANCE[CONTROL]-PARTY[Finite mean of PRETEXT*= not teaching/sharing with the peoples of any hidden-agendas/corruptions/Trusts/jurisdictional-positions/true-purpose/quo-warranto/true-authority] 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.4– FOR THE CEASE OF ALL WAR-PERFORMANCES[MARTIAL LAW POSITIONS/SPEARHEADS/SPIRE-FINIALS/ARMED-ACTIONS] OR: [REPRESSIVE]HOLD-BACK-MEASURES AND FOR THE CEASE-SUBORDINATE-POSITIONS[DEPENDANCIES] OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES IS WITH THE MAKE-FIT-PERFORMANCE[ENABLEMENT] OF THE PEACEFUL-CONDITION/TEACH/SHOW-HOW/GIVE-SELF-KNOWLEDGE-MATERIAL[FREE EXERCISE] WITH THE AUTHORITY/POSITION[RIGHT] BY THE COMPLETE-SELF-GOVERNANCE[INDEPENDENCE]. FOR THE NATIONAL-TERRITORY OF THE HONOUR-POSITION[INTEGRITY] IS WITH THE CONSIDERATION BY THIS CLAIM[4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.5– FOR THE STEPS OF THIS CONTINUUM-MOMENT[NOW]-SPACE[IMMEDIATE] ARE WITH THE TRANSFER OF ALL POWERS WITH THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES OF THE TRUST/LACK-SELF-GOVERNANCE-TERRITORIES OR WITH OTHER LACK-SELF-GOVERNANCE-TERRITORIES OF THE WRONG-CONDITIONS/HOLD-BACKS[RESERVATIONS] AND WITH THE MAKE-COMPLIANCE[ACCORDANCE] OF THE SELF-MANAGEMENT/SENSE/COGNITION/WILL/CHOICES AND: LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES WITH THE LACK-PERFORMANCES[DISTINCTIONS] OF THE LABEL-THINGS, RACE/CREED/COLOUR WITH THE [EN]JOYMENT/PEACEFULNESS/NEUTRALITY BY THE COMPLETE-SELF-GOVERNANCE[INDEPENDENCE/FREEDOM][5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.6– FOR A COUNTRY/STATE’S-TRY[ATTEMPT], FALSE/COERCIVE-PERFORMANCE OF THE NATIONAL-OENNESS[UNITY] AND: PARTIAL/FORCE-SEPARATION[TOTAL-DISRUPTION BY DIVIDE AND RULE] IS WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF THE TERRITORIAL-HONOUR[INTEGRITY] WITH LACK-COMPATIBLE-POSITION OF THE UNITED-NATIONS-CHARTER[sic] WITH THE PURPOSES/FOUNDATION[PRINCIPLES] BY THIS CLAIM[6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.7a– FOR THE DUTY OF ALL STATES IS WITH THE FAITHFUL/STRICT-COMPLIANCE[OBSERVANCE] OF THE ~UNITED-NATIONS-CHARTER[sic], ~UNIVERSAL-DECLARATION-OF-HUMAN-RIGHTS[sic]/U.-D.-H.-R.= ~GLOBAL-CLAIM OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE-POSITION[RIGHTS= OXYMORON-TERM*] AND OF THIS ~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25-CLAIM[DECLARATION] WITH THE BALANCE OF THE HONOURABLE AND: GRACEFUL-VOLITION[DO NO HARM] WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RULE-OEN/~1 AND SAME-ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE POSITION OF THE PEACE/NEUTRALITY WITH THE BASE-DUTY BY THE ÆQUAL-POSITION/LACK-MEDDLE[INTERFERENCE][Definition of the OXYMORON-TERM*= rights of nature THAT which is above and of higher jurisdiction with some thing-below of lower jurisdiction/position/administration-only= corporeal is an oxymoron of that self-governance-nature void of the position by its geometry: A point is that which has no part].
:~G.-A.-R.-~1514-~25.7b– FOR THE PERFORMANCE-STANDARD[INTERNAL AFFAIRS] OF ALL STATES IS WITH THE COMPLIANCE OF THE SOVEREIGN-POSITION WITH SELF/LACK-SELF CHOICE OF ALL LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES/PEOPLES AND WITH THE STANDARD OF THAT CHOICE WITH THE VOID-AUTHORITY OF A STATE-CONJECTURE-POSITION WITH THE TERRITORIAL-HONOUR BY ALL STATES[Definition of the RIGHTS*= rights are void for nature’s beyond of a corporeal thing’s lower jurisdiction 4. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non- interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity].
[:FINITE-MEANS OF THIS General Assembly Resolution.: Assembly= (parties of the United Nations Charter= countries/live-life-creatures/people of self-governance/authority including New Zealand, England and United Kingdom), Recognizing= Cognition, Aware= Vigilant, Considering= Consideration, Convinced= Correct-Knowledge, against= void position with, Affirming= Confirms, freely= without limitations, economic= commercial/business, Believing= Self Knowledge, Welcoming= kind-greet is with, Solemnly proclaims= show-fact by the make-formal-public-knowledge. Plenary meeting= full-meet of the assembly/parties.
General Assembly Resolution 1514 XV: The General, Assembly, Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence, Aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace, Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations, Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co- operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace, Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law, Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid. serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence, Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory, Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations; And to this end Declares that: 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected. 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom. 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non- interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity. 947th plenary meeting, 14 December 1960]
:RULES OF THE ~ANNEX-~VII-ARBITRATION[sic]/~NEXUS-~7 IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.
:~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-ANNEX-~VII[sic]/~NEXUS-~7-CLAIM: MEDIATION[ARBITRATION].
:~NEXUS-~7.1[ANNEX VII ARBITRATION ARTICLE 1: INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS]- FOR THE CONTEND-SETTLEMENT[DISPUTE RESOLUTION] OF THE PARTIES IS WITH THE LODGEMENT[SUBMISSION] OF THE CONTEND WITH THE CORRECTIVE-MEDIATE-PERFORMANCE[ARBITRAL PROCEDURE] OF THE ~ANNEX-~VII/~NEXUS-~7-RULES WITH THE AUXILIARY-PARTY OR WITH OTHER PARTIES BY THE WRIT-CLAIM[WRITTEN NOTIFICATION]. FOR THE WRIT OF THE CLAIM[NOTIFICATION] IS WITH THE STATEMENT AND WITH THE GROUNDS OF THE CLAIM WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE BY THE PARTY AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[Article 1 – Institution of proceedings: Subject to the provisions of Part XV, any party to a dispute may submit the dispute to the arbitral procedure provided for in this Annex by written notification addressed to the other party or parties to the dispute. The notification shall be accompanied by a statement of the claim and the grounds on which it is based].
:~NEXUS-~7.2.1[LIST OF ARBITRATORS]- FOR THE LIST-CLAIM OF THE MEDIATOR-PARTY-MEMBERS[ARBITRATORS] IS WITH THE CREATION AND: MAINTENANCE BY THE UNITED-NATIONS-SECRETARY-GENERAL[sic]. FOR THE DUTY OF THE STATE-PARTY IS WITH THE NOMINATION OF THE ~4/FOUR-MEDIATOR-PARTY-MEMBERS[ARBITRATORS] WITH THE MARITIME/COMMERCIAL-BUSINESS-FIRST-HAND-KNOWLEDGE[AFFAIRS EXPERIENCE] AND WITH THE HIGHEST-CREDIBILITY[REPUTATION] BY THE FAIRNESS/COMPETENCE/PURITY[INTEGRITY]. FOR THE NAMES OF THE NOMINATE[D]-PERSONS ARE WITH THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LIST[Article 2 – List of arbitrators: 1. A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Every State Party shall be entitled to nominate four arbitrators, each of whom shall be a person experienced in maritime affairs and enjoying the highest reputation for fairness, competence and integrity. The names of the persons so nominated shall constitute the list].
:~NEXUS-~7.2.2– FOR THE FEWER-THAN-FOUR/MEDIATOR-PARTY-MEMBERS OF THE STATE-PARTY-LIST IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] BY THE FURTHER-MEDIATOR-PARTY-MEMBER-NOMINATIONS[2. If at any time the arbitrators nominated by a State Party in the list so constituted shall be fewer than four, that State Party shall be entitled to make further nominations as necessary].
:~NEXUS-~7.2.3– FOR THE NAME OF THE MEDIATOR-PARTY-MEMBER[ARBITRATOR] IS WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE LIST WITH[UNTIL] THE WITHDRAWAL BY THE NOMINATE-STATE. FOR THE MEDIATOR-PARTY-MEMBER[ARBITRATOR] OF THE LIST IS WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE MEDIATE-TRIBUNAL-PERFORMANCE[ARBITRAL SERVICE] WITH[UNTIL] THE COMPLETION BY THE PERFORMANCE-SEQUENCE[PROCEEDINGS][3. The name of an arbitrator shall remain on the list until withdrawn by the State Party which made the nomination, provided that such arbitrator shall continue to serve on any arbitral tribunal to which that arbitrator has been appointed until the completion of the proceedings before that arbitral tribunal].
:~NEXUS-~7.3[CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL]– FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE [ARBITRAL]MEDIATE-TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE FOLLOW-PERFORMANCE OF THESE ~NEXUS-~7-RULES AND: ~NEXUS-~7.3a/~7.3b/~7.3c/~7.3d/~7.3e/~7.3f/~7.3g/~7.3hWITH THE [DIF]FERENCE[OTHERWISE] OF THIS ~NEXUS-~7.3-PERFORMANCE WITH A MUTUAL-CONGRUENCY-WRIT-CLAIM[WRITTEN AGREEMENT] BY ALL PARTIES.
:~NEXUS-~7.3aOF THE TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE ~5/FIVE-MEDIATOR-MEMBERS BY THIS CLAIM. :~NEXUS-~7.3b OF THE NEXUS-~7-START-PARTY-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THE [AP]POINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER WITH THE PREFERENCE-CHOICE OF THE LIST WITH THE SAME-POSITION BY THE NATIONALITY. FOR THE POINTMENT OF THE ~NEXUS-~7.3b IS WITH THE CONFINE-CLAIM[INCLUSION IN THE NOTIFICATION] BY THE ~NEXUS-~7.1. :~NEXUS-~7.3cOF THE [OTHER]AUXILIARY-PARTY IS WITH THE [AP]POINTMENT-CHOICE OF THE ~1/OEN-MEMBER WITH THE DROGUE[TIMEFRAME], BUOY-PERFORMANCE OF THE ~30-DAYS WITH THE LIVERY[RECEIPT] BY THE CLAIM[NOTIFICATION]. FOR THE FAILURE OF THE [AP]POINTMENT IS WITH THE [AP]POINTMENT-[RE]QUEST-CLAIM BY THE ~NEXUS-~7.3e. :~NEXUS-~7.3dOF THE [OTHER]~3/THREE-MEDIATOR-MEMBERS ARE WITH THE [AP]POINTMENT OF THE PARTIES-CONGRUENCY[AGREEMENT] AND WITH THE [AP]POINTMENT OF THE ~3/THREE-MEDIATOR-MEMBERS WITH THE TRIBUNAL-MEDIATOR-MEMBERS AND: MEMBERS-CHOICE BY THE CHIEF[PRESIDENT]. :~NEXUS-~7.3e– FOR THE FAILURE OF THE CONGRUENCY[AGREEMENT] IS WITH THE [AP]POINTMENT BY THE INTERNATIONAL-TRIBUNAL-FOR-THE-LAW-OF-THE-SEA-PRESIDENT OR BY THE [NEXT]SEQUENTIAL-SENIOR-MEMBER. :~NEXUS-~7.3fOF THE VACANCY IS WITH THE PARTICIPATION[FILLING] BY THE SAME-RULES[PROCEDURE] AND FIRST-POINTMENT[INITIAL APPOINTMENT]. :~NEXUS-~7.3g– FOR THE PARTIES OF THE SAME-CLAIM[INTEREST] ARE WITH THE JOINT-[AP]POINTMENT BY THE ~1/OEN-MEMBER. :~NEXUS-~7.3h– OF THE MULTI-PARTY-CLAIMS[DISPUTES] IS WITH THE CLAIM[APPLICATION] OF THE CORRECT-SEQUENCE[PROCEDURE] WITH THE MAXIMUM-VALUE[EXTENT] BY THE POSSIBLE-LIMIT[Article 3 – Constitution of arbitral tribunal: For the purpose of proceedings under this Annex, the arbitral tribunal shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, be constituted as follows: (a) Subject to subparagraph (g), the arbitral tribunal shall consist of five members. (b) The party instituting the proceedings shall appoint one member to be chosen preferably from the list referred to in article 2 of this Annex, who may be its national. The appointment shall be included in the notification referred to in article 1 of this Annex. (c) The other party to the dispute shall, within 30 days of receipt of the notification referred to in article 1 of this Annex, appoint one member to be chosen preferably from the list, who may be its national. If the appointment is not made within that period, the party instituting the proceedings may, within two weeks of the expiration of that period, request that the appointment be made in accordance with subparagraph (e). (d) The other three members shall be appointed by agreement between the parties. They shall be chosen preferably from the list and shall be nationals of third States unless the parties otherwise agree. The parties to the dispute shall appoint the President of the arbitral tribunal from among those three members. If, within 60 days of receipt of the notification referred to in article I of this Annex, the parties are unable to reach agreement on the appointment of one or more of the members of the tribunal to be appointed by agreement, or on the appointment of the President, the remaining appointment or appointments shall be made in accordance with subparagraph (e), at the request of a party to the dispute. Such request shall be made within two weeks of the expiration of the aforementioned 60-day period. (e) Unless the parties agree that any appointment under subparagraphs (c) and (d) be made by a person or a third State chosen by the parties, the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea shall make the necessary appointments. If the President is unable to act under this subparagraph or is a national of one of the parties to the dispute, the appointment shall be made by the next senior member of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea who is available and is not a national of one of the parties. The appointments referred to in this subparagraph shall be made from the list referred to in article 2 of this Annex within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the request and in consultation with the parties. The members so appointed shall be of different nationalities and may not be in the service of, ordinarily resident in the territory of or nationals of, any of the parties to the dispute. (f) Any vacancy shall be filled in the manner prescribed for the initial appointment. (g) Parties in the same interest shall appoint one member of the tribunal jointly by agreement. Where there are several parties having separate interests or where there is disagreement as to whether they are of the same interest, each of them shall appoint one member of the tribunal. The number of members of the tribunal appointed separately by the parties shall always be smaller by one than the number of members of the tribunal to be appointed jointly by the parties. (h) In disputes involving more than two parties, the provisions of subparagraphs (a) to (f) shall apply to the maximum extent possible].
