Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SamuelSpade (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 5 October 2005 (→Factual errors about this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lock?

Should we maybe get some sort of lock on this page, since it's so frequently vandalized in such an extreme manner? Someone might see the wiki-entry in vandalized form and be convinced by the scam. Citizen Premier 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Reported the vandalism on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress. MakeRocketGoNow 22:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this topic and have no opinion beyond my concern for the repeated vandalism by the user(s) at 67.124.49.20 and 68.121.47.161. This person not only added content to a quotation by the government of the Marshall Islands, but they repeatedly invalidate the external links by changing "https://" to "http://" and ".htm" to ".html". I don't think there is a need to lock the page if these IPs are blocked. They have been reported on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress multiple times. -- Reinyday, 6 August 2005

Evidence

If you have evidence that the Dominion of Melchizedek is real, then please give it here. The country's own web site does not count, since it could easily be faked. An example of a valid source would be a reputable news service. Meanwhile do not remove other people's valid and referenced contrbutions. Doing so is considered vandalism. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There is plently of evidence to show bias on the part of the person that has repeatedly posted a one sided slant about DoM, a small example is the complaint linked from the article to the SEC web site, that refers to DoM similarily as the unenlightened press does, however, a better link is the outcome of the litigation at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17054.htm wherein after the SEC became more enlightened, described DoM like this, "The Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments."

Yesterday there was a quote from the Washington Post that was errased but clearly stated that DoM has official recognition from the Central African Republic (which is a UN member nation), but neither you nor your allies want to mention that fact, nor the quote from the Washington Post that questions who's to say that DoM is phony since it has all of those things that make up a nation state.

The link to the OCC web site was brought to his attention by me, but he refuses to see the fact that this is the OCC's only official reference to DoM which is as a "sovereignty" although "non-recognized" by the US government.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.49.20 (talk • contribs) on 00:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think what clearly defines a micronation would be a populace that swears they are part of the nation. Apparently there are at lease "10,000 citizens and government officials of the Dominion of Melchizedek" Is there, say, U.N. documentation of this citizenry? Or do the Marshall Islands record loosing 10,000 citizens to a new country? Citizen Premier 05:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Narrow Minded

Why are those who post here about DoM so narrow minded?

Why only quote the negative stuff and not anything positive, other than a link to DoM's official site?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.49.20 (talk • contribs) on 00:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Washington Post

Quoting from the Washington Post article about Melchisedek:

"Melchizidek has leaders, laws, religion, a flag, a disputed homeland and an unreasonable territorial claim -- the textbook definition of your basic nation-state. Who's to say it's phony?"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.161 (talk • contribs) on 18:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Ruse That Roared is really quite quotable and is one of James Lileks more entertaining pieces.

"It's a con artists' operation through and through," declares John Shockey,

head of the fraud unit in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. "It's a phony bank, a phony country, a phony dominion -- the whole

thing's a phony."

Bollar 20:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Other quotes from The Washington Post, November 05, 1995, Sunday, Final Edition SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. C01 LENGTH: 2914 words

BYLINE: Richard Leiby; James Lileks

"the Dominion of Melchizedek -- a mysterious island nation whose leadership consists of such colorfully named personages as Branch Vinedresser (the minister plenipotentiary) and G.M.R. Wijbers (minister of European affairs).

Though it lists diplomatic offices in Washington, Rome and Jerusalem, the Dominion of Melchizedek can't be found on any map. Its only apparent land holding is an uncharted, Gilliganesque isle, 14 miles square, in the conveniently remote South Pacific --which it supposedly purchased for $ 5 million last year.

Melchizedek may be merely a ruse, but getting to the truth requires a walk down a bizarre labyrinth that includes a home-brew religion.... Based more on tax laws than territory, Melchizedek may be the ultimate post-modern state.

Melchizedek calls itself "an ecclesiastical and constitutional sovereignty based on the principles of the Melchizedek Bible" (in the Old Testament, Melchizedek is the "king of righteousness" who blessed Abraham).

Obviously, Melchizedek craves legitimacy. But so far, only one government has given it any diplomatic recognition: The Central African Republic.

We can be sure of this much. The Dominion of Melchizedek is not a gag.

Richard Leiby is a Washington Post editor and reporter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.20 (talk • contribs) on 03:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

• Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

This needs to be put in perspective:

• The "Dominion of Melchizedek" has been identified by multiple international authorities as, first and foremost, a financial scam, created by convicted criminals.
• There are no verifiable sources that support DOM's position over the Pacific islands, atolls and reefs it claims, and no evidence that any member of DOM has even visited most of them Rotuma being the only exception I'm aware of.
• DOM's claim over a large portion of Antarctica is preposterous, and has no foundation in law. Again, there is no evidence that any member of DOM has ever been within 1000 kilometres of Antarctica, so even setting aside the legal question, DOM has made no attempt to enforce its own claim, rendering it entirely baseless.
• There is no evidence that DOM has a physical presence in any of the territories it claims, derives financial income from those territories, or has created a single piece of physical infrastructure within their borders.
• While DOM claims that it has been "recognised" by several UN member states, the central and west African nations in question are well known for engaging in fiscal diplomacy. It is interesting to note that claims made by the Hutt River Province to have been "recognised" by UN members states are founded on paper agreements with - you guessed it - Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic. Furthermore, none of the countries that DOM claims to have "relations" with maintain a physical presence in any of DOM's "territories" - and neither does DOM maintain any physical presence in those countries.

So, what I suggest is:

• Remove all references to DOM from Antarctica, since their claim has about as much validity as a claim to territories on the Moon.
• Briefly mention DOM's claims in Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll and Rotuma, but make it clear that they are essentially without foundation.
• Remove all reference to DOM from Microstate. It simply isn't one.
• Remove all reference to DOM from Dominion. This is merely a promotional link that adds nothing of value to the article.
• Ensure that the entry on DOM in Micronation is factual and NPOV.

--Centauri 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

* The "Dominion of Melchizedek" has been identified by multiple international authorities as, first and foremost, a financial scam, created by convicted criminals.

This is only due to inacurate journalistic reporting of opinions from the hip that was repeated by such authorities. Can you list those authorities? Remember someone in power giving their personal opinion doesn't count, such as John Shockey, because his organization's only official statement refers to Melchizedek as an authority that licesned banks, and defines Melchizedek as a "sovereignty", although "non-recognized" by the US.

* There are no verifiable sources that support DOM's position over the Pacific islands, atolls and reefs it claims, and no evidence that any member of DOM has even visited most of them Rotuma being the only exception I'm aware of.

SBS national news broadcast in Australia showing the Iroijlaplap of Taongi declaring that he granted to Melchizedek a 50 years sovereign lease isn't a verifiable source, or the court in Fiji recording the sovereign leases over Solkope and a portion of Rotuma, or the Hawaiian university revealing the same?

* DOM's claim over a large portion of Antarctica is preposterous, and has no foundation in law. Again, there is no evidence that any member of DOM has ever been within 1000 kilometres of Antarctica, so even setting aside the legal question, DOM has made no attempt to enforce its own claim, rendering it entirely baseless.

It is not baseless when it is in treaties with UN member states, and we have confirmed with Dr. Dewey Painter, a high ranking offical of DOM that he has spent 6 months in Antarctica. Call him yourself and ask him for proof if you don't believe it. Melchizedek can take as much time as it wants to perfect its claim, so long as no other governement does so first.

* There is no evidence that DOM has a physical presence in any of the territories it claims, derives financial income from those territories, or has created a single piece of physical infrastructure within their borders.

What led you to this conclusion? Have you visited any territory claimed by Melchizedek?

* While DOM claims that it has been "recognised" by several UN member states, the central and west African nations in question are well known for engaging in fiscal diplomacy. It is interesting to note that claims made by the Hutt River Province to have been "recognised" by UN members states are founded on paper agreements with - you guessed it - Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic.

Can we see a link to these documents? Do they have independent sources such as the Washington Post supporting these claims?

Furthermore, none of the countries that DOM claims to have "relations" with maintain a physical presence in any of DOM's "territories" - and neither does DOM maintain any physical presence in those countries.

As of what date is your information?

So, what I suggest is:

* Remove all references to DOM from Antarctica, since their claim has about as much validity as a claim to territories on the Moon.

Not true.

• Briefly mention DOM's claims in Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll and Rotuma, but make it clear that they are essentially without foundation.

What is your level of authority or expertise to make this determination?

* Remove all reference to DOM from Microstate. It simply isn't one.

Knights of Malta is mentioned there, and Melchizedek isn't actually listed as such but only a reference to it under Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta. Certainly (besides a longer and better documented history) Melchizedek has more hallmarks of a microstate than SMOKM.

* Remove all reference to DOM from Dominion. This is merely a promotional link that adds nothing of value to the article.

