>At 01:33 6/16/2000 -0400, petro wrote:
>> Depending on what you mean by "recognized", it has. There
>>was a decision in British Courts that Sealand was outside the
>>jurisdiction of the courts, and the Dutch sent a diplomat to
>>discuss releasing some POW after the Prince had to storm his castle
>>to get it back from some dutch mercenaries. The Dutch tried to get
>>England to pressure Sealand to release them, but England said "not
>>our jurisdiction, it's a sovereign country.
>
>I addressed this in an earlier post. But since you feel so strongly
>that you're right, why don't you provide a quote from that ruling
>that backs up your claim?
From the ruling, no, but from http://www.sealandgov.com/history.html:
<...>
In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was
not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any
jurisdiction outside of British national territory. This is the first
de facto recognition of the PRINCIPALITY OF SEALAND. English law had
ruled that Sealand was not part of the United Kingdom, nor did any
other nation claim it, hence Prince Roy's declaration of a new
Sovereign State was de facto upheld.
<...>
During the time that he held the prisoners, the Governments of the
Netherlands and Germany petitioned for their release. First they
asked England to intervene in the matter, but the British government
cited their earlier court decision as evidence that they made no
claim to the territory of Sealand. Then, in an act of de facto
recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, Germany sent a diplomat
directly to Sealand to negotiate for the release of their citizen.
>No? Don't have one? Haven't read it? Don't have a clue? Then there's
>not much need to speculate, is there?
Not having access to English Court Rulings from the 60s
through the 80s, I obviously cannot cite them directly, I have only
the above information.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: *******************************************
"Campaigns to bear-proof all garbage containers in wild areas have been
difficult because, as one biologist put it, `There is a considerable overlap
between the intelligence levels of the smartest bears and the dumbest
tourists.'" -- Richard Wabrek