:~NEXUS-~7.4[FUNCTIONS OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL]– FOR THE DUTY OF THE [ARBITRAL]MEDIATE-TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE FUNCTION OF THE COMPLIANCE[ACCORDANCE] WITH THIS ~NEXUS-~7[ANNEX VII] AND WITH THE PRUDENCE[OTHER PROVISIONS] BY THE CONVENTION[Article 4 – Functions of arbitral tribunal. An arbitral tribunal constituted under article 3 of this Annex shall function in accordance with this Annex and the other provisions of this Convention].
:~NEXUS-~7.5[SEQUENCE/PROCEDURE]– FOR THE SEQUENCE[PROCEDURE] OF THE [ARBITRAL]MEDIATE-TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE CHOICE[DETERMINATION] BY THE TRIBUNAL OR BY A MUTUAL-JOINT-PARTY-CHOICE/WRIT-CONGRUENCY. FOR THE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE [AS]SURANCE OF THE FULL-CHANCE[OPPORTUNITY] WITH THE PARTIES OF THE HEAR[ING] WITH THE SHOW/HEAR BY THEIR CASE[Article 5 – Procedure. Unless the parties to the dispute otherwise agree, the arbitral tribunal shall determine its own procedure, assuring to each party a full opportunity to be heard and to present its case].
:~NEXUS-~7.6[DUTIES OF THE PARTIES TO A DISPUTE]– FOR THE DUTY OF THE PARTIES IS WITH THE FACILITATION OF THE WORK AND OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WITH THE PRUDENCE[PROVISION] OF THE DOCUMENTS/FACILITIES/FACT-DATA[INFORMATION] AND WITH THE MAKE-FIT[ENABLEMENT] OF THE WITNESSES/EXPERTS AND WITH THE VISITATION BY THE LOCALITIES[Article 6 – Duties of parties to a dispute. The parties to the dispute shall facilitate the work of the arbitral tribunal and, in particular, in accordance with their law and using all means at their disposal, shall: (a) provide it with all relevant documents, facilities and information; and (b) enable it when necessary to call witnesses or experts and receive their evidence and to visit the localities to which the case relates].
:~NEXUS-~7.7[COSTS AND SALVAGE-CLAIM WAIVER]– FOR THE COSTS[EXPENSES] OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE WITH THE ÆQUAL-SHARES BY THE PARTIES AND BY THE TRIBUNAL-CHOICE[OTHERWISE]. FOR THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell OF THE FIRST-NEXUS-~7-LODGEMENT[INITIAL ANNEX VII SUBMISSION] IS WITH THIS DUE-WAIVER-[RE]QUEST-CLAIM BY THE SALVAGE-MATTER-NATURE[Article 7 – Expenses. Unless the arbitral tribunal decides otherwise because of the particular circumstances of the case, the expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, respectfully lodges this request for a waiver of costs related to the salvage claim. This request is substantiated by the following grounds: 1. Nature of the Salvage Claim: The claim arises from a salvage operation conducted under Admiralty jurisdiction, which inherently involves the preservation of maritime property and the performance of duties in the interest of public and private stakeholders. The claimant, acting as the Salvage Captain, has fulfilled these duties with honour and in accordance with the principles of Admiralty law. 2. Particular Circumstances of the Case: The claimant has demonstrated good faith and compliance with all procedural requirements, including the lodgement of the Common Bundle Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3, which document the facts, proof, evidence, and financial instruments related to the claim. The fiduciary breaches by the defendant and the necessity of corrective action further justify the waiver of costs in this matter. 3. Equitable Considerations: The claimant’s request aligns with the equitable principles underlying Article 7, as the costs of the tribunal should not impose an undue burden on the party who has acted in the interest of justice and maritime safety. The claimant’s role as a salvor and the financial constraints resulting from the defendant’s breaches warrant the tribunal’s discretion to waive costs. 4. Support from Initial Lodgement: The claimant’s initial Annex VII submission explicitly referenced the due waiver request, highlighting the salvage-matter nature of the claim and the claimant’s entitlement to relief under the circumstances. Conclusion: The claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, respectfully requests that the tribunal exercise its discretion under Article 7 of Annex VII to waive the costs associated with this salvage claim. This request is made in recognition of the claimant’s role as a salvor, the particular circumstances of the case, and the equitable principles that govern the allocation of tribunal expenses. This waiver request is submitted in good faith and with full compliance with the procedural and evidentiary requirements of the tribunal].
:~NEXUS-~7.8[NEED OF THE MAJORITY OUTCOME]– FOR THE OUTCOME[DECISIONS] OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE MAJORITY-VOTE BY THE MEMBERS. FOR THE ÆQUALITY OF THE VOTES IS WITH THE CAST[ING]-VOTE BY THE CHIEF-AUTHORITY[PRESIDENT][Article 8 – Required majority for decisions. Decisions of the arbitral tribunal shall be taken by a majority vote of its members. The absence or abstention of less than half of the members shall not constitute a bar to the tribunal reaching a decision. In the event of an equality of votes, the President shall have a casting vote].
:~NEXUS-~7.9[DEFAULT OF THE APPEARANCE]– FOR THE VOID-SHOW[ABSENCE] OF A PARTY IS WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE TRIBUNAL-SEQUENCE[PROCEEDINGS] AND WITH THE GIVE-PRIZE[AWARD] BY THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THE PRUDENCE-NEED[PROVISION] OF THE CLAIM IS WITH THE COMPLETENESS OF THE FACTS-VALIDITY/PROOF[WELL FOUNDED] AND LAW WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE CLAIM[Article 9 – Default of appearance. If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award. Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. Before making its award, the arbitral tribunal must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.Claim: Continuation of Proceedings and Issuance of Award under Article 9 of Annex VII UNCLOS 1. Introduction: This claim is submitted by Jonathan-Simon: Bell, the claimant, under Article 9 of Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). If an issue arises due to the non-appearance or failure of the vessel owner, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to defend its case in the tribunal proceedings. The claimant seeks: This request for the tribunal to continue the proceedings and issue an award in accordance with Article 9. Confirmation that the claim is well-founded in fact and law, as required by the tribunal. 2. Legal Framework: UNCLOS Annex VII, Article 9 (Default of Appearance): Article 9 allows the tribunal to proceed and issue an award if a party fails to appear or defend its case. The tribunal must satisfy itself of the following: a. Jurisdiction over the dispute, and b. That the claim is well-founded in fact and law.
Admiralty Law and Procedural Rules: Jurisdiction is supported by Admiralty law, under the UK Senior Courts Act 1981, and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 61, which govern maritime claims. Procedural fairness is emphasised in relevant case law, such as Thakkar v Patel and Gore v Naheed, requiring the claimant to provide complete and substantiated evidence to support their case. Equitable Remedies under New Zealand Law: The claimant invokes Section 180 of the NZ Senior Courts Act 2016, which allows equitable relief to address fiduciary breaches and restore the claimant’s rightful position. 3. Jurisdiction: The tribunal derives jurisdiction over this dispute under UNCLOS Annex VII and Part XV (Dispute Resolution) of the convention. The following points establish jurisdiction: Nature of the Claim: The claim falls within the scope of Admiralty law, specifically as a salvage matter. The claimant’s actions during the salvage operation, and the subsequent breaches by MSD, invoke the tribunal’s jurisdiction under maritime law. The claimant’s salvage operation prioritised environmental protection, aligning with broader considerations under maritime law. Article 8 of the Salvage Convention 1989 imposes a duty on salvors to prevent or minimise environmental damage during salvage operations. The claimant’s actions, including securing the vessel and mitigating the risk of pollution, directly addressed these obligations. Article 9 of the Convention preserves the coastal State’s right to take measures to protect its coastline and related interests from pollution, which the claimant’s efforts supported. These actions underscore the claimant’s commitment to environmental stewardship, reinforcing the equitable and public interest basis of the claim. Compliance with Procedural Rules: The claimant certifies compliance with CPR Part 61, including the submission of: a. Volume 0: Procedural documents, including the notice of arbitration. b. Volume 1: Detailed factual records, such as salvage logs and operational reports. c. Volumes 2 and 3: Financial instruments, fact-data/proof, correspondence, and procedural compliance evidence.
Adherence to UNCLOS Requirements: The dispute arises under UNCLOS provisions, which govern salvage operations and fiduciary duties in maritime contexts. The claimant emphasises the public interest served by the salvage operation, which aligns with the principles of Admiralty law and the Salvage Convention 1989. The claimant’s actions during the salvage operation were undertaken to preserve maritime property, prevent environmental harm, and protect the interests of all stakeholders involved. These actions reflect the equitable basis of the claim, as salvage law inherently rewards efforts that benefit the broader maritime community. The Salvage Convention 1989, incorporated into UK law through the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, applies directly to the claimant’s actions during the salvage operation. Article 8 of the Convention outlines the salvor’s duty to exercise due care in preventing or minimising environmental damage, which the claimant fulfilled by securing the vessel and its cargo. Article 13 emphasises the salvor’s right to equitable compensation for services rendered, particularly when those services protect maritime property and the environment. These provisions reinforce the equitable basis of the claim, as the claimant’s actions align with the Convention’s principles of rewarding efforts that benefit the broader maritime community 4. Evidence Supporting the Claim To satisfy the tribunal that the claim is well-founded in fact and law, the claimant provides the following evidence: Evidence Supporting Factual Foundation: Operation Logs and Salvage Reports (Volume 1): These records detail the claimant’s actions during the salvage operation, including dates, times, and activities performed to secure the vessel and its cargo. Financial Instruments (Volumes 2 and 3): These include secured-party lien documentation, perfected security interests, and evidence of fiduciary breaches by MSD. The claimant demonstrates the financial harm caused by MSD’s failure to fulfil its obligations. Correspondence and Procedural Compliance (Volumes 2 and 3): Letters and emails exchanged with MSD and the shipowner’s agent show the claimant’s adherence to procedural requirements and good faith efforts to resolve the matter. Evidence Supporting Legal Foundation: Fiduciary Duties: The claimant references legal precedents establishing the fiduciary duties of government agencies, particularly in the context of financial obligations and salvage claims. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD)breached its fiduciary duties by failing to provide full accounting and transparency in its financial obligations to the claimant. These breaches are evidenced in Volumes 2 and 3, which document the following: (a) Delayed Payments: The claimant incurred additional financial burdens due to MSD’s failure to fulfil its obligations in a timely manner, as shown in the secured-party lien documentation and perfected security interests. (b) Unaccounted Funds: Correspondence in Volume 2/3 highlights MSD Chief Executive and Finance Minister’s failure to account for funds owed to the claimant, resulting in financial harm and operational constraints. (c) Procedural Non-Compliance: MSD’s disregard for established fiduciary protocols, as outlined in the Financial Reporting Act 2013, further exacerbated the claimant’s financial position. These breaches directly impacted the claimant’s ability to recover costs associated with the salvage operation, necessitating equitable relief under Section 180 of the NZ Senior Courts Act 2016.Equitable Relief under NZ Law: The claimant invokes Section 180 of the NZ Senior Courts Act 2016 to seek equitable remedies for MSD and Finance Minister’s breaches. This includes the restoration of the claimant’s rightful position and compensation for damages made/incurred. The claimant references established case law to support the legal foundation of the claim. Thakkar v Patel and Gore v Naheed, emphasise the importance of procedural fairness and the claimant’s duty to provide complete and substantiated evidence to support their claim.In The Tojo Maru [1972] AC 242, the House of Lords affirmed the salvor’s right to compensation for services rendered in preserving maritime property. For The Nagasaki Spirit [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the court emphasised the equitable principles underlying salvage claims, particularly in cases involving environmental protection. These precedents reinforce the claimant’s entitlement to relief under Admiralty law. The fiduciary duties of government agencies are highlighted in The M/V Sirius [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, which underscores the obligation to act with transparency and accountability in commercial/financial matters. 5. Addressing the Tribunal’s Prudence-Need: The claimant takes proactive steps to ensure the tribunal can satisfy its prudence requirements, including: Completeness of the Claim: The claimant has lodged comprehensive evidence, including factual records, financial documents, and legal arguments, to provide a complete and substantiated claim. Anticipation of Defences: The claimant has preemptively addressed potential defences or counterarguments that MSD could raise, ensuring procedural fairness and minimising delays. Transparency and Cooperation: The claimant has made all necessary evidence and documentation available to the tribunal, facilitating its work in the absence of MSD. The claimant reiterates their good faith efforts to resolve the matter prior to tribunal proceedings. This includes multiple attempts to engage with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) through correspondence, as documented in Volumes 2 and 3. The claimant has consistently acted with procedural fairness and transparency, ensuring that all evidence and documentation have been made available to the tribunal. These efforts demonstrate the claimant’s commitment to resolving the dispute quickly, equitably and in accordance with legal and procedural standards. 6. Conclusion and Requested Relief In light of the absence of MSD and the evidence provided, the claimant respectfully requests the tribunal to: Continue the proceedings in accordance with Article 9 of Annex VII.
Issue an award based on the facts, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the claimant. The claimant certifies that: The tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute as established under UNCLOS Annex VII and related legal frameworks. The claim is well-founded in fact and law, supported by comprehensive evidence and legal arguments. The tribunal’s prudence-need is satisfied through the completeness of the claim and the anticipation of potential defences. By adhering to these principles, the claimant ensures procedural fairness and strengthens their position for obtaining an equitable award].
:~NEXUS-~7.10[PRIZE/AWARD]– FOR THE PRIZE[AWARD] OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE CONFINEMENT AND WITH THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CLAIM[DISPUTE] AND WITH THE STATEMENT BY THE REASONS. FOR THE MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL ARE WITH THE PLACE-CARGO-CHOICE[MAY ATTACH] BY THE SEPARATE/CONJECTURE-REASON[DISSENTING OPINIONS][Article 10 – Award. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be confined to the subject-matter of the dispute and state the reasons on which it is based. It shall contain the names of the members who have participated and the date of the award. Any member of the Tribunal may attach a separate or dissenting opinion to the award].
:~NEXUS-~7.11[FINALITY OF THE PRIZE/AWARD] OF THE PRIZE[AWARD] IS WITH THE FINALITY BY THE VOID-COME-BACK-POSITION[NON APPEAL POSITION, UNLESS THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO AN APPELLATE-PROCEDURE][Article 11 – Finality of award. The award shall be final and without appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure. It shall be complied with by the parties to the dispute].
:~NEXUS-~7.12[INTERPRETATION OR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIZE/AWARD]– FOR THE TRANSLATE-CONTROVERSY[INTERPRETATION OR IMPLEMENTATION] OF THE PRIZE[AWARD] IS WITH THE [ORIGINAL]NATIVITY-TRIBUNAL OR WITH ANOTHER TRIBUNAL OF THE LODGEMENT[SUBMISSION] WITH THE CONGRUENT-PARTIES-POSITION BY A MUTUAL-CLAIM[AGREEMENT].