Dominion of Melchizedek is a very well know state (albeit unusual, controversial, only recent in history, except for the Biblical claims) and the "dominion" part of its name adds to the article about "Dominion". There is a dominion aspect even to the word, Melchizedek. We're not trying to promote anything, just have a complete reference for all aspects of this subject, since it was so unfairly and incompletely portrayed in the past.

Unsigned interpolations above posted by 68.123.207.17

I think that the claims should NOT be included in island articles because of extremely low notability in given context. The item on Micronation should be kept under watch as it looks as irresistible target of a vandal. If the vandalism continues it should be reported on WP:VIP. Misplaced Pages isn't playground for jokes and trolls. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the contibutions in question tend to rely on sources which falls short of being authoritative; they appear to exhibit a pro-DoM agenda. El_C 23:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)]]

I'd say the way the article is now appears ok to me, but I might provide some more evidence of its recognition and maybe a counter by saying it is not a member of any international organizations and provide some evidence of the 1993 recognition. Mbisanz 00:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax

Should not have link to Hoaxes as this category states: "To forestall edit wars, religions and religious figures are excluded from nomination for this category." Therefore because Melchisedek is based on the Bible and recognized by UN member state as ecclesiastical state, this reference must be removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.161 (talk • contribs) on 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The link to hoaxes is justfied; the hoax is not the religion, but the alleged microstate. If someone were to post an article on a Baptist claim to Antarctica, it would fall under hoaxes. Septentrionalis 20:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you may be sincere in believing that Melchizedek is a hoax as a micronation.

Actually in a way you are correct, because Melchizedek never claimed to be a micrnation. Instead it has consistently claimed to be an ecclesiastical sovereignty for which it has received dejure recognition from at least one UN member state.

It has also gained a false and misleading reputation as fake country, but because it never claimed to be a country, it also doesn't deserve that label.

In fact it appers to me to be unique, somewhere between the SMOM and the Vatican with many other attributes.

Because it doesn't enjoy the same reputation or complicated long history as those more august sovereignties, that doesn't mean that it is not sincere in its claims.

The past 15 years of Melchizedek's history reveals consistency and growth in line with its original and current claims.

It is not a hoax that Melchizedek claims a section of the Antarctica. It may be a far stretch for them to claim it but their claim doesn't appear to me to be a hoax.

That is why I believe it is crazy to link it to hoaxes.

But is it more notable as a hoax than as an ecclesiastical sovereignty — somewhere in the middle between "SMOM and the Vatican" sounds rather vague. The article needs to reflect how it is percieved outside of Misplaced Pages, this is key. This means balanced material and presnetation. El_C 11:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Baptist claim to antarctica and unanswered questions of 68.123.207.17

I see that Centari hasn't answered question of 68.123.207.17 where he or she ask pertinent questions of his or other's statement such as Hutt having recognition from same governments.

Also, PMANDERSON, if the Baptist religion laid claim to Antarctica it wouldn't be a hoax it would be a fact. If you falsely published that Baptist Church laid claim to such then it would be a hoax, but since DoM really lays claim to Antarctica it isn't a hoax.

Furthermore, while the Baptist religion may have ecclesiastical goverance, it doesn't rise or seek to rise to the level of Vatican like statehood as Melchizedek does.

In some ways, Melchizedek has achieved more of the hallmarks of statehood than has the Vatican.

If the Vatican laid claim to a section of Antarctica, would you consider that a hoax.

I can't find where Melchizedek is largely known as a hoax.

While the Washington Post pointed out that aiming nuclear weapon from Ruthenia to France was a "Ruse that Roared" the article itself did not say that Melchizedek is a hoax, nor has any article that i've seen of any credibilty done so.

You're right. Melchizedech is not a hoax. It's a fraud. Big difference. An it looks like you have some competition too. Looks like they're selling the rug from under your feet! --Gene_poole 06:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek has demonstrated that it is neither a hoax nor a fraud. Westarctica.com gives no competition to Melchizedek from the link you provided. What is your agenda to attempt to discredit a recognized ecclesiastical sovereignty? --[[User:69.104.16.189

|69.104.16.189 ]]

What Melchizedech has "demonstrated" is a propensity to produce official-looking documents which have no meaning in international law, a capacity to influence officials in several poverty-striken nations known for endemic official corruption, a desire to exploit internecine conflicts for its own financial benefit, and a longstanding association with banking fraud that has been reported extensively, throughout the world over more than a decade. Melchizedech's assertion that it is an "ecclesiastical sovereignty" stands in stark contrast with the fact that it has no association with any known religion. Westarctica's claims to a quarter of Antarctica have exactly the same legitimacy as Melchizedek's - none - although the later's fraudulent Antarctic land sales are at least of a much lower order of magnitude that the banking frauds perpetrated by agents of Melchizedek. --Gene_poole 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Gene, your claims fall short of the truth. Why do the Melchizedek documents have no meaning in international law? What has Melchizedek gained from the conflicts surrounding "Rotuma" if that is your reference? How is Melchizedek associated with fraud of banks it has licensed? So every government that has licensed a bank is associated with any fruad of that bank? Why should Melchizedek need to be associated with any known religion? And how did you determine that it has no association? That would be like saying that original Christianity had no association with the Jewish religion. Which agents of Melchizedek perpetrated banking frauds? The facts seem to be that non-agents, i.e. bank owners perpetrated the those frauds. From what I've read it was only a few banks out of 300 hundred that were licensed that gave Melchizedek this reputation. Since Melchizedek has official recognition from UN member states and treaties with such that mention Melchizedek's claim to 90-150 West Antarctica in those treaties, certainly that is of more consequence than the sily web site you linked. It is doubtful they sold any real estate in Antarctica, and the reason that a few of the banks licensed by Melchizedek were able to achieve fraud of a serious magnitude is due to the fact that Melchizedek is a functioning government, whereas the web site you listed has no reality in the world of governments.

67.124.49.20

You have reverted this page 6 times in 24 hours. This is a violation of the three revert rule. Please stop changing to an edition that has a POV Shocktm 23:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

What does POV indicate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.20 (talk • contribs) on 02:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

POV = Point of View. In this case you are presenting information that makes DoM look legitmate/real when it is far from it. Here are some things you should read before editing this or any other page.

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• How to avoid common mistakes

When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. Shocktm 20:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in Progress

I have reported a Vandalism in Progress for this page by: 208.57.91.27, 67.124.49.20, 63.164.145.85, and 68.121.47.161 for their repeated attempts to change this article to one with a POV. The user(s) have been warned many time, but they continue to change this page and Ecclesiastical state and Bokak Atoll to their POV. Shocktm 20:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

This guy's been vandalizing for months at every chance. Why is he still being only blocked for short periods of time? Jdavidb 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No Sir, Madam, please seriously consider the following:

Some of you are the ones that has POVs here, as everything I and the others you quoted have only presented supportable facts and with balance and more depth.

For example, you think your point of view is more prevailing than dipomatic recognition from a UN member state. I am only presenting facts.

Another example is that you insist that the Washington Post stated that Melchizedek is a "ruse" where-in-fact it presented two possible "may" be options, one, "may" merely be a ruse to "may" be the "ultimate post modern state".

Also, I can not find anywhere in any Forbes article the word "ruse" but i can find the most recent reference to a Forbes article mentioning Melchizedek that refers to Melchizedek as "dubious".

I'm not the first one nor are any of the others you quoted the first to mention Melchizedek in the Taongi article, and the claim by Melchizedek is significant enough to have promted both Marshall Islands government to denounce it and the Taongi Iroijlaplap after that fact to grant a 50 years soveriegn lease which he delared on SBS Australian national TV.

How can you call an ecclesiastical state a micronation? Just because it has had negative opinions from the press and a few people like retired John Shockey, and bad experiences with banks it licensed doesn't take away its right to be recognized as it has been recognized by UN member states. Remember that the Vatican had its own banking scandals, which resulted in suicide.

Perhaps you want the Catholic religion to have a monopoly on ecclesiastical statehood?

How can it be vandalism to put back the original page that you din't create for Ecclesiastical State? Again, why should the Vatican be the only ecclesiastical state in the world? This apparently is your POV but not the fact.

Everyting I and the others have done to improve the text of the article about Melchizedek has given it more facts, depth and balance, without any POV and every fact brought forth is supportable.

If I were biased I wouldn't have left in the significant negative stuff. There were two links to the Adkission collection of only negative stuff, so I left the one there that links to the Shockey statement, but for the debunking one, not to be repetitive, I linked to that very negative article, which is actually an article, wherein the one that was linked from "Debunding Article" isn't an article at all but is still covered.

