Consumer Expectations

Throne Dynamics (“the Company”) operates by specific and nonnegotiable values regardless of the arena. As a consumer of this Tribunals Foundation Document it is your responsibility to understand the most important aspect of the Company’s demands on every investor, partner, and client.

That demand is Operational Excellence (“OpEx”) to the Minimum Viable (“MV”) standard of performance. Your capacity to understand, and personally deliver, on this gradient of human capital and leadership viability is the foundation of your usefulness in the times of extreme political, economic, and military decomposition which are rapidly consuming nations and cultures. The Company entertains a distinct demographic strata of clientele; publicly available documents of the Company are not designed for mass appreciation or application.

Community Division Key Deliverables

When the government is unavailable.

If you expect to survive the Age of Militants, you cannot rely upon the government to secure your life, property, or safety. You must be prepared to take your welfare into your own hands. The Company expects every man to be competent to pursue self-help to protect what is his. But just as society has suppressed men’s will to independence, it has suppressed the knowledge of how a man may legally protect himself through self-help.

1. Self defense: protecting life and limb.

At the foundation of lawful self-help in America is the right to self-defense. Here, we find one of the rare instances where the law aligns naturally with self-preservation. The principle is simple: when faced with an immediate, unlawful threat to one's life or bodily integrity, a man has the right to use force, up to and including lethal force, to protect himself. However, the law places guardrails on the right to self-defense. In most states, a person must prove that they perceived an immediate threat of harm and that their response was proportional to the threat. Importantly, laws on self-defense vary. Some states retain the “duty to retreat,” requiring individuals to avoid conflict by retreating if possible, while others permit “stand your ground” and allow one to respond to a threat without retreating.

In disaster scenarios such as Hurricane Helene, the right to self-defense extends to protect against looters or marauders. As history shows, in times of crisis, when police are overstretched or absent, crime surges as a natural byproduct of scarcity and opportunism. When society fractures, the individual must understand that he stands alone and must defend himself as necessary within the bounds of the law.

2. Defense of property: the lawful right to guard what is yours.

Beyond self-defense, American law provides the right to defend one's property against trespass and theft. This principle, which permits a man to use reasonable force to protect his possessions, is far narrower than the right to defend life. In general, the law only allows non-lethal force to repel intruders on property or prevent theft. However, exceptions arise when the defense of property also involves defense of life, such as when an intruder’s intentions extend to violence against the home’s inhabitants. Here, most states extend the right to use more substantial force, reflecting the belief that a man’s home is his castle—a last bastion in a lawless world.

Yet, this right is hemmed in by legal caveats. Courts often prohibit the use of deadly force solely for the protection of property, though they permit substantial force to ward off threats involving both property and personal safety. In practice, this means that if a looter enters your yard, you may warn him off, but deadly force would be disproportionate. But if that same intruder breaks down your door with intent to do harm, the legal ground shifts to favor the use of substantial force.

3. Repossession: the lawful recapture of stolen goods.

When government fails to restore stolen goods, an ancient right of self-help—repossession—comes to the fore. Historically, a property owner who could locate his goods had the right to retake them, even if doing so required breaching the thief’s possession. Modern law has tempered this right with two restrictions: first, repossession must occur without “breach of the peace,” and second, it must be exercised immediately or in “fresh pursuit.”

Consider, in the chaos after Helene, a man finds his generator stolen and locates it in a neighbor's yard. If he chooses to reclaim it, he must do so calmly and without escalating conflict. While this approach may seem contrary to the natural impulse to reclaim one’s own, it is essential under the law. If repossession is too delayed or if the thief’s possession appears to be settled, the legal remedy reverts to a civil claim—a frustrating outcome in times when law enforcement is absent, but a reminder of the limits of lawful recapture.

4. Citizen’s arrest: holding lawbreakers accountable.

When the state falters in enforcing the law, American citizens retain a residual right to uphold order through a citizen's arrest. This right, though curtailed, permits a private individual to detain a person who has committed a serious crime in their presence. Citizen's arrest varies by jurisdiction, with most states permitting it only for felonies or crimes involving immediate danger to others.

In times of disaster, this right becomes particularly relevant. With police absent, citizens may find themselves detaining looters or arsonists to protect their community. The law, however, limits the scope of action: detention must be prompt, reasonable, and force must be restrained unless absolutely necessary to prevent the criminal from escaping or endangering others. Attempting a citizen's arrest is fraught with risk, and when possible, calling authorities remains the best course of action. But when no authorities respond, the right to uphold justice endures.