:~NEXUS-~7.12.1– FOR THE TRANSLATE-CONTROVERSY[INTERPRETATION OR IMPLEMENTATION] OF THE PRIZE[AWARD] IS WITH THE LODGEMENT[SUBMISSION] OF EITHER PARTY WITH THE OUTCOME-CUT[DECISION] BY THE [ORIGINAL]NATIVITY-TRIBUNAL. FOR THE VACANCY OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WITH THE PARTICIPATION[FILLING] OF THE SAME-SEQUENCE[PROCEDURE] WITH THE [ORIGINAL]SAME-NATIVITY-[AP]POINTMENTS BY THE MEMBERS[Article 12 – Interpretation or implementation of award. 1. Any controversy which may arise between the parties to the dispute as regards the interpretation or manner of implementation of the award may be submitted by either party for decision to the arbitral tribunal which made the award. For this purpose, any vacancy in the tribunal shall be filled in the manner provided for in the original appointments of the members of the tribunal].
:~NEXUS-~7.12.2– FOR THE TRANSLATE-CONTROVERSY[INTERPRETATION OR IMPLEMENTATION] OF THE PRIZE[AWARD] IS WITH ANOTHER COURT OR TRIBUNAL OF THE THE LODGEMENT[SUBMISSION] WITH A CONGRUENT-WRIT BY ALL PARTIES AND ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-~287[AGREEMENT OF ALL-PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE UNDER ARTICLE 287] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[Article 12 – Interpretation or implementation of award. 2. Any such controversy may be submitted to another court or tribunal under article 287 by agreement of all the parties to the dispute].
:~NEXUS-~7.13[APPLICATION TO ENTITIES OTHER THAN STATES PARTIES]– FOR THE PARTS[PROVISIONS] OF THIS ~NEXUS-~7[ANNEX] ARE WITH THE CLAIM[APPLICATION] OF THE MUTATIS-MUTANDIS WITH ANY CLAIMS[DISPUTES] BY[INVOLVING] A LACK-STATE-PARTY[ENTITY][Article 13 – Application to entities other than States Parties. The provisions of this Annex shall apply mutatis mutandis to any dispute involving entities other than States Parties].
:MUTATIS-MUTANDIS OF THIS ~NEXUS-~7-FINITE-MEAN IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE NEED OF THE CORRECTIVE-MEASURES[NECESSARY CHANGES] WITH THE LAW AND FACTS BY THE CONTEXTUAL-CLAIM[APPLICATION] AND BY THE TRIBUNAL’S-PRUDENCE-NEED. FOR THE BALANCE[ALIGNMENT] OF THE FACTS/LAW IS WITH THE CHANGE-NEED[ADAPTATION] OF THE FACTUAL-CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITIONAL-TENETS[LEGAL PRINCIPLES] WITH THE SPECIFIC-CLAIM BY THIS SALVAGE-MATTER. FOR THIS CLAIM[APPLICATION] OF THE CONVENTIONS, ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S, ~NEXUS-~7[ANNEX VII], ~PART-~9[ARTICLE], [ADMIRALTY]~MARITIME-LAW AND OF THE ~SALVAGE-CONVENTION-~1989 IS WITH THE [NECESSARY]NEED-CHANGES OF THE REFLECTION[sic] WITH THE [UNIQUE]SINGULAR-NATURE OF THIS CLAIM AND WITH THE PUBLIC-POSITION[INTEREST SERVED] BY THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE[OPERATION][This claim is based on the facts and highlights the need for corrective measures (necessary changes) in accordance with the law and facts as applied to the specific context of the claim and the tribunal’s prudence. Achieving a balance (alignment) between the facts and the law requires the adaptation (necessary changes) of the factual circumstances and legal principles (positional tenets) relevant to this specific salvage matter. The application of relevant conventions, including UNCLOS, Annex VII, Article 9, Admiralty and Maritime Law, and the Salvage Convention of 1989, necessitates necessary changes (adaptations) to reflect the singular (unique) nature of this claim. It also considers the public interest served by the salvage operation. Role of Non-State Entities: The tribunal’s jurisdiction under Annex VII, Article 13, extends to disputes involving non-State entities, such as the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Article 13 explicitly provides that the provisions of Annex VII apply mutatis mutandis to entities other than States Parties. In this case, MSD, while not a State Party, operates in a capacity akin to a commercial entity engaged in maritime commerce, as evidenced by its fiduciary and contractual obligations to the claimant. The legal fiction of treating non-State entities as ‘ships’ under Admiralty law principles further supports the tribunal’s jurisdiction over MSD in this salvage matter. Public Interest: The salvage operation undertaken by the claimant served a critical public interest by preserving maritime property, preventing environmental harm, and ensuring maritime safety. The claimant’s actions directly mitigated the risk of pollution, aligning with Article 8 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which imposes a duty on salvors to minimise environmental damage. Additionally, the operation safeguarded the interests of coastal communities and maritime stakeholders by securing the vessel and its cargo. These efforts reflect the broader public interest served by the claimant’s actions, reinforcing the equitable basis of the claim and the tribunal’s mandate to reward such contributions under Admiralty law. Fiduciary Breaches: The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) breached its fiduciary duties by failing to act with transparency, accountability, and timeliness in fulfilling its obligations to the claimant. These breaches are substantiated by evidence from Volumes 2 and 3, which document the following: 1. Failure to Disburse Funds: MSD delayed payments owed to the claimant, resulting in financial harm and operational constraints. This is evidenced by correspondence in Volume 3, where the claimant repeatedly sought resolution without success. 2. Negligence in Financial Reporting: MSD failed to provide accurate and timely financial statements, as required under fiduciary protocols, further exacerbating the claimant’s financial position. 3. Unilateral Suspension of Benefits: MSD’s suspension of the claimant’s support benefit, without proper justification or adherence to procedural fairness, directly violated its fiduciary obligations. This action is documented in Volume 2 and highlights the financial harm caused to the claimant. These breaches underscore the need for equitable relief under Section 180 of the NZ Senior Courts Act 2016, as the claimant seeks restoration of their rightful position and compensation for damages incurred. Conclusion: This claim underscores the claimant’s adherence to Admiralty law and the Salvage Convention of 1989, highlighting the tribunal’s jurisdiction over non-State entities, the public interest served by the salvage operation, and the fiduciary breaches by MSD. The claimant respectfully seeks equitable relief to restore their rightful position and compensation for damages incurred, in alignment with the principles of fairness and justice under maritime law].
:LODGEMENT-PERFORMANCE OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-ANNEX-~VII-METHOD/~NEXUS-~7.[DEEMED AUTOMATIC ARBITRATION METHOD FOR THE LAW OF THE SEAS]
FOR THE LODGEMENT-CLAIM OF THE ~NEXUS-~7-METHOD/~287.3 IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THESE FACTS WITH THE POSTAL-PERFORMANCE OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/MASTER WITH THE LIVERY OF THE ~NEXUS-~7-CLAIM WITH THE DOCUMENT-VESSEL/CARGO-PERFORMANCE/FACT-DATA[EVIDENCE]/PROOF/KNOWLEDGE OF THE FULL-CLAIM WITH THE DI-RECTION-PERFORMANCE BY THIS POSTAL-LOCATION, REGISTRAR OF THE INTERNATIONAL-TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA/I.-T.-L.-O.-S., I.-T.-L.-O.-S., ~AM-INTERNATIONALEN-SEEGERICHTSHOF[sic]/~1, [22609]~HAMBURG, ~GERMANY AND GLOBAL-POSITION, ~53.5513°-N, ~9.85094°-E AND BY THIS POSTAL-LOCATION, António: Guterres/ANTÓNIO-GUTERRES, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS[sic], ~UNITED-NATIONS-HEADQUARTERS[sic], ~405/~EAST-~42ND-STREET,~NEW-YORK[sic], ~NEW-YORK[sic], [NY 10017]~United-States[sic] AND GLOBAL-POSITION, ~40.74891°-N, ~73.96816°-W[The documents for the Annex VII arbitration performance are with lodgement with the Registrar of ITLOS in Hamburg, Germany, and notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations where the documents are accessible through ITLOS or the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) unless chosen to be publicly withheld. Explanation:Under ~287.3, the principle of [DEEMED]AUTOMATIC-ARBITRATION-ACCEPTANCE applies to the New Zealand (NZ) State Party because it has not made a declaration specifying its preferred dispute resolution method under Article 287 of UNCLOS. This means that New Zealand is automatically deemed to accept arbitration under the ~ANNEX-VII[sic]/~NEXUS-~7-METHOD for resolving disputes. For the Live-Life-Claimant, this ensures that their claim can proceed through a neutral and binding arbitration process, even without prior agreement from New Zealand. This mechanism guarantees fairness and compliance with international law, providing a clear path to resolve the dispute efficiently and equitably. Under international law, including the principles outlined in UNCLOS, sovereign immunity does not shield a State Party, such as New Zealand, from arbitration under the [DEEMED]AUTOMATIC-ARBITRATION-ACCEPTANCE mechanism of ~ANNEX-VII[sic]/~NEXUS-~7-METHOD. Sovereign immunity applies to acts of a governmental nature but does not extend to matters of a commercial nature or with disputes where a State Party has consented to be bound by international agreements, such as UNCLOS, which includes provisions for arbitration. By becoming a State Party to UNCLOS, New Zealand has implicitly waived its sovereign immunity in matters covered by the Convention, including disputes subject to arbitration under Annex VII. This ensures that the Live-Life-Claimant’s claim can proceed without obstruction, as the arbitration process is a binding and neutral mechanism agreed upon by all State Parties to UNCLOS].
:~287.3– FOR THE [DEEMED]AUTOMATIC-ARBITRATION-ACCEPTANCE[sic] OF THE ~ANNEX-VII[sic]/~NEXUS-~7-METHOD IS WITH A STATE-PARTY OF THE CONTEND[DISPUTE] WITH THE LACK-COVERAGE BY A FORCE-CLAIM[DECLARATION IN FORCE][A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII].
:SUMMATION OF THE ~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S./GLOBAL-RULES AND: CONGRUENCIES/JURISDICTION ARE WITH THE COMMERCIAL/MARITIME-PERFORMANCES BY THE AUXILIARY-NEW-ZEALAND-COMMERCE-PARTIES AND BY THE LAND-[RE]CLAIM-FLAG-STATE-VESSEL-BUILD[ING]-LOCATIONS[WELLINGTON/NICHOLSON HARBOUR].
FOR THE TERRITORY-PERFORMANCES OF THE PHYSICAL-LOCATION-CENTRE, ~NEW-ZEALAND AND GLOBAL-POSITION, ~41.27282°-S, ~173.29935°-E AND OF THE MAIN-MINISTRATION-PERFORMANCE-LOCATION, ~NEW-ZEALAND-EMBASSY, ~37/~OBSERVATORY-CIRCLE-N.-W.[sic], ~WASHINGTON, ~DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA[sic], [DC 20008]~UNITED-STATES AND GLOBAL-POSITION, ~38.91895°-N, ~77.06443°-W AND OF THE LOCAL-TERRITORIAL-[AD]MINISTRATION-PERFORMANCE-LOCATION, MINISTER-OF-FINANCE AS THE SECURITIES-INTERMEDIARY[sic]/Nicola: Willis/NICOLA-WILLIS, ~LEVEL-~3[RECEPTION]/~5[TREASURY RECEPTION], ~1/~THE-TERRACE, ~WELLINGTON-CENTRAL, ~WELLINGTON, [6011]~NEW-ZEALAND AND GLOBAL-POSITION, ~41.27907°-S, ~174.77579°-E ARE WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE CERTIFY/CONFIRM OF THE CONTINUOUS-CONVENTIONS-JOINDER WITH FACT-DATA/PROOF OF THE CONGRUENT-PERFORMANCES AND: GLOBAL-RULES, UNITED-NATIONS-CONVENTION-ON-THE-LAW-OF-THE-SEA-~1982[sic]/~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S./UNCLOSAND: ~ANNEX-~VII/~U.-N.-C.-L.-O.-S.-NEXUS-~7-METHOD[sic], ~INTERNATIONAL-TRIBUNAL-FOR-THE-LAW-OF-THE SEA[sic]/~I.-T.-L.-O.-S./ITLOS,~INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-ON-SALVAGE-~1989[sic]/~SALVAGE-CONVENTION,~NAIROBI-INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-ON-THE-REMOVAL-OF-WRECKS-~2007[sic], ~INTERNATIONAL-REGULATIONS-FOR-PREVENTING-COLLISIONS-AT-SEA-~1972[sic]/~C.-O.-L.-R.-E.-G./COLREG, ~INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-FOR-THE-PREVENTION-OF-POLLUTION-FROM-SHIPS-~1973[sic]/~1978/M.-A.-R.-P.-O.-L./MARPOL, ~INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-ON-CIVIL-LIABILITY-FOR-BUNKER-OIL-POLLUTION-DAMAGE-~2001[sic]/~BUNKER-CONVENTION, ~INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-ON-CIVIL-LIABILITY-FOR OIL-POLLUTION-DAMAGE-~1969[sic]/~C.-L.-C./CLC, ~ARREST-CONVENTION-~1952[sic], ~HAGUE-VISBY-RULES-~1968, ~ROTTERDAM-RULES-~2008, ~LIMITATION-OF-LIABILITY-CONVENTION-~1976-AND-PROTOCOL-OF-~1996[sic], ~ATHENS-CONVENTION-RELATING-TO-THE-CARRIAGE-OF-PASSENGERS-AND-THEIR-LUGGAGE-BY-SEA-~1974[sic], ~CIVIL-JURISDICTION-AND-JUDGMENTS-ACTS-~1982-AND-~1991[sic], ~UNITED-NATIONS-CONVENTION-ON-THE-RECOGNITION-AND-ENFORCEMENT-OF-FOREIGN-ARBITRAL-AWARDS-~1958[sic]/~NEW-YORK-CONVENTION[sic], ~UNCITRAL-ARBITRATION-RULES-~2010[sic], ~UNITED-NATIONS-CONVENTION-ON-THE-USE-OF-ELECTRONIC-COMMUNICATIONS-IN-INTERNATIONAL-CONTRACTS-~2005[sic]/ELECTRONIC-COMMUNICATIONS-CONVENTION/E.-E.-C./ECC[ AND ARTICLES 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, AND 14], ~UNITED-NATIONS-CONVENTION-ON-THE-ASSIGNMENT-OF-RECEIVABLES-IN-INTERNATIONAL-TRADE-~2001[sic]/RECEIVABLES-CONVENTION[sic], ~UNITED-NATIONS-CONVENTION-ON-INSOLVENCY-RELATED-JUDGMENTS-~2018[sic]/[IN]SOLVENCY-JUDGMENTS-CONVENTION, ~INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-ON-THE-ESTABLISHMENT-OF-AN-INTERNATIONAL-FUND-FOR-COMPENSATION-FOR-OIL-POLLUTION-DAMAGE[FUND]-~1971[sic], ~BRUSSELS-CONVENTION-ON-JURISDICTION-AND-THE-ENFORCEMENT-OF-JUDGMENTS-IN-CIVIL-AND-COMMERCIAL-MATTERS-~1968[sic], [UK]~EVIDENCE-[PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS]-ACT-~1975[sic], ~PROTOCOL-TO-THE-CONVENTION-ON-LIMITATION-OF-LIABILITY-FOR-MARITIME-CLAIMS-~1996[sic], ~INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTION-FOR-THE-CONTROL-AND-MANAGEMENT-OF-SHIPS’-BALLAST-WATER-AND-SEDIMENTS-~2004[sic], [NZ]~SECTION-~180 OF THE ~SENIOR COURTS ACT-~2016[sic][ÆQUITY CURE], [UK]~SECTION-~20 OF THE ~SENIOR-COURTS-ACT-~1981[sic], [UK]CIVIL-PROCEDURE-RULES-PART-~61[sic]/C.-P.-R./CPR, [UK]MERCHANT-SHIPPING-ACT-~1995[sic]/~M.-S.-A./MSA WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell AND BY THIS CLAIMANT/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-AUTHORITY-CLAIM[Lodgement Performance of the UNCLOS Annex VII Method (Nexus 7): The lodgement of this claim follows the Nexus 7 method under Article 287.3 of UNCLOS, which provides for automatic arbitration acceptance when a State Party has not declared a preferred dispute resolution method. This ensures that the claim proceeds through neutral and binding arbitration under Annex VII. The documents for this arbitration are lodged with the Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany, and notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, USA. These documents are accessible through ITLOS or the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), unless withheld for confidentiality. Under international law, including UNCLOS, sovereign immunity does not shield a State Party, such as New Zealand, from arbitration under the Nexus 7 method. By becoming a State Party to UNCLOS, New Zealand has implicitly waived its sovereign immunity for disputes covered by the Convention, ensuring that this claim can proceed without obstruction. This lodgement ensures compliance with global maritime rules and conventions, including UNCLOS, the International Convention on Salvage 1989, and other relevant international agreements listed above. The claim is certified by the Live-Life-Claimant, Jonathan-Simon: Bell, acting as Salvage Captain (proxy), and is with the support by the fact-data, proof, and knowledge].