If Melchizedech is an "ecclesiastical state", by which I assume you mean a formally consitituted hierarchical religious institution with the rights of sovereign state, why is there no reference to that religion on the Melchizedech website, or in any of the many press reports concerning this entity? Assuming it actually has one, is Melchizedech's religion registered as such for taxation purposes in any recognized jurisdiction anywhere in the world, how many adherents does it have, what is its structure and the titles of its officers, what are its beliefs and practises, and if so, where are the external sources that can be accessed to confirm this? --Centauri 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The Washington Post article twice refers to the religion of the Dominion of Melchizedek. Isn't that a major press report?

Misplaced Pages policy extrapolates Misplaced Pages:Consensus outside its virtual space, to, for our purposes, formal political, scholarly, journalistic, etc. consesus. I challenge that the pro-DoM contributor is magnifying certain favourable sources, ones that fall very short of amounting to such a consensus here and elsewhere. We can't keep going around like this in circle. I wish for the pro-DoM editor to be more critical and reflective, wrt the above, review closely and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Thanks. El_C 23:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

is DoM a Micronation?

Accroding to Misplaced Pages on Micronation, "This article is about entities that are not recognized by any world governments..."

Clearly Melchizedek should not be labeled as such due to the fact that it has received "diplomatic recognition" according to the Washington Post from at least one world government, i.e. the Central African Republic. The letter from the Central African Republic states that the recogntion is both formal and official and refers to Melchizedek as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty".

Melchizedek has its "House of Elders" and its own translation of the Bible which is in print.

It has all of the hallmarks of a state, including, citizens, disputed territorial claims, even sovereign leases, one from the "sole sovereign owner" of Solkope during the time the Fijian constitution was suspended, and one from the Iroijlapap of Taongi.

It not only asserts control over its citizens through its laws, but it contols the entities it allows to be incorporated under its laws. It has a court system that has been recognized by US courts.

Melchizedek seems to have gone far beyond what can be seen from the category of "micronations" and at least rises above the level in many aspects of the Military Order of Malta to statehood.

Perhaps as a compromise, the article can call Melchizedek an "ecclesiastical sovereignty" instead of a micronation or ecclesiastical state, since it has been refered as such by that world governemnt, CAR, and it seems to rise above the category of "micronation".

Micronations also generally only have one or two people actively involved in their government, whereas, Melchizedek seems to have officials all over the world working actively on sovereign leases, recognition, etc. Melchizedek existed before microations began popping up on the Internet, even though, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw called Melchizedek "the first nation on the Internet" back in the late 1990s.

It also appears that scams associated with banks licensed by Melchizedek stopped after the House of Elders of DoM elected Richard James McDonald as Melchizedek's "president" several years back. Perhaps this will reduce the fear that any positive statement about Melchizedek could be used to further frauds, and since McDonald is a retired law enforcement officer with no apparent criminal record. -Johnski 16:02, September 18, 2005

When examining claims of sovereignty on places you have never heard of, the first thing you should do is to take any statment by that entity with a large grain of salt. Many people use double talk and comparison to other entites to 'prove' that their entity has sovereignty, when it is just made up think. In order believe in the entity, proof needs to be provided.

I will address some of your issues/claims.

The DoM indicates that it was recognized by the Central African Republic as a "ecclesiastical sovereignty". First no one consideres the CAR to be good source of recogntion, it is a poor country in Africa that is susceptible to bribery or misunderstand. Two the phrase "ecclesiastical sovereignty" makes no sense. It uses the wrong phrase/tense - if it is like the Holy See, it would be a ecclesiastical sovereign entity or ecclesiastical sovereign state. The claim of recogntion seems to be bogus or at least a misunderstanding. Also we only have the DoM website and a few newspaper articles repeating what is on th website as proof. It would be better to get the proof from the country providing the recogntion (like the statements we get from the US and Marshall Island denieing the claim)

Shocktm, you made me doubt my understanding of the word, "sovereignty" so I looked it up on http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sovereignty and found that the tense is correct as it can be a noun, and please note the definitions. If you used it in the tense you might be thinking of it would sound better, like, the ecclesiastical sovereignty of Melchizedek, or that, Melchizedek has ecclesiastical sovereignty over it citizens.

It is also easy to make a website where you can claim anything you want including a government/territorial claims/etc. See http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/RHBJ.htm for a website that admits it is making this up and compare it to the DoM's website. Or compare the DoM website to the Hutt River Province, Sealand, Conch Republic You will quickly see that the DoM website does not provide enough proof to believe any of its claims.

Newspapers/TV/Radio have been tricked before to publish articles that are untrue. So have a news article does not proved much proof of something being true. Many articles from repuable sorces need to be made before something should be considered a fact. There is a lack of that with regards to the DoM - the article that do talk about the DoM use phrases that indicated that the DoM is not real or at least they considere it suspect.

We have actual no idea of how many people are part of the DoM, but it does not matter much as even some of the entities listed on the Micronation page have had hundreds of people involoved (see Conch Republic for example). Most everyone who has reead about the DoM consideres it a micronation and specificaly a micronation invloved in fraud. Until evidence is provided to the contrary, this should be what the article indicates. Shocktm 21:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with what you have written, as it doesn't matter how poor a nation is, diplomatic recognition from a UN member state is more compelling than anything you can say about it. So assuming there was financial incentive (no evidence of this) the US normally gives financial incentives to third world countries to get what it wants, but it doesn't make the US any less legitimate does it? There was no misunderstanding with the letter of official recognition as it invites DoM to open a diplomatic mission in CAR, etc. Search the term "ecclesiastical sovereignty" and you will find that it is a term used by others.

The web link you showed was apparently make by a person that went to all of that trouble to discredit DoM. This actually gives more credence to DoM that it has such lively enemies, in my judgement. You have no idea of the motives of those that attempt to discredit Melchizedek, it could all stem from some religious competition, or policial POV.

Remember that DoM was recognized before it had any presence on the Internet. Not only that, but the Washington Post isn't the only source to note the recognition from CAR, and there have been other credible publications that have noted other recognition to boot. If the Washington Post made an error on the recognition, you can be sure they would have later retracted it. I actually took the time to read the Melchizedek Bible, and it is a serious work, not something that is made up to back a fraud. Have you read it? I suspect that some of the people behind trying to keep Melchizedek in the micronation category think that by doing so it may lend more credibility to a micronation in which they may have involvment.

The press has never been able to put Melchizedek in the actual frauds, only banks that it licensed, and there is a huge difference, which seems to be ignored. Keep in mind that the SEC did not sue Melchizedek only a lawyer bringing clients to a bank licensed by Melchizedek. Same goes for criminal prosecutions against those that used banks licensed by Melchizedek. It is also significant that when the US OCC made reference to "Melchizedek" as the licensing authority for a DoM bank, it referred to Melchizedek as a "sovereignty" in its written publication, although not "recognized" by the USA. It never wrote, phony, fraudulent, fake, fictitious, fictional, micronation, etc.

This is a misstatement of the nature of diplomatic recognition. There are only two possibilities: recognition and non-recognition. "Non-recognized sovereignity" means something we do not recognize as sovereign, not some middle position. But I seem to have said this before. Septentrionalis 03:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello PMANDERSON, I'd rather not split hairs with you, but if that were the case, it would say, "non-sovereignty". There is a huge difference between the two points, and "non-recognized sovereignty" is a form of defacto recognition of Melchizedek as a "sovereignty". You might want to study the subject of "defacto recognition" which Melchizedek seems to have lots of from around the world. In fact, a sovereign is a soverign whether recognized or not.

I believe that point is made somewhere in a wiki article. You may be confused between the fact that CAR diplomatically recognizing Melchizedek and the fact that US does not. Because US does not, they don't have to recognize the recognition of any other state that does. So their saying that they don't diplomatically recognize Melchizedek doesn't mean that other states don't too. Johnski 04:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If the Treasury's fraud warning had meant de facto sovereignity, it would have said so. But unless some genuinely original falsehood is added to this talk page, I do not expect to comment further. Silence implies contempt. Septentrionalis 04:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

First, it wasn't a fraud warning, and second, when de facto recognition is intentionally or unintentionally extended, rarely, if ever, are the words, "de facto" used. I didn't say it was recognizing that Melchizedek is a defacto sovereignty, what I meant was that when it defined Melchizedek as a "non-recognized" sovereignty that it extended a type of defacto recognition to Melchizedek. Also, it recognized that the relative bank was under the jurisdiction of Melchizedek, a form of defacto recognition of Melchizedek as an authority that regulates said bank. Johnski 05:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Your point that news papers can write things that aren't true, that is true, but the same goes for the negative POV expressed, they could be wrong as well. In fact, you can see that Forbes' opinion of Melchizedek evolved over time to "dubious". Johnski 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Johnski, believe in what you want to believe in. You need a concensus of people to change the article to what you want it to read and you will not find that here. Nothing about the DoM makes it look like a real country or even the SMOM. In fact the thing it looks like the most is Sealand, which everyone calls a micronation. The overwelming majority of information out on the web or in print indicates that the DoM calls it a micronation and a fraud. When many say it is micronation and a fraud, it probably is micronation and a fraud.