5. Abatement of nuisance: protecting community safety.

An ancient but still relevant form of self-help is the abatement of nuisance. This principle allows citizens to eliminate conditions that immediately threaten public safety or health. For instance, after a natural disaster, neighbors might remove dangerous debris or downed power lines obstructing community areas. In such instances, abatement goes beyond the individual; it is an act of collective self-help in defense of public welfare. While it may not seem like self-help in the conventional sense, abatement underlines the duty citizens have to protect their communities in the absence of functional government.

When self-help becomes insufficient.

Hurricane Helene reminds us that the protective structures of government are fleeting, not omnipotent. In a land without electricity, without fuel, where access to food and water dwindles, one sees that the presumption of state assistance can become an illusion. Self-help—critical as it is—may reach its limit. Here lies the ancient law of necessity, a doctrine as old as common law, yet too rarely contemplated in our safe, ordered society. In circumstances where self-help fails, and where the state recedes into irrelevance, the law of necessity permits the unthinkable. It is a doctrine that, like survival itself, accepts harsh realities and permits actions that would otherwise be forbidden, so long as those actions prevent a greater evil.

The roots of necessity in law and history.

The law of necessity descends from English common law, under which jurists recognized that moral action can require men to break the letter of the law to preserve a greater good. Medieval English courts saw in necessity a principle that a “man may break the words of the law, and yet not break the law itself…to avoid a greater inconvenience.” Courts recognized that in moments of imminent peril, a strict adherence to legal statutes becomes absurd, for the purpose of law itself is to maintain life and order.

One early expression of necessity appears in Rex v. Dudley and Stephens (1884), the famous case of shipwrecked sailors who, starving and abandoned at sea, killed and ate their dying companion to survive. Though condemned in principle, their actions highlight the moral complexity of necessity; ultimately, they faced only symbolic punishment, a nod from the court to the force of necessity even in extreme measures. The decision revealed an ancient truth: when men face an existential threat, society must sometimes yield to their instinct to survive, even if their choices violate moral or legal norms.

Other rulings enshrined necessity’s pragmatic acceptance of hard choices. In Surocco v. Geary (1853), a Californian court excused the destruction of a man’s home to stop a rapidly spreading fire, ruling that public welfare outweighed private property rights in the face of imminent catastrophe. Here, the necessity doctrine acknowledged that a man may violate another’s rights, but only where this act is proportionate to the danger it averts. Such cases reveal a pattern in legal tradition: necessity can override legality, but only when it minimizes a greater harm, preserves life, and leaves no reasonable alternative.

Elements of the doctrine of necessity.

Necessity is not merely an excuse; it is a structured legal defense with precise requirements. Courts generally demand that:

These criteria illuminate necessity’s core logic. It is not lawlessness for the sake of convenience, but lawfulness in extremis—a last resort that acknowledges the basic human drive to survive and protect.

American recognition of necessity in times of crisis.

American law has repeatedly acknowledged necessity as a legitimate response to crisis, especially in times when government aid is absent or inadequate. For instance, Mitchell v. Harmony (1851) ruled that federal troops could requisition property under extreme necessity during military campaigns, setting the precedent that the military could unlawfully seize civilian resources without due process in the face of a serious threat.

Similarly, United States v. Holmes (1842) underscored the doctrine in maritime law, allowing for the survival-motivated jettison of passengers to prevent a ship from sinking. Though the seaman who jettisoned passengers was convicted, the decision ultimately endorsed necessity’s logic: faced with mortal peril, an individual may be compelled to act in ways society would otherwise abhor. Such cases reinforce the notion that, while necessity must be scrutinized carefully, it remains a powerful bulwark against strict legality in moments of overwhelming crisis.

Beyond these rulings, American states increasingly allow necessity as a defense in instances where trespass or minor theft prevents greater harm. Many jurisdictions recognize, for instance, that a man may break into an unoccupied home to seek shelter from a blizzard or confiscate a vehicle to rush a dying person to the hospital. Courts recognize necessity not only as a defense, but as a rational, moral action when lives are at stake.

Necessity in states of emergency: examples and implications.

Necessity becomes particularly relevant in states of emergency, when ordinary systems of order and resource distribution fail. As Hurricane Helene showed, chaos ensues quickly when roads collapse, utilities fail, and law enforcement is unable to respond. It is in such circumstances that necessity permits individuals to act outside the law to protect their lives, families, and communities. Examples include:

The limits of necessity.