:~GLOBAL-RULES OF THE ~U.-D.-H.-R./~UDHR[sic][UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS]= ~GLOBAL-CLAIM OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE[PEOPLES]-POSITION/G.-C.-L.-L.-C.-P. ARE WITH THESE ~U.-D.-H.-R.-PART-CLAIMS[UDHR ARTICLES] BY THE ~D.-C.-T.-C.
:[UDHR]DECLARATION[sic]= :CLAIM OF THESE GLOBAL-RULES.
:[UDHR]EVERYONE[sic]= FOR ALL PEOPLES/LIVE-LIFE-CREATURES OF THIS TERRA-EARTH.
:[UDHR]UNIVERSAL[sic]= :GLOBAL-LOCATION OF THIS TERRA-EARTH AND CONTINUUM-MOMENT[NOW]-SPACE.
:[UDHR]HUMAN/PERSONS/PEOPLES= LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE OF THE SENSE, COGNITION, PERCEPTION AND: SELF-GUIDANCE[CONTROL][sic]/BREATH-FUNCTION.
:[UDHR]RIGHTS= NATURAL-POSITION/AUTHORITY OF THE ~1/OEN/SELF[sic][one of nature does not need ask for the rights of the things= asking for rights of a lower jurisdiction is an oxymoron].
:~D.-C.-T.-C.= :DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-CLAIM/CLAIMS.
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~3[RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/PERSON IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE LIVE-LIFE, LIBERATION AND: SAFE-GUARD/SECURITY[sic] BY THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE-STANDARD-POSITION[RIGHT]. FOR THIS CLAIM OF THE ~U.-D.-H.-R.-~3 IS WITH THIS CLAIM[APPLICATION] OF THE FACTS/PERFORMANCE AND OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE’S-STANDARD-POSITION[RIGHT] WITH THE VOID-PERFORMANCE BY THE M.-S.-D./NEW-ZEALAND-COURTS/AUXILIARY-PARTY[Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. APPLICATION WITH THE MSD/NZ-COURTS/AUXILIARY-PARTY CLAIM: The MSD and NZ Courts’ actions, including retaliatory benefit cuts and denial of basic survival needs, have violated the claimant’s right to life, liberty, and security. These actions have jeopardised the claimant’s ability to maintain a minimum standard of living and personal security. Pattern of MSD Violation: 1. Retaliatory benefit cuts below the survival threshold and full cut-off without due notice, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 2. 2. Denial of basic survival needs, including housing and food, as detailed in Common Bundle Volume 2.3. Creation of situational stress through delayed responses, fictitious conveyance of language, and void support, as documented in Common Bundle Volume 3.. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: The MSD party’s actions have jeopardised the claimant’s ability to maintain a minimum standard of living and personal security. Specific evidence includes: Common Bundle Volume 2, Section 3: Documentation of retaliatory benefit cuts. Common Bundle Volume 2, Section 5: Evidence of denial of basic survival needs. Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 4: Records of delayed responses and void support. Conclusion: The actions of the MSD and NZ Courts have violated the claimant’s right to life, liberty, and security, as guaranteed under UDHR Article 3. Corrective measures are required to restore the claimant’s rights, including the immediate reinstatement of benefits, provision of adequate housing and food, and the establishment of timely and effective support mechanisms to prevent further harm].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~9[NO ONE IS TO BE SUBJECT OF WRONG METHOD ARRESTS, DETAIN OR EXILE] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/PERSON IS WITH THIS VOID-PERFORMANCE OF ANY AUXILIARY-PARTY WITH THE WRONG-METHODS/PERFORMANCE OF THE HOLD-BACK[ARREST], KEEP-BACK[DETENTION] OR BANISH/DRIVE/TAKE-STANDARD-LOCATION-POSITION[EXILE] WITH THE STANDARD-POSITION/LOCATION OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/HUMAN/PERSONS/PEOPLES WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C[Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. APPLICATION WITH THE MSD/NZ-ADMINISTRATION-COURTS/AUXILIARY-PARTY CLAIM: The NZ Administration Courts’ actions, including wrongful arrests, detentions, and failure to remove invalid records, have violated the claimant’s right under UDHR Article 9. These actions have deprived the claimant of their liberty and caused undue distress. Pattern of NZ Court Violation: 1. Wrongful performance of the NZ Administration Courts with the lack of a valid contract and void criminality of their arrests, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 2.2. Situational arrest for an email to the claimant’s son, void ab initio, as documented in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 5. 3. Failure to remove invalid records after one year, as confirmed by the registrar/clerk and detailed in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 6. 4. The claimant is stuck in the UK, unable to return to New Zealand, causing distress and peril, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7.Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: 1. Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 2: Evidence of lack of valid contracts and void criminality of arrests. 2.Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 5: Documentation of situational arrest for an email to the claimant’s son. 3.Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 6: Records of failure to remove invalid records after one year. 4. Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7: Evidence of the claimant’s inability to return to New Zealand. Conclusion: The NZ Administration Courts’ actions, including wrongful arrests, detentions, and failure to remove invalid records, have violated the claimant’s right under UDHR Article 9. Corrective measures are required to address these violations, including the immediate removal of invalid records, cessation of wrongful arrests and detentions, and facilitation of the claimant’s safe return to New Zealand].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~10[FAIR EQUALITY OF A FAIR AND PUBLIC HEARING/TRIBUNAL AND DETERMINATION OF A CRIMINALITY CLAIM] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/PERSON IS WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RULE-OEN/~1 AND SAME-ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE BALANCE OF THE HONOUR/GRACEFUL-VOLITION[DO NO HARM] WITH A HEAR/MOTION/SOLUTION BY A LACK-FAVOURABLE/LACK-BIAS-TRIBUNAL. FOR THE CORRECTION OF ANY WRONG/KNOWLEDGE IS WITH THE CLEAN/VOID OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTY-JOURNALS/LOGS[RECORDS] AND: WRONG-FACTS/CONJECTURES/LOGS/JOURNALS[PRESUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, DEEMS, MAKING IT UP PERFORMANCES] AND WITH THE CLEAN/ÆQUITY OF THE CLAIMANT’S-HANDS WITH THE CORRECTIVE-MEASURES OF THE CLAIMANT’S-POSITION[RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS] AND: WRONG-CRIMINAL-CHARGE-PERFORMANCES/JOURNALS WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C[Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. APPLICATION WITH THE MSD/NZ-ADMINISTRATION/COURTS/AUXILIARY-PARTY CLAIM: The NZ Administration Courts’ actions, including the lack of an independent and impartial tribunal, failure to remove invalid records, and administrative overreach, have violated the claimant’s right under UDHR Article 10. These actions have deprived the claimant of a fair and public hearing and caused undue harm. Pattern of NZ Court Violation: 1. Lack of an independent and impartial tribunal due to the NZ corporate structure, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 1. 2. Failure to remove invalid records after one year, as confirmed by the registrar/clerk and detailed in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 6. 3. Wrongful arrests and administrative overreach without valid contracts or evidence of criminality, as documented in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 2. 4. The claimant is unable to return to New Zealand, causing distress and peril, as evidenced in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: 1. Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 1: Evidence of lack of an independent and impartial tribunal. 2. Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 6: Records of failure to remove invalid records after one year. 3. Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 2: Documentation of wrongful arrests and administrative overreach. 4. Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 7: Evidence of the claimant’s inability to return to New Zealand. Conclusion: The NZ Administration Courts have violated the claimant’s right under UDHR Article 10 by failing to provide an independent and impartial tribunal, refusing to remove invalid records, and engaging in administrative overreach. Corrective measures are required to ensure the claimant’s rights are upheld, including the establishment of an independent and impartial tribunal, removal of invalid records, and facilitation of the claimant’s return to New Zealand to participate in a fair hearing].