I looked up the phrase "ecclesiastical sovereignty" on Google and found it used 371 times, many of which refere to articles on the DoM (many calling the DoM a fraud micronation). Sovereignty is a correct word but with the adjective of ecclesiastical it only refers to the juristicion of a church (and the phrase that should be used is ecclesiastical juristiction, not ecclesiastical sovereignty - it is misusing the definition of sovereignty). DoM is not claiming to be a church, it is claiming to be a country (Church do not make claims to land).

The website I refer to was not created to debunk, discredit, or challange the DoM, rather it was one person's attempt to write an alternative history (a type of fiction). The point I was trying to make is that the website looks real and could be misread by those who do not know that. Similarly the book 'The DaVinchi Code' is believed by some to be real even when the author calls it a work of fiction.

When you provide evidence that the DoM is real, I will examine the evidence and if it is creditable, I will agree to change the article. Until then the article should remain the same. I will also stop discussing the DoM until evidence is provided to prove its existence. This discussion has not change your opinion or mine and continuing it will get us no further to a point of agreement. Shocktm 20:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Shocktm, I doubt that you or PMANDERSON speak for everyone that posts here or will in the future. Part of the problem is that Melchizedek is unique amongst states. You want it to fit into this ecclesiastical box or that sovereign box and you don't want to mix the two. The fact is that Melchizedek has always claimed to be "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" and never has it claimed to be a "country" or a "micronation". Part of the perception problem has been that it has been perceived as claiming to be a "country" which got it the false fictional country label. The Vatican mixes the sovereign and ecclesiastical elements, so why can not Melchizedek do the same. You are like a doubting Thomas that has to see and touch it yourself. I think you visiting a Melchizedek territory and seeing a Melchizedek governement ruling that area the only way you will ever believe. I'm not trying to convince you that Melchizedek is real, I'm only showing you that Melchizedek has the hallmarks of an ecclesiastical state, perhaps weak in all areas, but enough to capture the essence in this article.

What do we have to prove existence of Melchizedek.

1. Constitution, laws, government officials in three branches of government, territorial claims, sovereign leases.

2. Human and corporate citizens, the evidence which is seen throughout the press.

3. Unique Bible translation that the Dominion of Melchizedek seems to be based on.

4. Credible Press pointing to diplomatic recognition from UN member state, (copy is publiclly available) and other forms of recognition.

5. evidence of sovereign leases seen on Hawaiian University web site for one island and SBS TV on another island.

6. Claim to Jerusalem as homeland with the Bible teaching that Melchizedek is the eternal eccesiastical and soverign authority over (Jeru)Salem. Dominion of Melchizedek lays claim to this spiritual heritage consistently for the past 15 years. In this aspect Melchizedek could be considered a government in exile.

Please show me how any "micronation" has achieved this much or can show this depth. If you insist on leaving the micronation article as it is, it should say that there is an exception where a micronation has achieved diplomatic recognition from a world government as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty".

Johnski 05:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

All of the above, apart from the bible translation and "recognition by a UN member state" are common to most serious historic micronations. Producing a bible translation means only that those doing so have a command of Hebrew and/or Greek - not that they possess "sovereignty". Claiming Jerusalem is the same as claiming Mars - total nonsense - unless there exists the means of physically imposing the claim, which there isn't. The Hutt River Province has been "recognised" by the Ivory Coast in exactly the same way Melchizedech has been "recognised" - by paying money to a corrupt official in a poor African nation to sign a meaningless document on official letterhead. None of this makes Melchizedech "unique", "sovereign", "ecclesiastical" or anything else other than a fraud that exists primarily to part the gullible from large amounts of money. Here endeth the lesson.--Gene_poole 23:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir, can you point me to the link of that letter of recognition from the Ivory Coast, and is there any independent verification of that from a credible source like the Washington Post? Hutt seems closer to a state than any other listed in micronations except Melchizedek and perhaps Sealand. 208.57.91.27 05:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you contact the Hutt River Province Vice-Minister of Foreign Afairs. Hutt River - which, unlike Melchizedech, does actually physically inhabit the territory it claims to possess - doesn't make a habit of publishing its private correspondence online. Having a claim documented in a "credible source" does not validate the claim. Credible media organisations document all manner of outlandish and invalid claims on a regular basis; that doesn't make any of them them true.--Gene_poole 05:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So, a verbal confirmation from a micronation itself is stronger and better evidence for you than the Washington Post (the most respected Washington based publication) and published copy of the letter of recogntion?Samspade 22:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Taken in context with the fact that Hutt River has actually named an Ivorian diplomatic representative, based in the Ivory Coast, whose existence as such can be verified, yes. In addition, Hutt River Province has existed for over 30 years and has never been involved in banking fraud, so its representatives are a far more credible source than a group founded by convicted felons that has been intrinsically linked by US, Italian and other governments with massive fraud, and which appears to have no other raison d'etre than to act as a front for the perpetration of banking fraud. --Gene_poole 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Hutt does have that advantage, if true, to ruling from its own territory. Since you interested in Hutt why don't you change its opening identifier to a "principality"? On the other hand, they are landlocked, and Melchizedek has advantage of diversity. Your agrument that they have less credibility because some of the banks they have licensed used fraud in their business practices is not a convincing agrument, when their government's dejure recognition has been confirmed by perhaps the most respected political publication in the world.

I don't buy your agruement but do vote for giving into the fact that Melchizedek is a recognized government. If you can provide something like Melchizedek has in terms of recognition for Hutt, I'll push that they too be moved to the category of microstate.

SamuelSpade 03:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"United States Securities and Investment Commission"

The article attributes an opinion to the "United States Securities and Investment Commission". I can find the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, but not a U.S. Securities and Investment Commission. Can someone either give me a cite for the existence of the above organization, or change the name to correct name. In any case, given the confusion, a cite backing up the statement attributed to them would seem like a good idea. -- The Anome 07:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is the web site: sec.gov and the last mention of Melchizedek by that organization is found at:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17054.htmJohnski 07:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I note that you posted a link that does not directly support the statement given. However, I think you'll find that says "In fact, the Dominion of Melchizedek does not exist." -- The Anome 07:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to the correct reference where "non-existent" is stated. --Gene_poole 07:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the link you've listed is that that was only the summary of the complaint, and as you know a complaint only states what the person (SEC agent) bringing the lawsuit believes will be true at the conclusion, or wishes to prove. The judgment or outcome of a lawsuit is far more significant, and the complaint itself has really no legal significance. So, after the SEC investigated they came to a different conclusion that when they began their suit at law. So the fact that they changed their tune in the conclusion of the matter is significant, so it really doesn't matter what they assumed before doing their depositions.Johnski 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek website refers to Misplaced Pages

The page http://www.melchizedek.com/mz_bible/permission.html states (in full) "Permission is hereby given to Misplaced Pages.org to publish part of the Melchizedek Bible online." Clearly the contributors to that website are aware of Misplaced Pages. Who knows, they might even be aware of this article. Let's see if they take the notice down after I've posted this comment. -- The Anome 07:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else here, but I at least am fairly certain that the mysterious anonymous IP/multi-identity DOM promoter is either one of the Pedleys or the current "President" Richard McDonald. The technique that this editor has adopted of claiming that frauds perpetrated by the founders and agents of Melchizedek are somehow divorced from the DOM itself is described at length in most of the articles that expose DOM's criminal activities. --Gene_poole 23:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You may be correct, however, no official of Melchizedek has ever been convicted or sued for anything involving Melchizedek that I can find, and even in the SEC case, neither Rosemont, nor Melchizedek were defendants so that must mean something.Johnski 02:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how it's possible for criminal activities perpetrated by those associated with Melchizedek time and time and time and time again to have nothing to do with Melchizedek - an entity that has no independent existence beyond those people and their criminal activities; and how, pray, tell, would such a "non existent" entity defend itself in a court of law, given that no court recognises it as existing?.

Your tiresome, specious, circular arguments prove only the truth of the claims made by many respected government authorities around the world for over a decade and a half, namely, that Melchizedek is an invented nonsense, a lie entirely without physical substance, created by criminals, maintained by criminals, and used by criminals to perpetrate massive fraud. It "exists" in the minds of those who use its perceived legitimacy commit criminal acts, and it has no other purpose.