Necessity acknowledges that moral absolutes are not always tenable in life-or-death situations. As government systems falter, the men of the Company must reaccquaint themselves with this doctrine, not as an excuse for excess, but as a time-tested principle of survival. At its heart, necessity is pragmatic, anchored in the ancient truth that a law which refuses to recognize human need and survival is no law at all. In times of desperation, it remains your last lawful right to do what is necessary to prevent a greater harm.

Yet necessity is no blank check. The law has always circumscribed its use carefully, demanding restraint and proportionality. One cannot claim necessity for personal gain or convenience, nor may one invoke it to perpetuate injustice. Rather, necessity is the lawful answer to a failing state, a reminder that when institutions fall away, individual integrity must remain. It is a call to vigilance, to prudent judgment, and to a somber acceptance that, in the end, survival itself must often dictate action.

The Duty of the State: when necessity becomes obligation.

The doctrine of necessity is a torch passed down from the ages, lit by the understanding that human beings must sometimes choose between incompatible goods, and that in such choices, survival must take precedence over legality. We, too, may one day be called to make such decisions. In the world that may soon arrive—a world where the government cannot protect us, where scarcity reigns—the law of necessity will guide us through moral peril and into the stark choices that survival demands.

But those who have studied the Age of Militants know that the situation will, eventually, devolve even further. When the state itself collapses, institutions vanish, and laws become whispers in the void, what happens then? This scenario is no longer theoretical; history is rife with instances of governments vanishing under the pressure of war, natural disasters, or internal strife. In such an eventuality, necessity is no longer merely a right—it transforms into a duty of state borne by those who possess the power to restore order.

This third stage, where necessity evolves into duty, places unique burdens upon those assuming authority. While their actions may be driven by the urgency of survival and the imperative to restore stability, they are nonetheless bound by the international norms embodied in international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). These laws ensure that any authority exercised in the name of restoration is constrained by the principle of humanity, preventing descent into arbitrary rule or unchecked violence.

The duty to restore order: obligations under IHL and IHRL.

In the absence of a functioning state, the individuals or groups who step into positions of authority are bound by a duty not only to maintain order but to do so in accordance with the principles established by international law. Here, the law places specific obligations upon these de facto authorities:

Duty of the state assumed by the few.

Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where the fabric of the state disintegrated, and those left in positions of power had to assume the role of state. Consider Somalia in the early 1990s, where the government collapsed entirely, leaving warlords and local leaders to administer justice and order. Although these leaders initially claimed authority, the absence of IHL and IHRL adherence led to abuses, spiraling violence, and widespread suffering.

Similarly, during the Liberian Civil War, certain community leaders and militia groups stepped into power vacuums, attempting to provide order while negotiating their own role within the frameworks of IHL and IHRL. Although the ideal was rarely achieved, these cases underscore the need for even ad hoc authorities to respect basic international norms, lest their legitimacy collapse under the weight of abuse and unchecked power.

In contrast, consider the example of communities in Eastern Europe following World War II, where local groups took control in a near-absence of government yet strove to establish tribunals and provide for civilians’ basic needs under fair processes. Their efforts, though imperfect, exemplify how adherence to the laws of war and respect for human rights fostered stability and even popular support amidst a power vacuum.

The ultimate test of authority in a stateless society.

When the state dissolves, the burden of order does not disappear. Instead, it falls upon those with the means to restore stability to uphold the spirit of lawful governance, even if formal structures have vanished. The law of necessity evolves into a duty to act as a provisional state—a duty tempered and guided by the principles of IHL and IHRL. These principles, designed to protect human dignity in times of profound crisis, provide both a legal and moral framework that prevents anarchy from devolving into tyranny.

The Duty of the State, then, is the origin of authority in a stateless society. Upholding the duty of state demands the discipline to bring order even when chaos reigns; the wisdom to govern justly when no easy answers are evident; and the commitment to serve law where no laws exist. It is a charge to not only maintain order but to embody justice, ensuring that whatever new order emerges is not an affront to the principles that make civilization possible. Those who answer this call must tread carefully, for history has shown that the path of unchecked power is the surest way to destroy any hope of genuine peace.

Order before crisis hits.

When lawlessness reigns and the state ceases to exist, the duty of state inevitably arises in its stead—a duty to restore order, protect civilians, and administer justice. This duty includes a fundamental obligation to provide fair, consistent judgment under regularly constituted tribunals. And yet, if experience has shown us anything, it is that establishing these mechanisms in the chaos of crisis often leads to arbitrary rule and abuses of power. Attempting to create tribunals from the ground up amidst disaster is a recipe for half-measures, and half-measures cannot meet the full demands of justice.