:~G.-C.-L.-L.-C.-P.-~10[THEFT OF THE CLAIMANT EQUITY]– FOR THE VOID-PERFORMANCE-CLAIM/THEFT AND FAILURE OF THE NEW-ZEALAND-AUXILIARY-STATE-PARTIES/NEW-ZEALAND-ADMINISTRATION-COURTS/NELSON-FAMILY/HIGH-COURT AND POSTAL-LOCATION/~NELSON-COURTHOUSE, ~200/~BRIDGE-STREET, ~NELSON, ~NELSON, ~NEW-ZEALAND[7010] AND: GLOBAL-POSITION/~41.27285°-S, ~173.28946°-E IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE MEASUREMENT AND WRONG-BALANCE OF THE ÆQUITY/ÆQUALITY[FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY] WITH THE ZERO-SHARE OF THE CLAIMANT-CORRECT-BALANCE, ~50-SHARE/~50-SHARE AND OF THE ~100-SHARE WITH THE AUXILIARY-PARTY-PERFORMANCE AND: TAKE OF THE CLAIMANT’S-DOMICILE-HOME[AS PRINCIPLE][PRIMARY RESIDENCE] WITH THE DOMICILE-ÆQUITY-THEFT[UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF PROPERTY RIGHTS] OF THE NEW-ZEALAND-CORPORATION/AUXILIARY-STATE-PARTIES[AGENTS] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE AND: CERTIFY BY THE CLAIMANT/AUTHOR AND BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C-AUTHORITY-FACT-CLAIM[Theft of the Claimant’s Equity and Void-Performance by the New Zealand Auxiliary-State-Parties. Claim Statement: This claim addresses the void-performance, theft, and failure of the New Zealand auxiliary-state-parties, including the New Zealand Administration Courts, Nelson Family/High Court, and the Nelson Courthouse located at 200 Bridge Street, Nelson, New Zealand [7010], with the global position coordinates of 41.27285°S, 173.28946°E. The claimant certifies that the auxiliary-state-parties have engaged in actions resulting in the theft of the claimant’s equity and the wrongful removal of the claimant’s domicile-home, which served as the principal residence. These actions have caused an imbalance in equity/æquality [fairness and equality], leaving the claimant with a zero-share of their rightful equity while the auxiliary-state-parties have unjustly retained the full 100-share. The claimant further claims that the auxiliary-state-parties have failed to uphold the principles of fairness, impartiality, and equity, as required under international human rights law, including UDHR Article 10. The wrongful removal of the claimant’s domicile-home and the failure to maintain a fair balance of equity constitute a breach of the claimant’s rights and obligations. Supporting Evidence: 1. Void-Performance and Theft of Equity: The auxiliary-state-parties failed to provide a fair and impartial tribunal, resulting in the theft of the claimant’s equity and the wrongful allocation of shares. 2. Wrongful Removal of Domicile-Home: The claimant’s domicile-home, which served as the principal residence, was unlawfully taken by the auxiliary-state-parties without valid justification or due process. 3. Imbalance of Equity/Æquality: The auxiliary-state-parties failed to maintain a fair balance of equity, leaving the claimant with a zero-share while retaining the full 100-share for themselves. 4. Failure to Certify and Correct Records: The auxiliary-state-parties failed to certify and correct the claimant’s records, perpetuating the theft of equity and the wrongful removal of the domicile-home. Conclusion: The actions of the New Zealand auxiliary-state-parties, including the New Zealand Administration Courts and Nelson Courthouse, have resulted in the theft of the claimant’s equity, the wrongful removal of the claimant’s domicile-home, and the failure to maintain fairness and equity. These actions constitute a violation of the claimant’s rights under UDHR Article 10. Cure: The claimant seeks corrective measures, including the restoration of their equity, the return of their domicile-home, and accountability for the auxiliary-state-parties’ void-performance and breaches of international human rights law].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~12[PRIVACY AND PROTECTION FROM INTERFERENCE] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE IS WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF ANY AUXILIARY-SUBJECTION AND WITH THE MEDDLE OF HIS CONFIDENTIALITY/FAMILY/HOME/KULEANA[CORRESPONDENCE] WITH HIS HONOUR/GRACEFUL-VOLITION AND CHARACTER-CREDIBILITY OF A KEEP-GOOD= VOID-CONFLICT[DO NO HARM] WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ~1/OEN-RULE AND SAME-ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE POSITION OF THE PEACE/NEUTRALITY WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THE ~D.-C.-T.-C. FOR THIS CLAIM OF EVERY OEN/~1/HUMAN IS WITH THE POSITION BY AN AUXILIARY-SHIELD[Article 12.No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. APPLICATION TO THE MSD CLAIM: The MSD party has breached the claimant’s right to privacy by disclosing confidential information without authorisation and engaging in unsolicited communications. These actions may also include the sequestration of the claimant’s birth certificate and the creation of child securities without consent. Privacy Rights: Pattern of violation: 1. Disclosure of confidential information without authorisation. 2. Unsolicited communications through sms, letters and email. 3. Possible sequestration of the claimant’s birth certificate and creation of child securities without consent. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: The MSD party has breached the claimant’s right to privacy by failing to maintain confidentiality and engaging in unauthorised actions. Conclusion: The actions of the MSD party constitute a clear violation of UDHR Article 12, as they have failed to uphold the claimant’s right to privacy and protection from interference. The disclosure of confidential information without authorisation, unsolicited communications, and potential sequestration of the claimant’s birth certificate demonstrate a breach of the claimant’s confidentiality and personal autonomy. These actions have caused significant harm to the claimant’s honour, reputation, and emotional well-being. Corrective measures are required to ensure the claimant’s privacy is restored, including the cessation of unsolicited communications, the return of any sequestered documents, and a full investigation into the unauthorised actions of the MSD party].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~13[FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT/RESIDENCE AND RIGHT TO LEAVE/RETURN TO ONE’S COUNTRY] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE IS WITH THE POSITION OF THE FREE-MOVEMENT WITH THE DOMICILE-COUNTRY, FORWARDS AND BACKWARDS AND WITH OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE MOVEMENT[BETWEEN] WITH THE VOID-BLOCK OF THE MOVEMENT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 13. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. APPLICATION TO THE MSD CLAIM: The auxiliary-state-parties, including the MSD and NZ Administration Courts, have violated the claimant’s right to freedom of movement and residence by imposing a void-block of movement with ficticious records and further unknown sms claims sent to the claimant, denying the claimant’s position of safe passage and return to their domicile country, New Zealand. Freedom of Movement: Pattern of Violation: 1. Void-block of movement, preventing the claimant from returning to New Zealand. 2. Denial of the correct position to return due to administrative overreach and invalid records, and further unknown sms claims sent to the claimant. 3. Restriction of the claimant’s ability to exercise their position to freedom of movement and residence. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: The auxiliary-state-parties have imposed a void-block of movement, preventing the claimant from returning to New Zealand. The NZ Administration Courts have failed to remove invalid records, show any contract and denies the claimant’s correct position to return. The claimant has experienced distress and peril due to the denial of their position to return safely and gain a fair trial. Conclusion: The auxiliary-state-parties, including the MSD and NZ Administration Courts, have violated the claimant’s right to freedom of movement and residence, as guaranteed under UDHR Article 13. The imposition of a void-block of movement, reliance on fictitious records, and denial of the claimant’s safe passage and return to New Zealand have caused significant distress and peril to the claimant. These actions have restricted the claimant’s ability to exercise their fundamental rights to movement and residence. Corrective measures are required to remove all invalid records, ensure the claimant’s safe return to New Zealand, and provide a fair trial to address the administrative overreach and harm caused].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~15[RIGHT TO A NATIONALITY] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE IS WITH THE POSITION BY ONE’S NATIONALITY/STATE/DOMICILE-LOCATION-CHOICE. FOR THE POSITION OF THE TERRITORIAL-STATE-CHOICE/DOMICILE-LOCATION IS WITH THE KEEP/HOLD/HONOUR OF THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE’S-CHOICE/MOVE[CHANGE NATIONALITY] AND WITH VOID-BLOCK/COERCION/MEDDLE OF THE CREATURE’S-CHOICE WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Article 15. 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. APPLICATION TO THE MSD/IRD CLAIM: The auxiliary-state-parties, including the MSD and IRD, have violated the claimant’s position to nationality by controlling the claimant’s account stewardships [legal identity] and using multiple name versions. These actions have caused confusion and administrative harm to the claimant, depriving them of their autonomy and position with their nationality. Right to nationality: Pattern of violation:1. Control of the claimant’s legal identity through multiple name versions. 2. Administrative confusion between employee and beneficiary status with the MSD<>IRD. 3. Void position of corporate administration control over the claimant’s natural identity. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: 1. The MSD party’s actions have caused confusion and administrative harm to the claimant, violating their right to nationality. 2. Evidence of multiple name versions used in official documents. 3. Documentation of administrative confusion between employee and beneficiary status. 4. Records of corporate administration control over the claimant’s natural identity. Conclusion: The auxiliary-state-parties, including the MSD and IRD, have violated the claimant’s stewardship position with a nationality, as guaranteed under UDHR Article 15. The control of the claimant’s legal identity through multiple name versions, administrative confusion between employee and beneficiary status, and the void position of corporate administration over the claimant’s natural identity have deprived the claimant of their autonomy and position with their nationality. These actions have caused significant administrative harm and confusion. Corrective measures are required to restore the claimant’s autonomy, including the standardisation of the claimant’s correct and legal stewardship identity, the resolution of administrative confusion, and the removal of corporate control over the claimant’s natural identity].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~17[POSITION OF THE PROPERTY/POSSESSION OWNERSHIP] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/PEOPLES IS WITH THE POSITION/AUTHORITY OF THE BUILD[ING][PROPERTY]/DWELL[ING]/DOMICILE-STEWARDSHIP WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR ANY AUXILIARY-CLAIM OF THE TAKE/HINDER-STEWARDSHIP IS WITH ANY TAKE/HINDER BY THE [AB]SOLUTE-VOID-PERFORMANCE[Article 17. 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. APPLICATION TO THE NZ-COURTS>MSD CLAIM: The New Zealand Corporation, NZ Administration (“family” jurisdiction behind closed doors) > MSD party has violated the claimant’s property position by removing the claimant’s stewardship as principal and steward of the claimant’s domicile home and possibly sequestering securities and controlling the claimant’s trust estate without consent. The removal of “Jonathan Simon Bell” as a registered owner on the title NL167/81 was executed without evidence of consent, valid contract, or fact-data/performance, and no lawful justification for the change has been provided. The addition of a caveat by the Legal Services Commissioner further restricted dealings with the property, yet the caveat itself does not explain or justify the removal of the principal owner. There was no con-tract or fact-data/performance for the NZ Court’s claim of origin: act of a criminality with an assault = void ab initio. The actions taken by the auxiliary-state-parties, including the NZ-Courts and MSD, constitute a breach of UDHR Article 17, as they deprived the claimant of their property rights arbitrarily and without transparency. Property Rights: MSD Pattern of Violation. 1. Unauthorised Access to the Claimant’s Securities and Financial Assets: The MSD party accessed the claimant’s securities and financial assets without consent or lawful authority, violating the claimant’s property rights. 2. Sequestration of the Claimant’s Estate Without Consent: The claimant’s estate, including their domicile home, was sequestered without consent. The removal of Jonathan Simon Bell as a registered owner on the title NL167/81 was executed without evidence of agreement or lawful justification. 3. Void Position of Financial Control Methods Without Transparency: Financial control methods were imposed over the claimant’s property and assets without transparency or consent. This includes the mortgage lien change on LINZ and the involvement of ANZ Bank. 4. Addition of a Caveat Without Resolving Ownership Disputes: The caveat lodged by the Legal Services Commissioner restricted dealings with the property but failed to address or justify the removal of Jonathan Simon Bell as a registered owner. The caveat’s purpose, as stated, was to protect a pending statutory land charge, yet it does not explain the arbitrary deprivation of the claimant’s property position. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: 1. The NZ-Courts/MSD Party’s Actions: The NZ-Courts/MSD party has violated the claimant’s property position by engaging in unauthorised actions and failing to provide full trust accounting. 2. Evidence of Unauthorised Access to Securities and Financial Assets: Documentation shows unauthorised access to the claimant’s financial assets, including the mortgage lien change on LINZ. 3. Sequestration of the Claimant’s Estate Without Consent: The removal of Jonathan Simon Bell as a registered owner on the title NL167/81 was executed without consent or lawful justification. The addition of the caveat further restricted dealings with the property without resolving the ownership dispute. 4. Records of Financial Control Methods Imposed Without Transparency or Consent: Financial control methods, including the involvement of ANZ Bank, were imposed without transparency or consent, further violating the claimant’s property position. Conclusion: The removal of the stewardship entity, “Jonathan Simon Bell” as a registered steward/owner on the title NL167/81 and the subsequent actions by the NZ-Courts and MSD party constitute a clear violation of UDHR Article 17. The claimant’s property rights were arbitrarily deprived through unauthorised access, sequestration of the estate, and imposition of financial control methods without transparency or consent. The addition of the caveat by the Legal Services Commissioner further restricted dealings with the property but failed to address or justify the removal of the principal owner. Corrective measures are required to restore the claimant’s property rights and ensure compliance with international human rights obligations].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~22[CORRECT-POSITION/AUTHORITY OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY/BENEFICIARY’S FINANCIAL SECURITIES] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/PEOPLES IS WITH THE BENEFICIARY-POSITION OF THE SOCIAL-SECURITY/FINANCIAL-SECURITIES[sic] AND WITH THE PAYMENTS OF THE BENEFIT-SECURITIES[sic] WITH THE CORRECT-POSITION OF THE TRUSTEE/BENEFICIARY WITH THE AUXILIARY-STATE-PARTY OF THE TRUSTEESHIP/CORRECT-MINISTRATION AND WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE GLOBAL-PARTIES WITH THE SUPPORT BY THE BENEFIT-PAYMENTS[Article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realisation, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. APPLICATION TO THE MSD CLAIM: The New Zealand Corporation, NZ Administration (“family” jurisdiction behind closed doors) > MSD party has violated the claimant’s social security rights by failing to uphold the correct position of the trusteeship/beneficiary relationship. These violations include: 1. Failure to Provide Adequate Social Security Payments: The MSD party has failed to ensure timely and adequate payments of benefit-securities, leaving the claimant without the necessary financial support for their dignity and personal development. 2. Void Position of Trusteeship and Ministration: The MSD party has failed to fulfil its obligations as trustee, including the correct ministration of the claimant’s financial securities and social security entitlements, resulting in significant financial and emotional harm. 3. Lack of Transparency and Cooperation: The MSD party has acted without transparency or cooperation, failing to provide full trust accounting or justification for its actions, undermining the claimant’s rights and the principles of international cooperation. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: 1. Failure to Provide Adequate Payments: Evidence of the MSD party’s failure to provide adequate social security payments is detailed in Common Bundle Volume 2. 2. Void Trusteeship and Ministration: Documentation of the MSD party’s failure to fulfil its trusteeship obligations is provided in Common Bundle Volume 2. 3. Lack of Transparency: Records showing the MSD party’s failure to provide full trust accounting are included in Common Bundle Volume 2. Conclusion: The actions of the MSD party constitute a clear violation of UDHR Article 22, as they have deprived the claimant of their right to social security and the realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for their dignity and personal development. Corrective measures are required to restore the claimant’s position and ensure compliance with international human rights obligations].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~23[POSITION AND FREE CHOICE OF WORK/CON-TRACT/EMPLOYMENT, EQUAL-PAY, CORRECT-REMUNERATION FOR EXISTENCE/LIVE-LIFE-STANDARDS] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/PEOPLES IS WITH THE CORRECT-STANDARD OF THE LIVE-LIFE AND OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE-CHOICE OF THE CON-TRACT-WORK/VOLUNTARY-TAX-POSITION[EMPLOYMENT] AND WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RULE-OEN/~1 AND SAME ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE PAY/BALANCE OF THE HONOUR, ÆQUAL-SUM-TOTAL AND OF THE SAME-WORK/ÆQUAL-STANDARD WITH THE VOID OF THE DIFFERENCE[sic][DISCRIMINATION] WITH THE FAVOURABLE-POSITION OF THE WORK-DOMAIN WITH THE SHIELD OF THE LACK-WORK-POSITION[ABILITY TO DO TYPICAL WORK OF THE PERSON’S CHOICE/CAREER] WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF A WORK-BLOCK WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR THE NUMERATION[TOP UP] OF THE WORK-PAY IS WITH THE CORRECTIVE-STANDARD AND: SUPPLEMENTARY-SUPPORT BY THE CLAIMANT/BENEFICIARY-POSITION AND BY THE AUXILIARY-PARTY-SYSTEMS[Article 23.1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. APPLICATION TO THE MSD CLAIM: The New Zealand Corporation, NZ Courts, IRD, and MSD party’s actions have interfered with the claimant’s right to free choice of work and just remuneration, as guaranteed under UDHR Article 23. These violations include: 1. Disruption of the Claimant’s $120k Career: The claimant’s career, valued at $120k annually, has been disrupted due to administrative failures and retaliatory actions, causing significant financial instability and emotional distress. 2. Barriers to Employment: The MSD party has created barriers to the claimant’s employment along with the NZ court’s performance by failing to remove a void “criminal” record, delaying responses, and providing void support. 3. Failure to Provide Supplementary Support: The MSD party has failed to provide supplementary support during periods of financial hardship, leaving the claimant without a social shield. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence: 1. Disruption of Career: Evidence of the claimant’s disrupted career is detailed in Common Bundle Volume 2. 2. Barriers to Employment: Records showing the failure to remove a void “criminal” record and delayed responses are included in Common Bundle Volume 2 and Volume 3. 3. Failure to Provide Supplementary Support: Documentation of the MSD party’s failure to provide supplementary support is provided in Common Bundle Volume 2. Conclusion: The actions of the NZ Courts, IRD, and MSD party constitute a clear violation of UDHR Article 23, as they have interfered with the claimant’s right to free choice of work, just and favourable conditions of work, and protection against unemployment. Corrective measures are required to restore the claimant’s rights and ensure compliance with international human rights obligations].