Unless you can come up with a single shred of evidence to the contrary please save your time and mine by refraining from posting further nonsense on this subject. --Gene_poole 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have taken this subject to seriously, and told a friend about it. He ordered from CBS and loaned me the CBS 60 Minutes II prgramme that showed a US Attorney, named Edwin Tomco, saying that, the "exciting" thing about Melchizedek is that its founder can govern Melchizedek and say he is doing God's will and no one can stop him or prove otherwise.Johnski 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And how is the opinion of a US attorney relevant to this discussion? --Gene_poole 01:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the opinion of a US Attorney, especially one that brought indictments against the Pedleys on behalf of the US Dept of Justice is far more interesting than the opinions expressed by non-lawyer John Shockey, former employee of US OCC, or that of Jay Adkisson of Quatloos.

In reponse to your statement that no court recognizing Melchizedek, there are published cases by US Federal courts that recognize the laws and courts of Melchizedek. I found them referenced on the Melchizedek web site and looked them up and you can too.

In regard to your point about criminal activities, apparently the thing that made Melchizedek "so exciting", to the US Attorney Tomco, was that Melchizedek and its founders couldn't be found involved in any of those illegal activities of the banks they licensed.

How can you say that Melchizedek has no independent existence beyond those criminal activities conducted by some of those that operated the banks it licensed?

To give you an example of how the US SEC could have also sued Melchizedek and its founder is on the same basis that the US SEC sued New Utopia and its founder. See my point? Also, there are a myriad of US laws, such as racketeering, conspiracy, etc that could be used in any criminal case.

How can you say that Melchizedek has no other purpose but for fraud, and I give you a government prosecutor that seems to have a different point of view than yours. Did the President of the UN member state agree with your assessment? The president of a UN member state is a higher authority than John Shockey even if that state is poor and has had government coruption. Can you show me any credible newpaper article that claimed that the president of the CAR that recognized the DOM was even involved in corruption? First world nations are not immune from corruption. Look at the news as government officals all over the world are charged with crimes regularily, with even the majority leader of the US Republican Congress being indicted yesterday.

I've come up with loads of evidence producing a balanced article, but you only ignore it and keep demanding something that has been provided over and over again. You only seem to want to present a dogmatic one sided story of your personal POV. Please prove me wrong, and I'll go away.Johnski 03:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

None of the above constitutes evidence that (a) Melchizedek has now or ever had a physical existence in the real world (let alone being "discovered" in the 1950s. Where was it - hidden in a box in someone's attic perhaps?), and or (b) serves a purpose not associated with the conduct of criminal activities. --Gene_poole 03:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Gene, I provided an article in Context Magazine that refers to Melchizedek as being founded in the 1950's, but I feel that discovered is a better word, since their identifation of Dominion of Melchizedek dates back to 2000 BC. They turned their discovery into a functioning government through the signing of a declaration of sovereignty, constitution, enacting laws etc, that has been identified not only with their banking laws, but many other aspects of government. Another thing I noticed on the CBS show was that Melchizedek has government officals (serious looking guys). While the media has pointed out many negative aspects of Melchizedek due to the frauds of banks it licensed, but have also noticed other things, such as "religion", "may be the ultimate post modern state", has territorial claims, even to the formerly unclaimed section of Antarctica. It has leases on real lands that are in isolated areas that they could populate and move into a sovereign status. Unlike Hutt that has territory landlocked by a country that will probably never recognize Hutt as sovereign.

Taken like the SMOM, which has no territory, Melchizedek exercises its powers like a nation state more than any micronation that I have been able to observe.

So, you are saying that all of their activies outside of licensing banks is criminal, even their Melchizedek Bible studies, charitable works wherein they provide donations of food, clothing, medical equipment to third world countries?

Compromise Language

This is an invitation to Gene Poole to please identify each item below that you believe is misleading, vandalism or POV, and why your version is any less POV, misleading or vandalistic.Johnski 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Dominion of Melchizedek is an entity that aspires to statehood, and is known for the licensing of banks that fraudulently operated in many parts of the world.

Its modern history dates back to the 1950s when Evan David Pedley discovered Melchizedek but it only became active when his son, Ben David Pedley, who uses a number of pseudonyms, including "Tzemach David Neter Korem" and "Branch Vinedresser" published a bible translation known as the Melchizedek Bible in 1986.

While supporters of Melchizedek assert that it is an "ecclesiastical sovereignty," similar to Vatican City, and while its flag incorporates Christian, Jewish and Islamic symbols, Melchizedek apparently posesses no established church or formally identified religion, so this claim is considered meaningless by some external observers.

Melchizedek also claims Jerusalem as its "homeland", based on the Biblical legend of Melchizedek, who is said to have been priest-king of Salem, however no person associated with Melchizedek is known to reside there, and as the "Dominion" posesses no known means of enforcing its claim, it is also sometimes dismissed as fantasy.

During the 1990s Melchizedek claimed a number of mostly uninhabited Pacific islands, most of which were already claimed by sovereign states, including the Marshall Islands, Colombia and France. Melchizedek's claims include Taongi Atoll, Malpelo Island (used by a Colombian military garrison), Karitane Shoal, Solkope Island and Clipperton Island. Melchizedek also claims a large previously unclaimed section of Antarctica and lands on the Fijian island of Rotuma. Most of these claims seem unrecognised by any established government.

The Melchizedek website claims that it is a recognized sovereign entity, however, numerous media outlets, including Forbes magazine and The Washington Post, have identified it as dubious. Over 300 investors have lost money in purported investments run by several banks licensed by Melchizedek, owned in one instance by a supposed "diplomatic representative" of the "Dominion".

The Dominion of Melchizedek initially was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in one of their cases. However, after successfully suing a lawyer in that case, that operated one of those Melchizedek banks, the Commission re-identified the D.O.M. accordingly, "The Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments".

Frauds linked to Melchizedek

According to a Quatloos web site, John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, stated in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." The "government" of Melchizedek's mail routing was based in the Australian capital city of Canberra, where it maintained a post office box address.

Marshall Islands statement According to a public web site, in response to one of Melchizedek's territorial claims the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands responded as follows:

The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands condemns the claims and activities asserted by (alleged) representatives of the "Kingdom of EnenKio" and the "Dominion of Melchizedek". The representatives making claims of separate sovereignty are not citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and have no right to make claims on behalf of Marshallese landowners. Furthermore, these representatives are making fraudulent assertions that violate the Republic of the Marshall Islands's constitution. The area of land and ocean which the "Kingdom of EnenKio" asserts as a sovereign nation separate from the Marshall Islands and (some of) the area of land and ocean which the "Dominion of Melchizedek" is asserting control over are areas within the geographical and political boundaries of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Subsequent to the above diplomatic memo by the Marshall Islands to other nations, wherein it encouraged nations friendly to it not to recognize claims of Melchizedek in the Marshall Islands, the recognized Iroijlaplap (chief) of Taongi appeared on an Australian television current affairs programme in which he was seen and heard, saying he "granted Melchizedek a 50 year sovereign master lease over Taongi Atoll", however, according to some, sovereignty (as opposed to land title) should only belong to the Republic, not to any private citizen, so the Iroijlaplap's action may or may not have any sovereignty attached to it.

Recognition An article in the Washington Post notes that The Dominion of Melchizedek was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but suggested that readers might get the "feeling" that that nation would probably "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead", while an article on Quatloos, an online anti-fraud site states that "Melchizedek has apparently obtained some sort of recognition from some smaller states all of which are notable for their corruption."

As far as is known, Melchizedek does not maintain a diplomatic mission or any other form of representation in the Central African Republic, nor is there any other evidence confirming the existence of a formal bilateral relationship of any substance. Melchizedek's web site claims that it has since been "recognised" by several other African nations, including Burkina Faso.

See also

• Kingdom of EnenKio
• Micronations

External links

• Official site
• Article entitled "Cyberfraud: The Fictitious Dominion of Melchizedek"
• Warning from the Comptroller of the US Treasury Department.
• 1999 US Securities and Exchange Commission civil case involving bank licensed by the Dominion of Melchizedek

Johnski 06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This section has been moved to the bottom in order to conform to how the talk page should flow. I have made no changes other then adding a header "Compromise Language" Davidpdx 9/30/05 2:32 (UTC)

Davidpdx, please take any point above that you feel needs proving or isn't as fair and balanced, and let's start with that point. BTW, You only moved the first section of the compromise language down here, but let's deal with this part first.Johnski 03:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see the second part and still don't. Please add it to the above for the full article you are proposing. If I have additional points about the new section I will add them.

I was actually typing while you added this last message. At this point, the page needs to be reverted to the previous version until either A) More people can be convinced that what you are saying is true or B) A compromise can be forged. If there neither can be reached, then the page needs to stay as is under Misplaced Pages rules. Davidpdx 9/30/05 4:16 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on DOM:

-Point 1:Recongnition by one UN member does not qualify as full recongnition in terms of being a country. There are 191 United Nations members and yet only one has recongnized DOM.