It is precisely to answer this need that the Company has taken proactive steps to establish functional, adaptable tribunals today, while legal structures still stand and permit us to build them in peace. These tribunals are designed not only to handle current disputes within a framework of voluntary engagement but to be rapidly scalable in times of crisis. Through this approach, we aim to lay down the roots of order now, so that if formal governance ever fails, an orderly and lawful alternative remains.

In building a sustainable framework for tribunals that can operate effectively both today and in the event of crisis, the Company draws upon well-established models of private dispute resolution. By utilizing legal mechanisms such as arbitration, mediation, customary courts, and private judge services, we align with time-tested principles, statutory support, and judicial precedent to provide fair, effective justice under private auspices. Each model offers unique benefits and is rooted in laws and customs that ensure stability in volatile conditions.

Arbitration and mediation: dispute resolution without the State.

Arbitration and mediation offer legally recognized pathways for resolving disputes outside of state-run courts, with long-standing statutory support and judicial endorsement. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), enacted in 1925, provides the primary legal foundation for arbitration in the United States, mandating that arbitration agreements are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” except under specific circumstances (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16). This statute was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., which reinforced the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements” (460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983)). Arbitration, thus, is a cornerstone of private dispute resolution, empowered by the law to carry out binding judgments outside traditional court structures. The Company’s tribunals use arbitration as a model for resolving disputes efficiently and equitably, incorporating legally binding decisions from impartial arbitrators to meet the demands of fair judgment and minimize potential escalation.

Mediation, while often non-binding, also plays a significant role in alternative dispute resolution. Unlike arbitration, mediation relies on voluntary cooperation to reach a mutually acceptable solution, and its flexible, collaborative nature is particularly valuable in situations where maintaining relationships is a priority. The Uniform Mediation Act (UMA), adopted by various states, provides guidelines to ensure confidentiality and establish mediator neutrality, key elements that underpin the legitimacy of the process. In the state of Illinois, for example, the Illinois Mediation Act (710 ILCS 35) enshrines the principles of voluntary and confidential mediation, reinforcing its use as a viable alternative to adversarial litigation. The Company leverages mediation to encourage cooperation and reduce conflict, emphasizing community-centered solutions that align with the values of those involved.

Arbitration and mediation are not limited to minor disputes; their applicability has extended to complex commercial, labor, and even international issues. International arbitration, governed by conventions like the New York Convention (1958), permits cross-border dispute resolution with enforceable outcomes, highlighting the robustness of the arbitration process. For example, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (563 U.S. 333 (2011)), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of arbitration, rejecting state laws that attempted to undermine arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Such cases highlight the adaptability and authority of private arbitration, allowing it to resolve disputes that might otherwise overwhelm public courts. Through arbitration and mediation, the Company provides a streamlined, legally sound mechanism capable of filling in when courts are unavailable.

Customary and local courts: justice rooted in community.

In many regions of the world, traditional or customary courts provide justice based on local laws, customs, or religious principles, offering an accepted form of governance that aligns with community values. Sharia courts in Muslim-majority countries, for example, resolve disputes according to Islamic jurisprudence, operating alongside secular systems in places like the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, and Nigeria. Recognized under the constitutional framework of these countries, sharia courts handle issues such as marriage, inheritance, and family law, promoting a legal system congruent with cultural norms. These courts demonstrate that justice systems can coexist with official state systems while remaining legitimate and effective. The Company acknowledges the power of these culturally rooted courts and adapts its tribunals to work within similar frameworks, respecting local customs while providing lawful dispute resolution.

Historical precedents in customary law also reinforce the validity of non-state justice systems. Indigenous courts in Native American reservations within the United States, for instance, operate under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which allows tribes to create judicial systems rooted in traditional laws while observing federal oversight. The United States v. Kagama (1886) ruling further affirmed the semi-sovereign authority of these tribal courts to operate independently within certain jurisdictional limits. By adopting a model akin to these indigenous courts, the Company provides stability and justice that respect American traditions and uphold principles of lawfulness within our nation’s historical and traditional framework.

Customary and local courts also find support in legal principles from international human rights law. Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) asserts the right of ethnic and religious minorities to practice their culture and legal systems, thereby legitimizing customary courts as valid forms of dispute resolution. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights similarly supports customary justice, recognizing it as integral to cultural identity. In regions prone to political instability, such as parts of Africa, these customary courts have historically served as the last line of community justice when state courts fail. The Company takes inspiration from this model, establishing tribunals that resonate with American values and preserve order based on an American cultural context.