:~U.-D.-H.-R.-~25[RIGHT TO THE CORRECT LIVE-LIFE-STANDARDS] OF EVERY LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE/PEOPLES IS WITH THE CORRECT-STANDARD OF THE LIVE-LIFE AND OF THE AUXILIARY-PARTY-PERFORMANCE WITH THE LIVE-LIFE-CREATURE-CHOICE OF THE CON-TRACT-WORK/VOLUNTARY-TAX-POSITION[EMPLOYMENT] AND WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RULE-OEN/~1 AND SAME ÆQUAL-RULE WITH THE PAY/BALANCE OF THE HONOUR, ÆQUAL-SUM-TOTAL AND OF THE SAME-WORK/ÆQUAL-STANDARD WITH THE VOID OF THE DIFFERENCE[sic][DISCRIMINATION] WITH THE FAVOURABLE-POSITION OF THE WORK-DOMAIN WITH THE SHIELD OF THE LACK-WORK-POSITION[ABILITY TO DO TYPICAL WORK OF THE PERSON’S CHOICE/CAREER] WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF A WORK-BLOCK WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR THE NUMERATION[TOP UP] OF THE WORK-PAY IS WITH THE CORRECTIVE-STANDARD AND: SUPPLEMENTARY-SUPPORT BY THE CLAIMANT/BENEFICIARY-POSITION AND BY THE AUXILIARY-PARTY-SYSTEMS[Article 25.1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. APPLICATION TO THE MSD CLAIM: The New Zealand Corporation, NZ Courts, IRD, and MSD party’s actions have interfered with the claimant’s right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, as guaranteed under UDHR Article 25. These violations include: 1. Failure to Provide Necessary Social Services: The MSD party has failed to provide access to necessary social services, including housing and medical care, leaving the claimant in financial and emotional distress. 2. Denial of Benefits: The MSD party has denied the claimant benefits during periods of financial hardship, violating their right to adequate living standards. 3. Creation of Avoidable Hardship: The MSD party’s actions, including void support and delayed responses, have created avoidable hardship for the claimant. Fact-Data/Proof/Evidence. 1. Failure to Provide Social Services: Evidence of the MSD party’s failure to provide necessary social services is detailed in Common Bundle Volume 2. 2. Denial of Benefits: Documentation of the denial of benefits is provided in Common Bundle Volume 2. 3. Avoidable Hardship: Records showing the creation of avoidable hardship are included in Common Bundle Volume 2. Conclusion: The actions of the NZ Courts, IRD, and MSD party constitute a clear violation of UDHR Article 25, as they have interfered with the claimant’s right to adequate living standards, including access to food, housing, medical care, and social services. Corrective measures are required to restore the claimant’s rights and ensure compliance with international human rights obligations].
:C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-PERFORMANCE-CLAIM OF THE [UK]~SENIOR-COURTS-ACT-~1981[sic]/~SECTION-~20[sic]/S.-C.-A.= :ADMIRALTY-JURISDICTION[sic]OF THE ~ROLLS-BUILD[ING]/HIGH-COURT AND GLOBAL-POSITION/~51.51584°-N, ~0.11034°-W.
:S.-C.-A.-~1-CLAIMSOF THE ~SECTION-~20[sic] ARE WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE FOREIGN-HIGH-COURT[sic]/THE-ROLLS-BUILD[ING]/ROYAL-COURTS-OF-JUSTICE[sic]/KINGS-BENCH-[DI]VISION AND: GLOBAL-POSITION/~51.51584°-N, ~0.11034°-W WITH THE GRANT/HEAR[ING]/LISTEN/SEE/SIGHT/FOLLOW AND: MAINTENANCE-DUTY/BIND[DETERMINE]/CURE BY THESE CLAIM-PARAMETERS/PRAYERS/CLAIMS/QUEST-CLAIMS, S.-C.-A.-~1A/~1B/~1C/~1D/~1E/~1F/~1G/~1H/~1I/~1J/~1K/~1L/~1M/~1N/~1O/~1P/~1Q/~1R/~2[(1) The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the following questions or claims].
:S.-C.-A.-~1AOF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH ANY CLAIM OF THE POSSESSION[sic] OR WITH THE STEWARDSHIP[OWNERSHIP] OR WITH ANY SHARE OF A SHIP WITH THE PERFORMANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C. AND BY THIS DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-VESSEL-CARGO-CLAIM/D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve the possession, stewardship[ownership], or share of a ship? Rule: “Any claim to the possession or ownership of a ship or to the ownership of any share therein” (Section 20(1)(a)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant and SALVAGE CAPTAIN confirms and certifies their lawful authority over the ship/vessel/document-con-tract-vessel-claim as a steward[owner] and seeks re-cognition of their claim under Admiralty jurisdiction. The claimant has provided fact-data/evidence of their stewardship[ownership] through the chain of the custody and support-documentation/cargo, including copies of the ship/vessel’s registration and ownership records. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(1)(a) is valid as it involves the possession or ownership of a ship. Relevance: This subsection is directly relevant to the Live-Life-Claimant’s confirmation of lawful stewardship[ownership] over the vessels/ships. The claim involves the re-cognition of the claimant’s possession or stewardship/ownership position/rights of the things, which are supported by the chain of the custody and the claimant’s documented authority over the vessel. Support: The Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(a), provides jurisdiction for claims involving the possession or ownership of a ship/vessel or its shares. The claimant’s fact-data/evidence/proof aligns with the principles established in The Bold Buccleugh (1851), which confirms that maritime liens attach to the vessel itself and survive changes in stewardship/ownership. This supports the claimant’s entitlement to have their claim heard and determined].
:S.-C.-A.-~1GOF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH ANY CLAIM OF GOODS WITH THE GOODS OF THE LOSS/DAMAGE WITH THE TRANSPORT[VESSEL CARRIAGE] BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve the loss or damage to goods carried in a ship? Rule: “Any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship” (Section 20(1)(g)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant seeks compensation for goods that were damaged during transport. The claimant has provided evidence of the damage and the circumstances under which it occurred, aligning with the statutory provision. The goods include identification documents (passports, driver’s licenses) classified as “goods” under Admiralty jurisdiction. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(1)(g) is valid as it involves the loss or damage to goods carried in a ship. Relevance: This subsection addresses the claimant’s entitlement to compensation for goods damaged during transport. The claim specifically involves the loss of identification documents, which were damaged during their carriage in the ship. The claimant seeks recovery for the financial and operational impact of this loss. Support: The Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(g), grants jurisdiction for claims involving the loss or damage of goods carried in a ship. The claimant’s evidence of the damage, including photographs and chain of custody records, aligns with this statutory provision. The principles of fairness and corrective justice further support the claimant’s entitlement to compensation].
:S.-C.-A.-~1I OF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH ANY CLAIM AND NATURE OF THE SALVAGE WITH THE TRANSPORT[SHIP RECOVERY] BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve the nature of salvage? Rule: “Any claim in the nature of salvage.” This subsection applies to claims involving salvage operations and the recovery of property at sea. Application: The Live-Life-Claimant has undertaken voluntary and successful salvage operations, preserving the ship and its cargo from peril. The claimant has provided evidence of the salvage operation, including the risks undertaken and the value of the salvaged property. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(1)(i) is valid as it involves the nature of salvage. Relevance: This subsection is critical as it pertains to the salvage operation performed by the Live-Life-Claimant (Salvage Captain) on derelict vessels. The claim involves the recovery and preservation of identification documents and other assets classified as “property” under Admiralty jurisdiction. The claimant seeks a salvage reward for their voluntary and successful efforts to recover these assets from peril. Support: The Salvage Convention 1989, Article 13, entitles the salvor to a “fair reward” based on the value of the salvaged property and the efforts made to preserve it. The claimant’s evidence, including detailed logs of the salvage operation and valuation reports, supports their entitlement to a salvage award. This aligns with the principles of Admiralty law and the claimant’s lawful standing].
:S.-C.-A.-~1J OF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH ANY CLAIM AND NATURE OF THE TOWAGE WITH THE TOW OF THE SALVAGE-PERFORMANCE WITH THE TRANSPORT[SHIP TOWING] BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve the nature of towage in respect of a ship? Rule: “Any claim in the nature of towage in respect of a ship.” This subsection applies to claims involving towage services provided to a ship. Application: The Live-Life-Claimant seeks compensation for towage services rendered to the ship. The claimant has provided evidence of the towage operation and the necessity of the services provided. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(1)(j) is valid as it involves the nature of towage in respect of a ship. Relevance: This subsection is relevant as it addresses the voluntary towage of derelict vessels, including identification documents with the ficticious names and 1 x 2 flag size use of an auxiliary-party’s-ownership (travel permit/NZ driving licence and UK/NZ passports), by the Salvage Captain. The claim involves the recovery and safe transit of these assets, which are treated as “vessels” under Admiralty law. The claimant’s actions ensure the preservation and delivery of these assets to a secure location and owner when requested. Support: The NZ Admiralty Act 1973, Section 4(1)(j), grants jurisdiction over towage claims, further validating the Live-Life-Claimant’s actions. The claimant’s evidence, including towage logs and witness statements, supports their entitlement to compensation for the services rendered].
:S.-C.-A.-~1LOF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH ANY CLAIM[IN RESPECT] OF THE GOODS OR MATERIALS WITH THE SUPPLY OF A VESSEL/SHIP WITH THE SHIP-MAINTENANCE[SHIP OPERATION] BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve goods or materials supplied to a ship for its operation or maintenance? Rule: “Any claim in respect of goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance.” This subsection applies to claims involving the supply of goods or materials necessary for the operation or maintenance of a ship. Application: The Live-Life-Claimant seeks compensation for goods and materials supplied to the ship for its operation and maintenance. The claimant has provided evidence of the supply and its necessity for the ship’s operation. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(1)(l) is valid as it involves goods or materials supplied to a ship for its operation or maintenance. Relevance: This subsection supports the classification of identification documents as “goods” or “materials” under Admiralty jurisdiction. The Live-Life-Claimant’s actions to secure and maintain these documents align with the principles of salvage and preservation. The claim involves the recovery of costs incurred in securing and maintaining these assets. Support: The Salvage Convention 1989, Article 13, entitles the salvor to a “fair reward” based on the value of the salvaged property and the efforts made to preserve it. Additionally, the NZ Maritime Transport Act 1994, Section 97(1), reinforces jurisdiction over claims involving goods or materials supplied to a ship. The claimant’s evidence, including receipts and maintenance logs, supports their entitlement to compensation. Cross-reference: Article 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989 outlines the principles of fair reward for salvage operations. Evidence: [1] Invoices and Receipts: (a) Detailed invoices for goods and materials supplied to the ship, including dates, quantities, and descriptions of the items and (b) Receipts confirming payment for the supplied goods. [2] Maintenance Logs: Logs showing the necessity of the supplied goods for the ship’s operation, including records of repairs or replacements made using the supplied materials. [3] Photographic Evidence: Photographs of the goods in use aboard the ship, demonstrating their application in the ship’s operation or maintenance. [4] Witness Statements: Statements from crew members or suppliers confirming the delivery and use of the goods. [5] Correspondence: Emails or letters between the claimant and suppliers detailing the procurement and delivery of the goods].
:S.-C.-A.-~1MOF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH ANY CLAIM[IN RESPECT] OF THE CONSTRUCTION, FIX[REPAIR], OR OF THE SHIP/VESSEL-PARTS/PLACEMENTS/FURNITURE/FITMENTS[EQUIPMENT] WITH THE/ANY DOCK-CHARGES/DUES BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve the construction, repair, or equipment of a ship, including dock charges or dues? Rule: “Any claim in respect of the construction, repair, or equipment of a ship or dock charges or dues.” This subsection applies to claims involving the construction, repair, or equipment of a ship, as well as dock charges or dues. Application: The Live-Life-Claimant seeks compensation for repairs and equipment supplied to the ship, as well as dock charges incurred. The claimant has provided evidence of the repairs, equipment, and charges, aligning with the statutory provision. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(1)(m) is valid as it involves the construction, repair, or equipment of a ship, including dock charges or dues. Relevance: This subsection is relevant as it addresses the claimant’s entitlement to compensation for repairs and equipment supplied to the ship, as well as dock charges incurred. These actions were necessary to ensure the ship’s operation and maintenance, aligning with the claimant’s responsibilities as a steward[owner]. Support: The Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(m), provides jurisdiction for claims involving the construction, repair, or equipment of a ship, including dock charges or dues. The claimant’s evidence, including invoices and repair logs, supports their entitlement to compensation under this provision. Fact-Data/Evidence: [1] Repair Logs: (a) Detailed logs of the work performed on the ship, including dates, locations, and descriptions of the repairs and (b) Records of inspections conducted before and after the repairs. [2] Invoices for Equipment: Invoices for equipment supplied to the ship, including specifications, costs, and delivery dates. [3] Dock Charge Receipts: Receipts and records of payments made for the ship’s docking and maintenance at port facilities. [4] Photographic Evidence: Photographs of the ship before and after repairs, showing the improvements made. [5] Correspondence with Contractors: Emails or letters between the claimant and contractors or suppliers involved in the construction, repair, or equipment of the ship. [6] Agreements or Contracts: Copies of agreements or contracts with repair yards or equipment suppliers, detailing the scope of work and terms of service].
:S.-C.-A.-~1ROF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH THE FORFEITURE[sic]/CONDEMNATION OF A DOCUMENT-VESSEL/SHIP-CLAIM OR GOODS-CLAIM WITH A PAST-PERFORMANCE, TRY-PERFORMANCE OR WITH A CONTINUUM-MOMENT[NOW]-SPACE-PERFORMANCE OF THE CARRIAGE/TRANSPORT OR WITH THE PUT-BACK-POSITION-PERFORMANCE[RESTORATION] OF A VESSEL/SHIP OR OF ANY SUCH-GOODS WITH A POST-PERFORMANCE BY A TAKE-HOLD[SEIZURE] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve the forfeiture, condemnation, or restoration of a ship or goods after seizure? Rule: “Any claim for the forfeiture or condemnation of a ship or of goods which are being or have been carried, or have been attempted to be carried, in a ship, or for the restoration of a ship or any such goods after seizure” (Section 20(1)(r)). Application: The Live-Life-Claimant seeks the restoration of salvaged documents and goods that were seized unlawfully. The claimant has provided evidence of the chain of custody, including detailed logs of the salvaged goods, photographs of the items at the time of recovery, and correspondence with maritime authorities regarding the seizure. The claimant asserts that the seizure was conducted without lawful authority and seeks the return of these assets to their rightful custody. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(1)(r) is valid as it involves the restoration of goods or a ship after seizure. Relevance: This subsection is critical as it addresses the restoration of salvaged documents and goods that were seized unlawfully. The claim involves the preservation and recovery of these assets, which are essential for the claimant’s lawful standing under Admiralty jurisdiction. The claimant seeks the return of these assets to their rightful custody. Support: The Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(1)(r), provides jurisdiction for claims involving the forfeiture, condemnation, or restoration of a ship or goods after seizure. The claimant’s evidence, including chain of custody records, photographs, and legal notices, supports their entitlement to restoration. Cross-reference: This subsection aligns with the principles of corrective justice and the claimant’s lawful standing under Admiralty jurisdiction. The evidence provided, including chain of custody records and legal notices, complies with the procedural requirements for restoration claims].