Melchizedek does not claim to be a country, however, it claims dejure recognition from more than one state, and the reason for mentioning only diplomatic recognition from one country, is that that diplomatic recognition was confirmed by both the Washington Post and other media.

For the actual letter of offical and formal recognition of Melchizedek as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" by the Central African Republic See:

Since that Washington Post article in 1995 Melchizedek has entered into treaties of "peace and recognition" with Nigeria, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. See:

Melchizedek has also revealed many forms of defacto recognition from many other countries. see:

The question then becomes, if a state that has dejure recgonition from four African nations, then does that mean it should be an entity that is recongnized worldwide.

DOM isn't claiming worldwide recognition. That isn't the point, and the reason for compromise language is to make it fair, balanced and factual.

Still for those that it claim are recognizing DOM, there has to be proof. The list on the website is not sufficent proof.

Furthermore, Misplaced Pages has a pretty high standard of proof in terms of what information is posted. I saw a letter from a DOM offical stating that four countries gave dejure recogonition, but only one actual letter from one of those four states. Thus, unless you have letters from the remaining three, you can really only state that The Central African Republic gives dejure recognition.

Dejure recognition can come in more than one form, and a treaty is actually higher form than a letter, especially when the treaty is entitled "treaty of peace and recognition".

In terms of the peace treaties, those are moot point. They say nothing more then someone claiming to represent an unrecognized country wants to form a treaty with them. I can't see claiming the fact that a state (unrecongnized at that) gains noterity due to the fact they formed a treaty with other countries. I honestly don't buy it.

This isn't about noterity, it is about recognition, and again, a treaty is possibly the highest form of recognition. None of those treaties appear to be letters from DOM as you assumed.

If there is no proof, other then the list on the website, how can you back up the claim? You have to be able to provide something to say this proof of the claim being made.

-Point 2:A comment was made earlier in this conversation about the definition of a "micronation" that went unanswered:

I think what clearly defines a micronation would be a populace that swears they are part of the nation. Apparently there are at lease "10,000 citizens and government officials of the Dominion of Melchizedek" Is there, say, U.N. documentation of this citizenry? Or do the Marshall Islands record loosing 10,000 citizens to a new country?

Marshall Islands wouldn't need to document losing citizens since Melchizedek's citizen come from all over the world, and the UN would have no a way to track this information. Most Melchizedekians appear to be dual citizens of both Melchizedek and another state.

On the internet I looked up micronation and used a source other then Misplaced Pages. The sight I found defined a micronation as:

What is a Micronation?

Micronations generally have a number of common features:

Micronations may have a form and structure similar to established sovereign states, including territorial claims, government institutions, official symbols and citizens. Micronations are often quite small, in both their claimed territory and claimed populations - although there are some exceptions to this rule.

Micronations may issue formal instruments such as postage stamps, coins, banknotes and passports, and confer honours and titles of nobility. http://www.termsdefined.net/mi/micronation.html

Does DOM: have postage stamps?

              coins?
              banknotes?
              passports that are recongnized by major governments?

Yes to all of the above, and please see link to defacto recognition given above in item I.

The page referenced in item one above only listed countries that supposedly accepted DOM passports. It also stated (fraduantly) that Melchizedikians can enter the US if they are US born. My answer to that would be because they possessed US passports, which is not a

recognition of DOM passports per se.

You are correct that just if they entered the US with a US passport and just happened to be a passport holder of DOM, that wouldn't be defacto recognition, but if they only showed their DOM passport and the US stamped it, then that would be defacto recognition. The later is what DOM is claiming.

I see no stated proof of any currency that exsists other then on the DOM website. I checked all major currency exchange websites and not one listed DOM money. Furthermore, based on the DOM website, they are claiming an exchange rate of 1:1 against the US Dollar. This claim is baseless because of the fact there is nothing to exchange.

According to CBS 60 Minutes II in April 2000 they reported that Melchizedek currency was listed on Bloomberg. However, if you are saying that to be recognized as a state, your currency must also be recognized, that is not correct. There isn't one micronation that I am aware that has its currency recognized or ever was able to get it listed on Bloomberg. A government can set any official exchange rate they desire, but if anyone will make an exchange at that rate is a different story. If they have Dominion Dollars to exchange they have something to exchange, but what the real value is, is a different story. The Washington Post article indicated that they might be tons of Platinum to back up Melchizedek but at least a bar of it. Even if their long term leases can never achieve soveriegnty they probably have some monetary value.

I guess it's true, we can create any kind of money we want and call it whatever we want. But I can't even find proof that it exsists (meaning it's circulated) other then on the DOM website. Why isn't something listed about their form of money? Again, the proof on the DOM site is insufficent. Simply making the claim without proof is an empty claim.

However, since the Misplaced Pages article on micronations states that micronations have no recognition from any recognized government, then either Melchizedek needs to be removed from that category, or the definition should say "with the exception of Melchizedek".

You didn't seem to deal with this point.

I'm not sure what to say, the micronations article is seperate from this one. At this point we can only deal with this article. If we come to an agreement on this one, then, we can deal with the other one.

Point 3: DOM claims soverignty over the islands of Marshall Islands, Taongi Atoll, Malpelo Island, Karitane Shoal, Solkope Island and Clipperton Island, large previously unclaimed section of Antarctica and lands on the Fijian island of Rotuma. And then you say, "Yet most of them are unrecongnized." So which have formal recognition of permanent?

The treaties of "peace and recognition" mentioned and linked from above detail that Melchizedek has islands and claim to that certain section of Antarctica. BTW, that area represents approximately 1% of earth's land mass and was never claimed before Melchizedek by any recognized state. Marhall Islands has a mention of Taongi in their constitution but it is hundreds of miles above their other islands, and Melchizedek has pointed out that the then Iroijlaplap of Taongi never agreed to include Taongi in the RMI territory. Apparently the Iroijlaplap of Taongi believes he has soverign rights (and his word, it appears from Marhall Islands hisory can't be challenged) to transfer to Melchizedek.

I am sure that many of those Islands that DOM are stating have not been are disputed by other countries. Certainly if the Marshall Islands mentions Taongi in their constitution then by default it belongs to that country. Just because part of their territory is hundreds of miles north, doesn't mean it someone else can come in and claim it.

There are many cases in history where two or more nations claim the same land mass. Melchizedek is very careful to point out in detail, which areas they claim are cross-claimed by those other nations, and details of the leases they have. Remember that all of their leases (whether sovereign or not) have been confirmed by reputable sources, such as the Hawaiian university web site that is probably the leading expert on Rotuma, re: Solkope and SBS TV Australia regarding Taongi. Keep in mind that an Iroijlaplap isn't merely a private citizen.

Melchizedek received sovereign leases to Solkope and a portion of Rotuma while Fijian consitution was suspended, and some have observed that those leases are probably still in effect and therefore sovereign not just non sovereign lease allowing Melchizedek to exercise temporal soverignty.

Again, until you provide solid proof, this claim is false. Misplaced Pages requires each claim to be backed up by proof.

It is a well know and documented historical fact that the Fijian constituion was suspended and that Melchizedek has leases on Solkope and Rotuma. In addition to the Hawaiian university web site, there is a blog linked on the bottom of the [[Rotuma}} article that cites court cases evidencing these facts.

I don't see any proof in terms of the claims, can you provie links for the Hawaiian university as well as SBS?

Point 4: Your claim:

"The Dominion of Melchizedek initially was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. However, after successfully suing a lawyer that operated one of those Melchizedek banks, the Commission re-identified the D.O.M. accordingly, "The Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments.:

I am confused, you first say that the USSEX claims that DOM "non-exsistant" and then claim that because one of the banks operated by DOM was successfully sued by USSEX and that the press release mentioned a website that it is now recongnized. I think that the US government would disagree.

No, my point is this, that when a civil lawsuit is brought, the claims made therein are what the plaintiff hopes to prove at trial, but the outcome, whether by stipulation or trial is often very different, so the US SEC claimed in their civil lawsuit that Melchizedek didn't exist, but after going through discovery, and reaching a judgment, they had a new point of view, otherwise in the conclusion they would have repeated, "non-existent" instead of what they wrote, when referencing DOM as having something, even a web site, and making claims.

Where did it state that the US government had a new point of view (other then what you claim the letter said)? I would suppose if I emailed the Securities and Exchange Commission and asked them if the status of DOM was changed by the civil lawsuit that was settled with them. Furthermore, the fact that the defendants (who are DOM officals) admitted some fault through settling the civil suit could make one think they are less then honest in their business dealings.