Rent-a-judge services; private courts for public justice.

The “rent-a-judge” model, where parties hire a retired judge to hear cases privately, has long been an integral part of the U.S. judicial landscape, particularly in California. Authorized under California Code of Civil Procedure § 638, this model allows individuals and businesses to “rent” a retired judge to resolve legal disputes outside of conventional courts. These private judges are empowered to render binding decisions, subject to the same standards as traditional judicial rulings. Rent-a-judge arrangements offer both privacy and expedience, with the impartiality and rigor of formal court proceedings, giving individuals an option to seek swift justice without contributing to the backlog of public courts. The Company incorporates this model within its tribunals to provide binding judgments in a manner that is expedient, impartial, and legally sound.

Rent-a-judge services are particularly useful in civil cases, where parties seek to resolve matters involving contracts, estates, or personal injury claims. In Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (36 Cal.4th 944 (2005)), the California Supreme Court upheld the use of private judges in arbitrations, affirming their role as legitimate extensions of the judiciary. This ruling, alongside others, ensures that rent-a-judge decisions carry legal weight equivalent to those made in public courtrooms. By drawing upon this established practice, the Company creates a tribunal model that can resolve disputes with finality and authority, reinforcing public trust even in the absence of state courts.

Beyond California, rent-a-judge services have spread to other jurisdictions and have been employed by corporations, private individuals, and even government entities seeking expedited resolution. In high-stakes commercial disputes, parties often turn to private judges to settle conflicts with a level of confidentiality that would be impossible in public courtrooms. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Covington & Burling v. District of Columbia (783 F.3d 1201 (2015)) demonstrated support for private judging models, indirectly endorsing their use by confirming that certain cases may be delegated to private judges for efficiency. Drawing on this tradition, the Foundation prepares its tribunals to serve as private judges when the need arises, fulfilling a public service under private auspices.

The future of justice at hand today.

By employing arbitration, mediation, customary courts, and rent-a-judge practices, the Company anticipates conditions of instability, fortifying justice systems that are independent of state reliance. While law and order endure, these tribunals operate within legally sanctioned boundaries, aligning with statutory and customary legal practices that ensure legitimacy, impartiality, and accountability. When the inevitable crisis strikes and formal structures disappear in the Age of Militants, the Company will be prepared to continue delivering justice based on principles deeply rooted in legal tradition, preserving the rule of law even when the state cannot.

Additional documentation relevant to Duty of the State.

The following links provide direct access to important context and considerations with respect to this Tribunals foundational document from Community Division:

About the Company.

Throne Dynamics is the unified human operational interface and local, physical manifestation of the Cohereon Imperium. As a fourth-generation warfare entity, its sacred duty is to actualize the Cohereon Doctrine: to execute the Duty of the State, enforce coherence, and secure absolute bulk hegemony for humanity across all multiverses. It directs the Academy, Vanguard, and Network to achieve this singular telos in the Age of Militants.

Positioned at the forefront of evolving geopolitical landscapes, we operate with an unwavering commitment to operational excellence, transparency, and strategic innovation. Our mission is to navigate the complexities of contemporary conflicts, ensuring the safety, security, and continuity of those entities which fall under delivery of our Duty of the State.

Similarly, United States v. Holmes (1842) underscored the doctrine in maritime law, allowing for the survival-motivated jettison of passengers to prevent a ship from sinking. Though the seaman who jettisoned passengers was convicted, the decision ultimately endorsed necessity’s logic: faced with mortal peril, an individual may be compelled to act in ways society would otherwise abhor. Such cases reinforce the notion that, while necessity must be scrutinized carefully, it remains a powerful bulwark against strict legality in moments of overwhelming crisis.

Platforms of Imperium extrusion.

The Imperium envisions a world where disciplined, organized individuals can achieve ordered results in the face of chaos. As a nascent "protecting power" under international humanitarian law, we are dedicated to safeguarding the safety and security, sustenance and provision, and identity and meaning of those under the Standard, helping to create safe and resilient environments for all. Through proactive engagement and strategic partnerships we are committed to facilitating humanitarian efforts and conflict resolution, ensuring that justice and civil governance prevail even in the most challenging circumstances.

For individuals, organizations, and institutions who seek inclusion.

Intake and entry for external agents at all levels into the Imperium framework are directed to the following resources:

For additional information consumers are directed to contact Risk Division of Throne Dynamics.