:S.-C.-A.-~2 OF THE S.-C.-A. IS WITH THE CONJOIN[CONFER] OF THIS ADMIRALTY-JURISDICTION[sic] WITH ANY CLAIM OF THE VALUE-GAINS[INTEREST]/DAMAGES WITH A JUDGMENT OF A CLAIM WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THIS S.-C.-A. AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY[Issue: Does the claim involve interest on damages or judgments under Section 20? Rule: “The jurisdiction conferred by this section includes any claim for interest on damages or on a judgment in respect of a claim under this section.” This subsection applies to claims involving interest on damages or judgments related to claims under Section 20. Application: The Live-Life-Claimant seeks interest on damages incurred due to the loss of goods, salvage operations, and other claims under Section 20. The claimant has provided evidence of the financial losses and the basis for claiming interest. Conclusion: The claim under Section 20(2) is valid as it involves interest on damages or judgments Relevance: This subsection is relevant as it addresses the claimant’s entitlement to interest on damages incurred due to the loss of goods, salvage operations, and other claims under Section 20. The claim ensures the claimant is compensated for financial losses and the time value of money. Support: The Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 20(2), includes jurisdiction for claims involving interest on damages or judgments related to claims under Section 20. The claimant’s evidence of financial losses, including detailed accounting records, supports their entitlement to interest].
:CONSUMMATION/CONCLUSION OF THESE S.-C.-A. AND: D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY-CLAIMS.
FOR THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT’S-C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-PERFORMANCE OF THE [UK]~SENIOR-COURTS-ACT-~1981[sic]/~SECTION-~20[sic]/~S.-C.-A. IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE ADMIRALTY-JURISDICTION[sic] OF THE HIGH-COURT WITH THE HEAR AND CORRECTIVE-MEASURES[DETERMINATION]/CURE OF THE CLAIMS/PRAYERS/QUEST-CLAIMS/QUESTIONS WITH THE FACTUAL AND LAWFUL-ÆQUAL-BALANCE[ALIGNMENT] AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS D.-C.-T.-V.-C.-C.-AUTHORITY.
:~CIVIL-PROCEDURE-RULES[sic]/~C.-P.-R.-PART-~7.3[STARTING PROCEEDINGS FOR TWO OR MORE CLAIMS][UK CPR Rule 7.3: Starting proceedings for two or more claims: A single claim form may be used to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings].
:~C.-P.-R.-~7.3.1 OF THE CLAIM-FORM IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ~2/TWO-CLAIMS OR OF THE MORE-CLAIMS AND: SAME-CLAIM-FORM WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE CLAIMANT[A single claim form may be used to start two or more claims if they are factually connected or arise from the same set of facts].
:~C.-P.-R.-~7.3.2 OF THE CLAIM-FORM IS WITH THE VOID-POSITION OF THE MULTIPLE-CLAIMS WITH THE CLAIMS BY THE VOID-CONNECTION OR BY THE VOID-FACTUAL-RELATIONSHIP[sic][A claim form cannot be used for multiple claims if the claims are unrelated or lack a factual connection].
:~C.-P.-R.-~7.3.3 OF THE CLAIM-FORM IS WITH THE VALID-PERFORMANCE OF THE MULTIPLE-CLAIMS WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE SAME-FACTUAL-JUXTAPOSITION/SAME-RELATIONSHIP[sic] OR: SAME-FACTUAL-CONNECTION WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE CLAIMANT[Multiple claims may proceed on the same claim form if they share a factual relationship or connection][IRAC Analysis of the ~C.-P.-R.-~7.3: Issue: Can the claimant use a single claim form to initiate multiple claims against the NZ MSD, NZ Transport Agency, NZ Administration Courts, and NZ Inland Revenue Department under CPR, Rule 7.3, considering the procedural breaches, SMS trespasses, and double-bind methods of contact/con-tract of a commercial nature that are interconnected and arise from the same set of circumstances? Rule: Under the UK CPR, Rule 7.3, a single claim form may be used to start two or more claims if they are factually connected or arise from the same set of facts. Claims that are unrelated or lack a factual connection cannot proceed on the same claim form. This rule ensures procedural efficiency and prevents the unnecessary multiplication of legal proceedings. Application: The claims against the New Zealand Corporation departments, including the MSD, NZTA, NZ Administration Courts, and IRD, are factually connected and arise from the same set of circumstances. Specifically:Procedural Breaches: Each department engaged in procedural breaches, including unauthorised SMS trespasses and double-bind methods of contact/con-tract. These breaches are interconnected as they involve similar methods of communication and timing, suggesting a coordinated or systemic issue. Commercial Nature of Actions: The actions of the departments, including non-payment of commercial bills, fiduciary breaches, and procedural delays, are commercial in nature. These actions directly impact the claimant’s ability to perform salvage operations and recover security instruments, further linking the claims. Factual Connection: The claims share a common factual relationship, as they all involve the claimant’s rights under Admiralty law, procedural fairness, and the recovery of security instruments. The SMS trespasses and double-bind methods of contact/con-tract are central to each claim, providing a clear factual connection. Efficiency and Procedural Fairness: Using a single claim form to initiate these claims ensures procedural efficiency and fairness, as it avoids the unnecessary multiplication of legal proceedings. This approach aligns with the purpose of CPR, Rule 7.3, which is to streamline litigation and address interconnected claims in a single proceeding. Conclusion: The claimant can use a single claim form to initiate multiple claims against the NZ MSD, NZ Transport Agency, NZ Administration Courts, and NZ Inland Revenue Department. The claims are factually connected, arise from the same set of circumstances, and comply with the requirements of CPR, Rule 7.3. This approach ensures procedural efficiency and fairness while addressing the interconnected nature of the claims].
:~C.-P.-R.-PART-~16.4.1a[CONTENTS OF THE CLAIM-PARTICULARS][The particulars of claim must include: (a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies].
:~CPR-~16.4.1a.1– FOR THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE IS WITH THE CONCISE-STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CLAIMANT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE CLAIMANT[The statement of case must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies].
:~CPR-~16.4.1a.2– FOR A VOID-POSITION OF A CASE IS WITH A STATEMENT OF A CASE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY A VOID-CONCISENESS OR BY A VOID-CLARITY[The statement of case must not lack clarity or conciseness].
:~CPR-~16.4.1a.3– FOR THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FACTUAL-CLARITY AND: FACTUAL-CONCISENESS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE/KNOWLEDGE BY THE CLAIMANT[The statement of case must present the facts in a clear and concise manner][IRAC Analysis: Issue: Does the claimant’s statement of the case meet the requirements of clarity and conciseness under CPR, Rule 16.4(1)(a) for all claims, especially the MSD claim? Rule: Under CPR, Rule 16.4(1)(a), the statement of case must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. The statement must not lack clarity or conciseness. This rule applies to all claims, including defences, as it ensures procedural fairness and clarity in litigation. The rule is reinforced by the Queen/King’s Bench Guide, which states that statements of case must be brief, concise, and confined to setting out the material facts, not the evidence of them. Application: The claimant’s statement of the case across all claims, including the MSD claim, adheres to CPR, Rule 16.4(1)(a) by presenting a concise and clear statement of the facts. Specifically: Procedural Breaches: The claimant details the procedural breaches by the MSD, NZTA, and IRD, including SMS trespasses and double-bind methods of contact/con-tract, which are commercial in nature. These breaches are clearly outlined without unnecessary elaboration, ensuring the facts are concise and directly relevant to the claims. Commercial Nature of Actions: The claimant highlights the commercial nature of the MSD’s actions, including non-payment of commercial bills, fiduciary breaches, and procedural delays. These facts are presented in a structured and concise manner, meeting the requirements of clarity under CPR, Rule 16.4(1)(a). Admiralty Jurisdiction: The claimant establishes the connection to Admiralty jurisdiction by referencing the recovery of security instruments and salvage operations. The facts are presented succinctly, avoiding unnecessary detail while ensuring the material facts are clear and concise. Compliance with Procedural Standards: The claimant’s statements of case are structured to comply with procedural standards, avoiding convoluted or ambiguous language. This ensures that the claims are easily understood by the court and the opposing parties, fulfilling the requirements of CPR, Rule 16.4(1)(a). Conclusion: The claimant’s statement of the case for all claims, especially the MSD claim, complies with CPR, Rule 16.4(1)(a) by including a concise and clear statement of the facts on which the claims rely. The procedural breaches, commercial nature of the actions, and connection to Admiralty jurisdiction are presented in a structured and concise manner, ensuring clarity and adherence to procedural fairness].
:DOUBLE-BIND-METHODS OF THE CONTACT/CON-TRACTAND: FINITE-MEAN ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THESE FACTS WITH THE CONTRADICTORY-TERMS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE VOID-POSITION AND: AUXILIARY-PARTY-CON-TRACT-METHOD AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THE CLAIMANT AND BY THE D.-C.-T.-C[The “double-bind methods of contact/con-tract” referenced in the claims involve communication tactics that create a no-win situation for the claimant, forcing compliance or causing procedural disadvantage. Below are specific examples from the claims against the NZ MSD, NZTA, NZ Administration Courts, and IRD, as well as the main claim back to the court: 1. SMS Trespasses with Double-Bind Methods: The SMS trespasses from the NZ Corporation and Locational Departments in Wellington NZ of the commercial vessels, TE MANATU WHAKAHIATO ORA/MSD, WAKA KOTAHI(=ONE VESSEL)/NZTA/NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY, NGA KÖTI O AOTEAROA/TE KŌTI WHĀNAU/NZ Administration Courts and TE TARI TAAKE/IRD exhibit double-bind methods of contact/con-tract by: Unilateral Communication: The SMS messages were sent without prior authorisation or consent from the claimant, constituting a trespass. The messages provided no option for reply via SMS, forcing the claimant to call a specified number to respond. No-Reply Mechanism: The SMS messages explicitly stated that replies to the SMS were not accepted, creating a one-sided communication channel. This forced the claimant into a position where they had to engage on the sender’s terms, effectively binding them to the sender’s procedural framework. Timing and Coordination: The SMS trespasses occurred in close temporal proximity, suggesting a coordinated effort to disrupt the claimant’s procedural focus. For example, the NZTA sent an SMS on 13 September 2025, the IRD on 20 October 2025, and the NZ Administration Courts on 10 September 2025, all using similar methods. 2. Procedural Breaches and Forced Compliance: The double-bind methods extend beyond SMS trespasses to procedural breaches by the departments: Unclear Instructions: The claimant was provided with vague or contradictory instructions, such as being directed to call a number without clarity on the purpose or outcome of the call. This created confusion and procedural disadvantage. Forced Engagement: By requiring the claimant to initiate contact via phone, the departments effectively forced the claimant into a con-tract (contract by conduct) without providing clear terms or allowing for negotiation. Lack of Shared Terms: The claimant’s visit to the Motueka Police Station revealed procedural irregularities, including the absence of shared terms or proper documentation. This mirrors the double-bind methods used in the SMS trespasses, where the claimant was forced to act without full knowledge of the terms. 3. Commercial Nature of the Actions The double-bind methods are compounded by the commercial nature of the actions: Non-Payment of Commercial Bills: The MSD’s failure to pay commercial bills while continuing to engage in procedural breaches placed the claimant in a position where they had to expend resources to address the breaches, further binding them to the departments’ actions. Fiduciary Breaches: The departments’ actions, including procedural delays and unauthorised communications, breached their fiduciary duties, forcing the claimant to respond to protect their interests. 4. Impact on Admiralty Jurisdiction: The double-bind methods directly impact the claimant’s rights under Admiralty law: Disruption of Salvage Operations: The procedural breaches and SMS trespasses disrupted the claimant’s ability to perform salvage operations and recover security instruments, creating a double-bind where the claimant had to address the breaches while also fulfilling their obligations under Admiralty law. Procedural Delays: The possible coordinated timing of the SMS trespasses and procedural breaches caused delays that hindered the claimant’s ability to pursue their claims effectively, further binding them to the departments’ actions. Conclusion: The “double-bind methods of contact/con-tract” in these claims are characterised by unilateral communication, forced compliance, procedural breaches, and the commercial nature of the actions. These methods create a no-win situation for the claimant, forcing them to engage on the departments’ terms while disrupting their procedural and Admiralty position/rights. The examples provided demonstrate the interconnected nature of the claims and their compliance with CPR, Rule 7.3 and CPR, Rule 16.4(1)(a)].
:~C.-P.-R.-PART-~61[ADMIRALTY CLAIMS].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.1OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE ADMIRALTY-CLAIMS-SCOPE BY THIS C.-P.-R.-~61.1.
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.1A OF THE ADMIRALTY-CLAIMS[sic] IS WITH THE FINITE-MEANS OF[AS] THE CLAIMS WITH THE ADMIRALTY-JURISDICTION[sic] OF THE HIGH-COURT WITH THE SET-OUT AND WITH THE ~SECTION-~20 BY THE [UK]~SENIOR-COURTS-ACT-~1981 AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C[Admiralty claims are defined as claims within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, as set out in Section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.1BOF THE ADMIRALTY-CLAIMS[sic] IS WITH THE MAKE-PARTS[INCLUSION] BY THESE CLAIM-TYPES, ~61.1B1/~61.1B2.
:~61.1B1OF THE CLAIMS-IN-REM[sic] IS WITH THE SHIP, CARGO OR WITH OTHER MARITIME-PROPERTY[sic] BY THE CLAIM[Claims in rem are brought directly against a ship, cargo, or other maritime property].
:~61.1B2OF THE CLAIMS-IN-PERSONAM[sic] IS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL[sic] OR ENTITY[sic] BY THE CLAIM[Claims in personam are brought against an individual or entity].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.2 OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THIS CLAIM OF THE ADMIRALTY-JURISDICTION-PERFORMANCE[sic] WITH THE POSITION[RIGHTS] AND PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE CLAIMANT WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS ~C.-P.-R.-~61.2-CLAIM[Issue: Does the MSD claim involve filing an Admiralty claim under CPR61.2, and how does Anna Graham’s acknowledgment strengthen the claimant’s position? Rule: CPR61.2 governs the scope of Admiralty claims, including claims for salvage services, possession or ownership of ships, and damage caused by ships. Application: The MSD claim addresses the claimant’s entitlement to file an Admiralty claim under CPR61.2. Evidence presented in Volumes 0, 1, 2, and 3 demonstrates the claimant’s compliance with procedural requirements for filing such claims. The MSD Agent, Anna Graham’s letter and the acknowledgment of the claimant’s “part-time salvaging work” in the MSD letter dated 28 March 2025 found in the Common Bundle Volume 2’s Fact-data/evidence further validates the live-life-claimant’s role as a salvor and as the SALVAGE CAPTAIN unlimited company PROXY, this strengthens their entitlement to pursue legal remedies under CPR61.2. CPR61.2 ensures that claims related to salvage services fall within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. The claimant’s evidence demonstrates their active role in salvage operations, further strengthening their claim. Conclusion: The claim under ~C.-P.-R.-~61.2 is valid as evidence supports the claimant’s compliance with the requirements for filing an Admiralty claim. Anna Graham’s acknowledgment further strengthens the claim by validating the claimant’s role as a salvor].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.3 OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE CLAIMS-IN-REM[sic] BY THE ~61.3-PART-A/~61.3B.