First, when the defendant in that SEC case settled with the SEC, the settlement stated that he did so without admitting any wrong doing. Second, there is no evidence that he was ever involed in Melchizedek as an official or citizen. The claim was that he abused a Melchizedek corporate citizen by making false promises to human citizens, i.e. the bank licensed by DOM he operated improperly. The DOM has no status with the SEC, they only made allegations in their lawsuit and press release (not a letter) the outcome of which was different then their allegations. Perhaps if you were a lawyer you would understand what I'm trying to explain to you. Any lawyers out there that can help me with this point?

Ok, but the point is in terms of what you said about the SEC reclassification. The letter that you referenced in the article above shows a letter from the SEC that states that outcome of the settlement. The fact that the SEC letter repeats the claims of DOM having a website where it promotes itself as a soverign entity, doesn't make it true. Yes, the website exsists and yes it makes the claim of sorerignty, but that does not imply any kind of recongnition.

Wasn't it Hitler that said, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

Point 5: The claim of DOM to have a religion, makes it an "ecclesiastical sovereignty." My question is the religion of Melchizedek a widely recognized religion? How many people are a member of that church? Where is the church (or churches) located? Who is the leader of their church?

A religion or church need not have a physical building to be such, and its religion can be practiced in a person's home, a rented building, an outdoor setting, or even an "Embassy at large". The church is made up of the people not the building. Melchizedek embraces all monotheistic people and anyone that studies the Melchizedek Bible or believes in the principles of Melchizedek, could be a part of that religion. It doesn't need to fit into a certain box to be such. The Washington Post (in between poking fun at the dominion) recognized that Melchizedek has a religion and didn't mention that once, but twice. Although there is a type of seperation of church and state with Melchizedek constution for right to practice ones own religion, it is based on the principles of the Melchizedek Bible and there is no seperation between church and state in government. CBS referred to one of the founder of Melchizedek as a prophet, when its narator said, "like most prophets, David Korem doesn't take kindly to critics". Also, I just read their defacto recognition page and learned that the EU referred to DOM as "an ecclesiastical state". The fact that the official letter of recognition of Melchizedek as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" from a UN member state, i.e. C.A.R., should be more than enough to classify DOM as such.

Yes, religion is in one's heart, I will give you that much. But any offical religion would santion actions that are a part of a scam (refering back to the SEC lawsuit). One has to wonder what kind of religion would advocate financial scams.

There is nothing that I can find where Melchizedek has ever sanctioned actions that are a part of a scam. Quite to the contrary, it appears that whenever a corporate citizen was suspected of acting improperly, DOM shut it down.

I also just noticed that their application for citizenship requires that the applicant agree to live according to the principles and laws of Melchizedek. I believe that would make each citizen also a Melchizedekian by religion.

I don't buy that fact that the EU recognized DOM as anything. Again, the burden of proof is not being met in terms of creditable evidence.

It isn't that hard to believe that the EU referred to DOM as an ecclesiastical state since it already had dejure recognition from a UN member state. In any case that would only be defacto recognition from EU, and isn't huge.

I would appreciate you answering these question. Also, as I stated you should stop reverting pages unless there is consensus. One person is not a consensus, thus unless you can get those of us that disagree to change our minds, the page should be left alone accordingly. Davidpdx 9/30/05 4:08 (UTC)

BTW, I am not the only one that has written or reverted these types of versions. Hope this is helpful to your understanding of the subject. P.S. I just noticed that their Embassy at large on Box Canyon Road, which is an old church, is at the center of that fire on the news in California, north of Los Angeles.Johnski 06:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Re the point above it is perfectly clear what the USSEX means when they say "The Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments" - they mean that Melchizedech has a website that promotes the notion that it is a sovereign entity recognised by certain governments. Within the context of the USSEX statement it is clear that the USSEX considers that those claims are not credible in any way shape or form. This is yet another example of the agents of Melchizedek selectively interpreting damning statements of condemnation in order to falsely promote the notion that they actually constitute "recognition". --Gene_poole 04:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten at the top of this portion about compromise, the section on the SEC so that the first statement of the SEC is connected to the second statement. Gene, don't be confused, I don't think the DOM made any such claim, nor am I saying that the SEC statement constitutes any form of recognition, only that the SEC corrected their statement that DOM not existing with a bit more real, friendly reference to it. I'm not trying to interpret what the SEC meant by their concluding statement, only that its concluding statement on the subject of its lawsuit was vastly different than its opening statement.Johnski 06:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments added above regarding counter points made to my points. The second part of the article was added to the entire article being proposed (and subsequently opposed by myself.Davidpdx 10/3/05 10:38 (UTC)

I think you may be missing many of my points, the most important is that the reason for this isn't to prove anything but to get a compromise language that is fair, balanced, and more factual. I wish you would deal with that too. Look at the top of this talk page and see that someone apparently in my area (they have same IP address) made good points about trying to make a better version that is more balanced, fairer and more factual. I think that since you can't agree that it is an ecclesiastical government or state, and my point that the definition of micronation precludes Melchizedek by its limited recognition, use the word "entity" which fits every one of those definitions, and since it clearly aspires to statehood, call it "an entity that aspires to statehood" which it clearly does, or, "an entity that aspires to ecclesiastical statehood. Even the UN in 1990 apparently referred to Melchizedek as "an entity that aspires to statehood."Johnski 18:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

John, there does have to be proof of the claims. Again, this is not my rule, it is the rules that everyone on Misplaced Pages follow. There are some areas that possibly can be worked out, but only if proof of the claims are shown. I agree that the article should be fair and balanced, but it still has to conform to the rules of Misplaced Pages. Your going to find not just myself saying it, but others too (if others come to give an opinion). Additional Comments have been added above. Davidpdx 10/5/05 5:43 (UTC)

Stop reverting this article

Please stop reverting this article until there is a consensus or compromise langauge that has been agreed to. The version posted by 03:54, 3 October 2005 El C is the version that should remain until further notice. Doing otherwise in insistance of compromise that does not exsist severely damages your creditablity. It also could hamper any possiblity of others to work with you to come to a meaningful agreement. Davidpdx 10/3/05 9:04 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea at this point to stop wasting time and effort conducting pointless circular discussions with the representatrive of Melchizedek who keeps wanting to insert nonsense POV into this and related articles. These discussions have reached a level that might be termed trolling; Despite thousands of keystrokes of circumlocutory babble, not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ben produced to support any of his outlandish claims, nor to demonstrate that Melchizedek is anything other than an invented shell "country" using a sham religious facade to promote criminal fraud. Those are the only facts that Misplaced Pages should document. --Gene_poole 23:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

GP, I tend to agree with you. However, the problem is that many articles are being having strong POV added to them. I'm only looking for a way to curtail that. Maybe it is moot point arguing. However, some really good articles are getting trashed in the mean time. Davidpdx 10/4/05 0:46 (UTC)

Are you sure that it isn't your POV that is strong here? Insisting on a one sided negative view? I'm only trying to bring balance, fairness and facutal clarity, for which I am accused of being circular, and I've answered all of your questions and gave links and references. Can you honestly say that there is nothing to the points that I and others have made? Because of my attempts at fairness, I and others that agree with me are representatives of DOM? I sincerely believe that the evidence that I have presented is more convincing than the evidence that claims Melchizedek to be "an invented shell country using a sham religous facade to promote criminal fraud". For example, I pointed out that the SEC case only had one defendant that wasn't even an official of DOM, but you just want to put your head in the sand? Gene keeps insisting that Melchizedek claims to be a "country" but it has never made such a claim that I can find anywhere. It is like I am writing about apples but you can only see oranges. If this article that I chose to use as a model to see how Misplaced Pages works, ends up like it is, it looks like what appeared to be a potential for a great on-line encyclopia has a very dark and ugly future. Neverless, it seems I made some small contributions to it that may hold.Johnski 05:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is you that is inserting opinion in to the article. I have stated several times in my rebuttals that you need to back up some of the things you are claiming with facts. If you can't do that, they don't belong in there. That's not my rule, it's not Genepool's rule, it's Misplaced Pages's rule. In all fairness, the rules are posted on the website. If you don't believe me (or Genepool for that matter) then you can access them and read them on your own. In essence, Misplaced Pages is a user based system that is montiored by the users themselves.

David, I've backed up everything I've stated with references to facts.

As I have stated and will continue to state, I do not believe DOM's claim to the territories they say they have. To be able to claim an island simply because someone either feels it's unclaimed, or to twist words to make an island looked like it's not part of the country mentioned in it's constitution is rediculous. You yourself claimed that the one island couldn't be part of the Marshall Islands simply because it was "a couple of hundered miles away." I will say it again, it is rediculous.