:~61.3-PART-A OF THE CLAIM-IN-REM[sic] IS WITH THE SHIP, CARGO OR WITH OTHER MARITIME-PROPERTY[sic] BY THE DI-RECT-CLAIM[A claim in rem is brought directly against a ship, cargo, or other maritime property].
:~61.3-PART-BOF THE CLAIM-FORM IS WITH THE NEED[REQUIREMENT] OF THE STATEMENT WITH THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND WITH THE IDENTIFICATION[sic] OF THE PROPERTY[sic] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/FACT-DATA/KNOWLEDGE BY THE IN-REM-CLAIM[sic][The claim form must include a statement of the nature of the claim and identify the property against which the claim is brought].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.3A OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE CLAIMS-IN-PERSONAM[sic] BY THE ~61.3A1/~61.3A2.
:~61.3A1OF THE CLAIM-IN-PERSONAM[sic] IS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL[sic] OR ENTITY[sic] BY THE IN-PERSONAM-CLAIM[sic][A claim in personam is brought against an individual or entity].
:~61.3A2OF THE CLAIM-FORM IS WITH THE NEED[REQUIREMENT] OF THE SPECIFICATION WITH THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND WITH THE PRAYER/STATEMENT OF THE CURE[RELIEF SOUGHT] BY THE IN-PERSONAM-CLAIM[sic][The claim form must specify the nature of the claim and state the relief sought].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.5 OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE PROPERTY-ARREST[sic] AND BY THE ~61.5A/~61.5B.
:~61.5AOF THE CLAIMANT-PERFORMANCE IS WITH THE WARRANT-LODGEMENT[APPLICATION] OF THE ARREST[sic] WITH THE CLAIMS-IN-REM[sic] BY THIS CLAIM[A claimant may apply for a warrant of arrest in claims in rem].
:~61.5BOF THE LODGEMENT[APPLICATION] IS WITH THIS SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT[AFFIDAVIT] WITH THE NEEDS[REQUIREMENTS] OF THIS ~61.5 WITH THE KNOWLEDGE/FACTS/NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND WITH THE IDENTIFICATION[sic] OF THE ARREST-PROPERTY[sic] WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE ~61.5-CLAIM[The application must be supported by an affidavit that details the nature of the claim and identifies the property to be arrested].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.7 OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE CAUTIONS BY THE ARREST-PERFORMANCE[sic] AND BY THE ~61.7A/~61.7B.
:~61.7-PERFORMANCEOF A PARTY IS WITH THE CAUTION-LODGEMENT[FILING] OF THE PROPERTY-ARREST[sic] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTY’S-NAME, LOCATION/POSITION[ADDRESS] WITH THE PROPERTY-KNOWLEDGE[DETAILS] AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/FACT-DATA/PROOF[EVIDENCE] BY THE CAUTION-CLAIM[A party may file a caution against the arrest of property. The caution must include the party’s name and address and details of the property].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.9 OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY A JUDGMENT-IN-DEFAULT[sic]. FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE JUDGMENT-IN-DEFAULT[sic] IS WITH THE CLAIMANT-POSITION-GRANT[RIGHT] OF THE JUDGMENT-IN-DEFAULT[sic] WITH A MAINTENANCE-FAILURE BY THE COUNTER-CLAIMANT[DEFENDANT][A claimant may apply for judgment in default if the defendant fails to file an acknowledgment of service and/or file a defence within the specified time].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.10 OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE PRIORITY-SALE[sic] BY THE COURT. FOR THE SALE-PERFORMANCE OF THE COURT IS WITH THE [ARRESTED]PROPERTY-SALE[sic] OF A COURT-CLAIM[ORDER] WITH THE [DE]TERMINATION OF THE CLAIMANT-PRIORITIES[sic] WITH THE MAINTENANCE/MOTION BY THE COURT[The court may order the sale of arrested property. The court will determine the priorities among claimants].
:~C.-P.-R.-~61.11 OF THE C.-P.-R. IS WITH THE LIMITATION-CLAIMS BY THE PARTY. FOR A PARTY OF THE LIMITATION IS WITH THEIR LIABILITY BY THE [UK]~MERCHANT-SHIPPING-ACT-~1995-RULES[sic] OR BY THE GLOBAL-CONVENTION-RULES. FOR THIS CLAIM OF THE LIMITATION IS WITH THIS COMPLIANCE BY THE PERFORMANCE-NEEDS[PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS] AND BY THESE ~C.-P.-R.-~61-CLAIMS[A party may limit their liability under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 or international conventions. The limitation claim must comply with the procedural requirements of CPR Part 61].
:CONSUMMATION/CONCLUSION.
FOR THESE CLAIMS OF THE ~C.-P.-R.-~61 ARE WITH THESE CLAIMS OF THE FACTS AND WITH THE ADMIRALTY-JURISDICTION[sic] OF THE ~HIGH-COURT WITH THE MOVEMENT/MAINTENANCE/CURES[ADDRESS/REDRESS] OF THE CLAIMS-IN-REM[sic], CLAIMS-IN-PERSONAM[sic], PROPERTY-ARREST[sic], JUDGMENT-IN-DEFAULT[sic] AND LIMITATION-CLAIMS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FACTUAL AND LAWFUL-JUXTAPOSITION[ALIGNMENT] WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/FACT-DATA/CONVEYANCE AND WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE BY THESE ~C.-P.-R.-~61-CLAIMS AND BY THIS DOCUMENT-CON-TRACT-POSTAL-VESSEL-COURT-VENUE-AUTHORITY[For these claims under CPR Part 61, the claims are based on factual evidence and fall within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. These claims address the procedural requirements for claims in rem, claims in personam, property arrest, judgment in default, and limitation claims. The claims are presented with factual and lawful alignment, ensuring compliance with the rules of Admiralty law. The claims are supported by the performance of factual evidence, data, and legal conveyance, and are submitted under the authority of this document con-tract postal vessel court venue].
FOR THIS CLAIM OF THE ADMIRALTY-JURISDICTION[sic] IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE CLAIMANT/SALVOR WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE HIGH-COURT WITH THE HEAR[ING]/CORRECTIVE-PERFORMANCE OF THE SALVAGE-CLAIM AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/GRANT-AUTHORITY/Jonathan-Simon: Bell AND BY THE SALVOR/SALVAGE-CAPTAIN[PROXY] AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM. FOR THE CORRECT-PERFORMANCE OF THE TE-MANATU-WHAKAHIATO-ORA/MSD-PARTY-CLAIM IS WITH THE POSITION[RIGHT] OF THE CLAIMANT WITH THE PLEDGE-THAT-BINDS[OBLIGATIONS] OF THE DEFENDANT[sic]/MSD-PARTY WITH THE CORRECTIVE-PERFORMANCE OF THE FIDUCIARY-DUTIES AND WITH THE PERFORMANCE/FACTS/KNOWLEDGE BY THIS CLAIMANT AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-C.-CLAIM[Admiralty Jurisdiction:
The claim falls under Admiralty jurisdiction as it involves salvage services, the recovery of four commercial bills, a high-value financial instrument, and breaches of fiduciary duties by the MSD Party. The claimant’s compliance with Section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 is documented in Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 9. Procedural Compliance: The claimant has filed the claim in accordance with CPR Part 61, including the identification of the property (financial instrument) and the nature of the claim. Procedural compliance is detailed in Confidential Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 10. Supporting Evidence: The claimant’s compliance with Admiralty jurisdiction and procedural rules is substantiated by operation logs, valuation reports, correspondence with the Minister of Finance, and evidence of the MSD’s breaches, as documented in the Common Bundle Volumes. High-Value Salvage Claims, MSD Claim, and Procedural Compliance: IRAC Analysis: Issue: Does the claimant comply with Admiralty jurisdiction and procedural rules under the Senior Courts Act 1981 (Section 20) and CPR Part 61 for filing high-value salvage claims and the MSD claim? Rule: 1. Section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 grants jurisdiction for claims involving salvage services, possession or ownership of ships, and damage caused by ships. 2. CPR Part 61 governs the procedural requirements for filing Admiralty claims, including claims in rem and claims in personam. Application: Admiralty Jurisdiction: The claim falls under Admiralty jurisdiction as it involves salvage services, the recovery of a high-value financial instrument, and breaches of fiduciary duties by the MSD Party. The claimant’s compliance with Section 20 is documented in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 9. Procedural Compliance: The claimant has filed the claim in accordance with CPR Part 61, including the identification of the property (financial instrument) and the nature of the claim. Procedural compliance is detailed in Common Bundle Volume 3, Section 10. MSD Claim and Fiduciary Breaches: The MSD claim addresses breaches of fiduciary duties and communication failures by the defendant, which caused financial harm to the claimant. Evidence of these breaches is documented in Common Bundle Volume 3, Sections 4–10, including correspondence, operation logs, and valuation reports. Conclusion: The claimant complies with Admiralty jurisdiction and procedural rules, and the claims are valid. The tribunal/court should recognise the claims and ensure compliance with the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR Part 61.
:Summary of the Gold-Value, P.-P.-S.-R.-Registrations and the ~2/Two-Salvage-Claims, TE MANATU WHAKAHIATO ORA/MSD-Salvage-Claim/~1 and Financial-Instrument-Salvage-Claim/~2.
:Salvage-Claim-Performance-~1: MSD Commercial Bill Debt Value:
Commercial Bill 1: Bill Number: ~250305-001. Amount Secured: ~1,511,910 NZD.
Commercial Bill 2: Bill Number: ~250305-002. Amount Secured: ~1,703,400 NZD.
Commercial Bill 3: Bill Number: ~250305-003. Amount Secured: ~1,454,200 NZD.
Commercial Bill 4: Bill Number: ~250305-004. Amount Secured: ~1,318,680 NZD.
Total MSD Commercial Bill Debt Value: New Zealand Dollars Total: ~5,988,190 NZD.
:Great-British-Pounds/GBP-Value of the MSD-Salvage-Claim, ~2,662,000-GBP (based on spot rate as of 18 September 2025).
:Gold-Equivalent-Claim-Total: ~976.96 troy ounces (based on 2,670.64 GBP per ounce as of 18 September 2025).
:Salvage-Claim-Performance-~2: Financial Instrument, Value and Amount Secured: ~100,000,000 NZD.
:GBP-Value of the Financial-Instrument: ~44,450,000-GBP.
:Gold-Equivalent-Claim-Value:~37,453.18 troy ounces.
| Claim | NZD-Value | GBP-Value | Gold-Equivalent |
| Salvage-Claim-~1 | ~5,988,190-NZD | ~2,662,000-GBP | ~976.96-troy-ounces |
| Salvage-Claim-~2 | ~100,000,000-NZD | ~44,450,000-GBP | ~37,453.18-troy-ounces |
:P.-P.-S.-R.-Registrations.
PPSR Registration for MSD Commercial Bills: PPSR Registration Number: ~F87BKR95C9H3Z7V4. Scope: Secures the claimant’s rights to the amounts under the four commercial bills and the Harassment Fee Schedule.
PPSR Registration for Financial Instrument: PPSR Registration Number: FS6TX7DX6W52U596. Scope: Secures the claimant’s rights to the high-value financial instrument under Admiralty law.
Securities Intermediary:
Role: The Minister of Finance/Treasury acts as the securities intermediary, ensuring compliance with Article 21 of the Salvage Convention 1989 and procedural rules under CPR Part 61.
Supporting Evidence:
Volume 0: Establishes the foundation of the salvage claim, including the claimant’s entitlement to compensation.
Volume 1: Contains operation logs, salvage reports, and correspondence with the shipowner’s agent, Anna Graham, who acknowledged the salvage services.
Volume 2: Details the four commercial bills, lien, and PPSR registration securing the claimant’s rights.
Volume 3: Documents the financial instrument, fiduciary breaches by the MSD Party, and procedural compliance under CPR Part 61].
:CLOSURE-STATEMENT OF THE FACTS-CERTIFICATION.
FOR THIS CLAIMANT’S-COGNITION OF THE SENSATION IS WITH THIS CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-CLAIM OF THE FACTS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND: CERTIFICATION BY THIS CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell.
[My first hand knowledge and certification of the foundational facts comes from the cognition of my sensations]
FOR THESE CLAIMS OF THIS AUTHOR/CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell’S-KNOWLEDGE ARE WITH THE CERTIFICATION OF THE TESTIMONY WITH THE SENSATION AND WITH THE COGNITION BY THIS CLAIMANT/Jonathan-Simon: Bell AND BY THIS D.-C.-T.-P.-V.-C.-V.-AUTHOR.
[I certify these claims through my direct sensory experience and rational understanding, with the purpose of benefiting fellow beings through truthful communication]
:DATE: ~21-~OCTOBER-~2025[sic].
:BY: AUTHOR/Jonathan-Simon: Bell’S-KNOWLEDGE/LIVE-LIFE-CLAIMANT/~LW-123-076-800-NZ/COPY-RIGHT/COPY-CLAIM, SEA-PASS/SEE-TREATY-CLAIM-NUMBER/~LW-122-622-248-NZ, FATE-WRIT/VOLITION-CLAIMANT/~LW-913-835-595-NZ, GRAMMAR-AUDITOR/D.-C.-T.-C.-A. AND: D.-C.-T.-P.-V.-C.-V.-AUTHOR.
[My Fate-Writ/Volition-Claim can be found at this Web-Location, ~bit.ly/JSB-Fact-Claims#Fate-Writ which is also in the attached evidence].
[special appearance & authorised autograph/signature/seal of the represented person in admiralty]
_________________________________
:CLAIMANT-POSTAL-POSITION[address for the service]:
SALVAGE CAPTAIN, ~2/~BROOK-TERRACE, ~THE-BROOK, ~NELSON, ~NELSON, ~NEW-ZEALAND[, 7010] AND: GLOBAL-POSITION, ~41.27913°-S, ~174.77576°-E.
[Salvage-Captain, 2 Brook Terrace, The Brook, Nelson, Nelson, 7010 , New Zealand]
:E-MAIL: ~query@salvage-captain.com. :WEBSITE: salvage-captain.com.
:CONFIDENTIALITY-PORT/CALL: +64(0)204117****.