David, Please don't misquote me, I never said that becuase Taongi was a couple of hundred miles away that it couldn't be a part of the Marshall Islands. Unless they changed their home page recently, if you go to their home page the map there stops below Taongi. Their claim to Taongi is not baseless as they have a "sovereign master lease" from the Iroijlaplap, and while Gene wants to say that an Iroijlaplap is merely a priviate citizen, he is flat wrong.

If there is a lease, then I would like to see a copy. Again, I'm only asking you to provide facts to back up your claim.

I will only agree to an article that states that these claims being made by DOM, but have no such creditablity . I've also put out a notice to soliciate other people's opinions, since there is only you, myself and Gene Poole commenting on this article. It seems like more imput is needed to get a wider view. Is that a good thing? I don't really know. Hopefully there will be other comments soon. Davidpdx 10/4/05 12:15 (UTC)

David, To say that they "have no such creditablity" is adding your POV. What I'm saying is just state the fair and balanced facts. Let the reader make his own POV from the facts he reads. Remember that the reader has all of the 100% negative opinions about DOM already being quoted by John Shockey and the links to Quatloos which is also 100% negative opinions. I agree that we need diverse Wikipedians here to help us and that you, Gene and I are not sufficient to bring this debate to rest. I'm glad you did't quit this effort.CordiallyJohnski 17:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would urge you to read Misplaced Pages's guidelines in terms of sighting sources. When I said the claims you are making have no crediability, I am stating a fact not opinion. The only links you provide are to the DOM site itself. I saw no other sources. On that website I could only find a document from the Central African Republic, stating they recognized DOM. There were no other such documents about the other three countries, no any proof of the peace treaties that claim to exsist.

In addition, I did a Yahoo search for information. Most of the stuff I got was negative and I didn't stop to read it. There was a link to the same DOM site you referenced and which I had already looked at. There is one other site I can access through the local library at home and look at magazine articles. I will see what I can find, but my guess is it will be about the same as the Yahoo search.

Factual errors about this article

"It was created in 1986" however, the only reference I can find to this date is the first publication of the Melchizedek Bible. And why is the word "created" used, when normally, the word is "founded"? Context Magazine identifies the 1950s for its beginnings, and their constitution wasn't signed until 1991. It apparently opened its first embassy in 1990. Does accuracy matter to Wikipedians? Perhaps using the word, "created" is an attempted insult to their religious teachings, that God is the only cause and creator.

It was previously published here that Ben David Pedley legally changed his name to: "Tzemach David Neter Korem" which translates from Hebrew to "Branch Vinedresser", so why was this changed to saying he only uses his legal name?

Shouldn't the Pedleys legal history be on a page about them, instead on the page about Melchizedek, and I can't find the evidence that they "were each convicted and imprisoned for various land and share-related frauds on multiple occasions during the 1980s.

I went to the BOP's web site and searched for them as prisoners or former prisoners, and couldn't find them there, but could find other prisoners that were there in the 1980s and since released.

How can we honestly say that, "Melchizedek posesses no established church or formally constituted religion, so this claim is considered meaningless by most external observers." since there seems to be no evidence of these so-called facts. Just because we haven't read about their churches, or their organized religion doesn't mean they dont' have any. And how can we speak for "most external observers?

We have read about their religion in the media and all over the Internet. Their House of Elders is both their highest religious and secular governmental offices. This seems to be inspired by the book of Revelation where it talk about 24 "elders" and their constitution calls for that same number.

How can we say that because "the 'Dominion' posesses no means of enforcing its claim, it is also generally dismissed as fantasy." Their claim to Jerusalem as homeland seems to be spiritually based, so again, this seems to be a slap in the face of their religious beliefs. I would try to find a better way to word it. It may be a fantasy to you, some of the beliefs of the major world religions, but are you going to make statements about them on Misplaced Pages as fantasy? Does Melchizedek being micro, give us a license to insult their religious beliefs.

I don't know of any other nation that claims Karitane Shaol, so why do we say, "During the 1990s Melchizedek claimed a number of mostly uninhabited Pacific islands, all of which were already the possessions of recognised states, including the Marshall Islands, Colombia and France. Melchizedek's claims include Taongi Atoll, Malpelo Island (inhabited by a Colombian military garrison), Karitane Shoal, Solkope Island and Clipperton Island. Melchizedek also claims a large section of Antarctica and lands on the Fijian island of Rotuma. None of these claims are recognised by any established government."

Do we really know if none of these calims are recognised? Shouldn't we change that wording?

Yes, the "treaties of peace and recognition" with three established UN member states refer to the Melchizedek Islands and their section they claim to Antarctica.

Since the Washington Post admitted that Melchizedek was diplomatically recognized, isn't it misleading to write, "The Melchizedek website claims that it is a recognized sovereign entity, however, numerous media outlets, including Forbes magazine and The Washington Post called it a ruse", especially since it has been pointed out that the most recent usage by Forbes was, "dubious" and that The Post gave two possibilities, "MAY be a ruse", or "MAY be the ultimate post modern state"?

I agree that the way it is written is misleading.

I can't find where "the government of Melchizedek claims to be based in the Australia capital city of Canberra, where it maintains a post office box address, "therefore it doesn't seem to belong in the article. It only claims to have mail routing there, which is different than a "base".

This is changing what the RMI stated, "In response to one of Melchizedek's fraudulent territorial claims" when the RMI's only reference to fraud was, "these representatives are making fraudulent assertions that violate the Republic of the Marshall Islands's constitution." After the Iroijlaplap of Taongi publiclly granated Melchizedek a lease on Taongi, it never objected to that lease in any forum that I can find.

Also, the fraudulent representations seem to be related to claims of representing Marshall Island citizens, but that is most likely directed at the Enenkio Kingdom, as they claim to represent certain Marshall Island people, but I can't find where Melchizedek ever made any such claim. On the other hand, the only way that Melchizedek's claim could be fraudulent is if they claimed that Marshall Island's government (or something to that affect) granted them sovereignty. Melchizedek doesn't seem to have made any such claim. I suggest that when dealing in such serious matters as this subject that license isn't taken to imply things of government that may not have been intended.

How can Misplaced Pages make this legal opinion, "however, sovereignty (as opposed to land title) belongs to the Republic, not to any private citizen, so the Iroijlaplap's action has no legal foundation." Is Misplaced Pages an expert on the legal aspects of a lease from an Iroijlaplap? Can this be rewritten to remove this legal opinion?

The "article in the Washington Post notes that The Dominion of Melchizedek was diplomatically recognized by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but comented that that nation would probably 'recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead'", which is not accurate as it wrote that "you get the feeling that" not "would probably"'

From the many free ads that Quatloos is getting here, a reader can go to their site to get this opinion, "that the DoM has received recognition from any major government are purely lies," especially since DoM hasn't made any such claim to official recognition from major governments. Defacto recognition is a different story which few seem to understand.67.124.49.20 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Quatloos may be one of those posting here, to help get their web site better known, which was created to attract clients to its owner that specialies in tax planning. It has several links from the DOM article which all go to the same collection of one sided stuff that include the other purely negative links also posted on the DOM article..Johnski 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it odd that someone posting under the IP address of 67.124.49.20 puts a comment and then John replies to it. Especially given the fact that there is a record that the IP address 67.124.49.20 was one of the ones John used before he signed up for a user name. This makes the above conversation as "dubious" as DOM itself. Davidpdx 10/4/05 12:20 (UTC)

It would also help to clarify if you are stating that the current version of the article has factual errors or if you are debating factual errors being discussed on the talk page. That is not very clear. Davidpdx 10/4/05 12:20 (UTC)

The article has factual errors, and I'm hoping to use this talk page to show where they need correcting. The IP address I use is a huge ISP in a very populated area of Northern California, so it isn't surprising to me, but indeed dubious that someone other than myself uses 67.124.49.20. I told several people I know here about this debate and I think I know which friend joined as he also uses SBC Global.Johnski 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If there are errors that are not facts being disputed (ie-Date DOM was started, etc) we should talk about those in this area only. Let's do that here for the current article only . Please list them below with links or some kind of footnote to back up the facts. If they are small, then we should just change them.

In terms of the larger claims, like recognition by other countries and control over territories, I believe those should be saved for the revised article. Davidpdx 10/5/05 5:17 (UTC)

It is good to see interest in making this article more factual, better balancing.19:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This guy, Johnski, together with myself and others have cited many sources, such as Forbes, Washington Post, Hawaiian University, SBS Australian TV, CBS TV, US OCC web site, SEC web site, not just the DOM web site, which links to US court cases, which has other links and copies of other materials referenced. I don't think that Melchizedek is claiming to control certain territories, only that it lays claims to those territories and has leases on some of those. Since these leases have been confirmed by SBS TV and a Universtity web site, why would we need to see the actual leases?SamuelSpade 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)